Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Roy White

Eligible in 1985.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 03, 2006 at 11:47 PM | 57 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 03, 2006 at 11:50 PM (#2166758)
Okay, I think Rice was better than White, but not by that much that the former has a considerable cadre of supporters, while the latter is forgotten by many.
   2. Repoz Posted: September 04, 2006 at 12:17 AM (#2166779)
Roy White was the nicest man I ever met in baseball...plus he called Mantle an ass in the Kinney parking lot!
   3. DavidFoss Posted: September 04, 2006 at 02:36 AM (#2166881)
Okay, I think Rice was better than White, but not by that much that the former has a considerable cadre of supporters, while the latter is forgotten by many.

Roy White is indeed one of the more forgotten players of his generation considering his fine level of play. Still a 121 OPS+ in a shortish career (7735 PA) as a corner outfielder? ... he's way behind many others in the battle for votes.

I even like Ken Singleton much better has the forgotten-corner-guy-to-compare-to-Jim-Rice. ;-)
   4. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 04, 2006 at 04:26 AM (#2166990)
Let me toss another name or two on the pile... Dudes who accumulated about 4000 or more PAs in the 1970s and played either left or right field in a majority or plurality of games. Sorted by OPS+ and then by PAs as necessary. GIDPs included since they are pertinent to the Rice/White debate.

NAME              OPS+  EQA GIDPs   PAs
----------------------------------------
Reggie Smith      137   304  150   8050
Ken Singleton     132   301  248   8558
Bobby Bonds       130   297  107   8090
Greg Luzinski     130   296  147   7514
Dave Winfield     129   294  319  12358
Jim Rice          128   287  315   9058
Dwight Evans      127   289  227  10569
George Foster     126   292  196   7812
Rusty Staub       124   294  297  11229
Bobby Murcer      124   292  124   7718
Dave Parker       121   284  209  10181
Roy White         121   291  123   7335
Jose Cruz         120   292  119   8931
Gary Mathews      118   287  179   8119
Ken Griffey       118   286  106   8014
Lou Brock         109   282  114  11235 


Reggie Smith, I hardly know ya! Hey, Bonds, Brock, Cruz, and Griffey sure stayed out of the DP.


I could have included Dustyball, Burroughs, Rudi, Hendrick, Piniella, Cardenal, Jerry Morales, or Ron LeFlore, but the list was long enough.
   5. Chris Cobb Posted: September 04, 2006 at 12:39 PM (#2167094)
Nice list!

Of that group of 16, I'd guess that 9 will attract at least some support from the voters: all the players with 10,000+ PA and Smith, Singleton, Bonds, and Rice.

Winfield is the only member of the group who is certain to be elected, but I think it unlikely that none of the rest will be.
   6. rawagman Posted: September 04, 2006 at 01:21 PM (#2167102)
Of that group of 16, I'd guess that 9 will attract at least some support from the voters: all the players with 10,000+ PA and Smith, Singleton, Bonds, and Rice.


Rusty Staub (11229 PAs) has not received any support.
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: September 04, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2167113)
Is Staub eligible yet?

Reggie Smith is surely one of the underrated. I don't see how we could take Singleton and not Reggie, while the famously overrated Jim Rice probably had a better peak than anybody else on the list. IOW he may be underrated but he is still a good candidate.
   8. JC in DC Posted: September 04, 2006 at 02:08 PM (#2167115)
Roy White's so forgettable that a thread on him quickly morphs into a thread on Rusty Staub. Poor Roy White!
   9. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 04, 2006 at 02:22 PM (#2167118)
Speaking to the question of peaks among these fellows...here's the top five OPS+ (seasons of 500 PAs or strike equiv of 340---500/162*~110) for each plus the career number.
career
NAME              OPS
+    1   2   3   4   5
--------------------------------------------
Reggie Smith      137   167 161 157 150 143
Ken Singleton     132   165 156 153 152 147
Bobby Bonds       130   153 146 143 136 135
Greg Luzinski     130   157 144 137 130 129
Dave Winfield     129   165 159 154 149 142
Jim Rice          128   158 154 148 141 137
Dwight Evans      127   163 156 149 147 137
George Foster     126   165 155 151 150 150
Rusty Staub       124   166 152 147 136 132
Bobby Murcer      124   181 169 134 127 123
Dave Parker       121   166 149 148 144 141
Roy White         121   149 142 135 134 130
Jose Cruz         120   144 141 141 134 131
*
Gary Mathews      118   138 128 128 123 122
Ken Griffey       118   140 129 128 127 126
Lou Brock         109   128 126 124 123 119
*496 PAbut close enough 


Wow, that's a big owie for Brock. And isn't Bobby Murcer a shooting star?---best two years on the board and then fzzzzzzzzzzz.

Smith, Singleton, Winfield, and probably Foster have very comparable peaks, while the second tier is Rice, Evans, Parker, mabye Foster, and maybe Staub.

Brock is so far below the pale and his candidacy would likely be considered in crisis for peak-oriented voters if OPS+ offers much of a window for his game. Even so, as K-Mag has pointed out, even with the extra bases, it's probably not enough to even him up with Griffey, let alone the meat of group.
   10. rawagman Posted: September 04, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#2167126)
Is Staub eligible yet?

My bad - I think my pre-caffienated brain morphed Boog Powell into Rusty Staub.
Confused the orange hair with the orange uniforms.
   11. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: September 04, 2006 at 04:03 PM (#2167155)
Roy White is my favorite player of all time. He was a terrific, underrated player, a baseball gentleman (Singleton is a good comp in this regard), and an excellent hitting coach. His defense seemed outstanding, his only apparent weakness was his arm, but I thought he played LF in Yankee Stadium as well as anyone including Rickey and Winfield. He also did not gripe when his playing time was cut by the addition of other fine players, like Piniella, to the Yankees. I'd like to see him return to the Yankees in some capacity. Again.
   12. Cuban X Senators Posted: September 04, 2006 at 04:33 PM (#2167168)
Roy White was the nicest man I ever met in baseball

And Ken Singleton easily the nicest I ever met. If you stood outside Memorial Stadium and asked him for an autograph, his reaction to you was about the same as what you'd expect it to be if you'd pointed out he'd dropped a twenty on the pavement.

But, hey, Roy White . . . carry on. Roy White's exactly the kind of player that I lurk to see discussion of . . .
   13. OCF Posted: September 04, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#2167260)
I've just decided that my RCAA-based method needs a correction for the DH. I'm pretty sure my primary source was calculation league RC/27 outs including the pitchers (at least they didn't say anything about removing the pitchers). So I'm making about a 3% correction for that. We've had quite a few players with a little time in the post-73 AL, but no one's standing so far has changed by enough to notice. But going forward, it will make more sense.

I've got White's offense as roughly comparable to but a hair behind Oliva. I'd like to work my way through Dr. Chaleeko's entire list. That will take some time, but I'll produce my own list when I get there.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: September 04, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#2167389)
>Roy White's exactly the kind of player that I lurk to see discussion of . . .

Speaking of Rusty Staub....
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 04, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#2167396)
Speaking of Rusty Staub....

I'm really going to have to reign in my emotions when Le Grand Orange is finally eligible. My gut says that he's outside of the HoM, but my heart...
   16. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 04, 2006 at 11:18 PM (#2167426)
People are likely going to call me loony, but I am of the belief that if Roy White were playing "today" in an offensive neutral ballpark he would be putting up Johnny Damon 2004/2006 numbers in left field with a better arm. Or think Raul Ibanez with much better defense and some more walks.

White was a player who routinely got overlooked but any team would kill to have him. All he did was help you win.
   17. sunnyday2 Posted: September 04, 2006 at 11:37 PM (#2167464)
Sounds like a Paul O'Neill sort.
   18. OCF Posted: September 04, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2167467)
And why would we call HW loony when he says something as plain-vanilla non-controversial as that? Of course Roy White was a very good player.

The mystery in his records: what happened in 1973? In my offensive system (which compares to average), for the five years 1968-72 I have 48, 33, 58, 54, 41 - a nice little peak, albeit not up to the best years of, say, Jimmy Wynn. For 1974-76 I have 26, 32, 35. But for 1973, it's down to just +2: indisinguishable from league average, and surely below average for a corner outfielder. He wasn't hurt, because he played 162 games. His strikeout rate, normally fairly low, shot up that year, helping to pull his BA down. Eyesight problems? Swing trouble and a pitching pattern that exploited it? Or maybe was he just tired. He did just fine playing 162 games at the age of 26, but maybe his body couldn't handle it the same way when he was 29?
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 04, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#2167499)
Sounds like a Paul O'Neill sort.

That's a good comp, Marc. O'Neill had more power, but White walked more.
   20. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 05, 2006 at 12:27 AM (#2167601)
OCF:

Glad you asked. Because after reading the rationalizations for Luke Easter I continue to wonder how EXACTLY folks are evaluating candidates.

In an age with a preponderous of tools but which provide no agreement on a Most Valuable Player we have denizens of the HOM justifying the selection of an individual for which there are entire years where no data exists.

In this instance positive anecdotal information was accepted at face value. But in another thread negative anecdotal information provided was rejected with nary a comment. "Irrelevant" declared the masses. "Cannot be quantified" was the summary judgement.

At best I find this contradictory behavior puzzling. My harsher inclinations term it as bizarre.

Having written this I am assured of two things. One, that somebody will snipe, snicker, or snark in my direction. Two, that nobody will be able to provide a reasonable explanation.

Sincerely,

Harvey
   21. sunnyday2 Posted: September 05, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#2167631)
The Luke Easter data (anecdotal though it may be) we're talking about concerns his play on the field. The other data you mentioned did not concern play on the field.

Reasonable explanation provided. And no sniping, snickering or snarking.
   22. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2006 at 12:40 AM (#2167632)
Glad you asked. Because after reading the rationalizations for Luke Easter I continue to wonder how EXACTLY folks are evaluating candidates.

In an age with a preponderous of tools but which provide no agreement on a Most Valuable Player we have denizens of the HOM justifying the selection of an individual for which there are entire years where no data exists.


It should be noted at the present time that Easter has zip votes from our 46 voters.

In this instance positive anecdotal information was accepted at face value. But in another thread negative anecdotal information provided was rejected with nary a comment. "Irrelevant" declared the masses. "Cannot be quantified" was the summary judgement. At best I find this contradictory behavior puzzling.

The anecdotal evidence in support for Easter was based solely on what he did statistically, where as the negative evidence for Allen ( I'm assuming that's the player you are referring to) went beyond the statistical record. You may disagree regarding where we place the greatest weight, but I don't see the contradiction, Harvey.
   23. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 05, 2006 at 12:56 AM (#2167666)
John:

I think folks who accept concocted numbers as part of the evaluation process but completely ignore commentary from contemporaries (writers, managers, etc.) have an odd way of examining a situation.

It's akin to accepting a pyschic's testimony versus eyewitnesses.

But that's just me.............
   24. OCF Posted: September 05, 2006 at 12:57 AM (#2167667)
That was an awfully chip-on-the-shoulder post, Harvey.

Roy White's quality is evident in his statistical record. Read that record, and you understand that he helped teams win. (For that matter, comparing him to Raul Ibanez? With White, you should aim higher than that.) I haven't mentioned it yet, but my methods do like White better than Jim Rice (it's all the GIDP dragging Rice down.)

Luke Easter's statistical records? From his prime, they're largely unavailable to us, for institutional reason largely beyond Easter's control. The extrapolation, the speculation about what he was in those hard-to-see years - that's what keeps us talking about him. But, have you noticed what kind of support Easter is drawing? No votes in 1982 or 1983, none so far in 1984. The leap into the use of only-anectodal information - even when it's all we have - is so difficult that very few HOM voters are willing to make it.

The HOM is about collective judgment. We disagree with each other, about nearly everything. (Well, OK, we tend to agree about such things as Henry Aaron deserving election - but that's easy.) We trust that averaging out our quirks and our differing patterns will produce a better result than any one of us acting alone. If one voter accepts a certain piece of evidence and another rejects it, that disagreement should not be seized upon as proof of our inconsistency. The disagreement is part of the process.
   25. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2006 at 01:08 AM (#2167689)
The leap into the use of only-anectodal information - even when it's all we have - is so difficult that very few HOM voters are willing to make it.

As much as I would like to, I personally can't do it for Easter. There's just too much extrapolation that would be needed for him. It may not be fair, but I can't see any way around it at the present time. But as you pointed out, OCF, I'm not in the minority here at the HoM.
   26. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 05, 2006 at 01:12 AM (#2167701)
OCF:

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence.

To wit, though I loathe this practice, allow me to post an excerpt from the HOM Constitution:

"Voters are strongly encouraged to consider only a player’s on-field accomplishments and other factors which had an impact on the outcomes of the player’s baseball games. When tallying up value for an eligible player, any managerial contributions created as a player/manager should not be included under any circumstances. In addition to major league and Negro League accomplishments, particularly noteworthy minor league or non-US professional league accomplishments can also be considered meritorious (in a HoM perspective) in certain circumstances. However, it would be extremely unlikely for a career minor leaguer or Cuban league player to be elected to the HoM.

A player’s “personality” is to be considered only to the extent that it affected the outcomes of the player’s games (e.g., via his positive or negative effect on his teammates). In rare and extreme cases, a voter may opt to exclude a player on “personality” grounds on the first ballot on which the player appears. If that player does not get elected on his first ballot, the voter shall give the player full consideration in all subsequent ballots, regardless of the “personality” factors.

Allegations (proven or otherwise) about throwing baseball games may be especially troubling to some voters. It would be appropriate for such a voter to discount such a player’s accomplishments to some degree. In rare and extreme cases, it may even be appropriate for such a voter to choose not to vote for an otherwise worthy candidate.

Voters agree to take the voting seriously and to put in sufficient time in researching the merits of the players and in filling out their ballots. In addition, voters pledge to refrain from “strategic” voting; that is, manipulating one’s ballot (i.e., so it does not reflect one’s own beliefs regarding the relative merits of the players) in an attempt to achieve a more desirable group ranking. Voters should simply vote for the 15 best eligible players, ranking them from 1 to 15. Even if it appears a player won’t be elected, you should still vote for him if you feel he is worthy."

Voters are ENCOURAGED to focus on the field. But some here interpret that as some rigid dictum that precludes ANY consideration of non-statistical information. And I find that approach to be a complete contradiction to the later passage stating that voters agree to take their vote seriously.

How can such a narrow-minded approach be considered serious? We bemoan the tunnel vision of folks in baseball DAILY. And yet in our very midst the same practice occurs. With impunity.

I have said my piece. I will now recuse myself and return to being an onlooker to the HOM.

Thank you for the response.

Harvey
   27. sunnyday2 Posted: September 05, 2006 at 01:27 AM (#2167729)
>But some here interpret that as some rigid dictum that precludes ANY consideration of non-statistical information. And I find that approach to be a complete contradiction to the later passage stating that voters agree to take their vote seriously.

>How can such a narrow-minded approach be considered serious?

Chip firmly planted on shoulder.

The idea that even "some" refuse to consider ANY non-statistical information is just false. We just didn't happen to agree with Harvey about Dick Allen. So sorry.
   28. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: September 05, 2006 at 01:35 AM (#2167744)
Post 27:

Actually, I was referring to Bill Freehan. As surprising as it may seem, I can understand someone voting for Dick Allen. I don't agree, but I understand. It was the "rejection" of Freehan I found quite surprising.

In my estimation Freehan's defense was given short shrift if not ignored outright.
   29. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 05, 2006 at 01:42 AM (#2167762)
It was the "rejection" of Freehan I found quite surprising.

Since Freehan most likely will be voted in next "year" (which is a whole lot better than Cooperstown's record regarding him), I think patience is in order for Bill.
   30. Chris Cobb Posted: September 05, 2006 at 02:33 AM (#2167809)
In Freehan's case, the fact that a significant part of his value is defensive probably has as much to do with his taking a few years to achieve election as the role of non-statistical evidence in his case. Most players whose case _depends_ upon stellar defense have not achieved immediate election, because there is much less consensus on the relative importance of fielding value's contribution to team wins than on batting value's contribution, and there is considerable distrust of the most sophisticated fielding statistics as well as distrust of non-statistical evidence.
   31. Ardo Posted: September 05, 2006 at 04:47 AM (#2167899)
Roy White was a fine ballplayer, of the sort that we HoMers ought to honor and remember - albeit his career is not long enough, nor his peak high enough, to warrant induction.

In a historical roto league, do I take Roy White or Paul O'Neill? I'd toss a coin.
   32. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: September 05, 2006 at 02:13 PM (#2168019)
So far the consensus is that Bill James was wrong on the White/Rice thing, I disagree though I would say that it is more like too close to call. Rice does have more career than White but in my system WHite has a slightly better peak and prime( WS/WARP over 15/5 and 25/8, respectively) as well as being more valuable in his top 5 and top 7 years, they are even in top three.

Rice has more AB's and a high er OPS+ but that doesn't take into account White's better baserunning, lack of GIDP's and much better fielding. I can see Rice ahead but not by much. Assuming White is still eligible when Rice becomes eligible (I can't see him being elected), they will be within a few spots of each other and nowhere near my ballot. Probalby in the 60's or 70's, something like that.
   33. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 05, 2006 at 03:28 PM (#2168078)
So far the consensus is that Bill James was wrong on the White/Rice thing,

I think that's a slight overstatement. I don't think we've addressed the question in great detail. I think that if you included defense and if you had James Click/Dan Fox's baserunning evaluations to add in too, you'd probably find the two players were essentially equal, or close enough to be within any system's margin of error. Which is what I think James' real conclusion was. Not that A was better than B, but that despite appearances to the contrary, when their entire records were assessed these guys were so close that it was possible the underdog was better.

I don't have it in front of me, so I can't see how strongly James worded his conclusions about white/rice, but this is what i personally took from it.
   34. DanG Posted: September 05, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2168082)
In our HOF mock vote for 2006, Jim Rice was named on 23 out of 102 ballots, WAY short of being elected. I think that pretty well sums up his prospects when the HoM gets around to considering him.

Considering the evidence we have of their characters and contributions to the team off the field, I can see putting White ahead of Rice. (Like White on Rice?)
   35. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 05, 2006 at 03:30 PM (#2168083)
Also, I had inteneded a while back to publically acknowledge Harvey on my ballot for his role in the Allen thread. I do think he's been a little chippy about things, but thanks in large part to his insistence, I took the character issues more seriously than I thought I would, and I did a lot of soul searching about similar issues. That's the essence of good posting, right? That you get people thinking hard about knotty issues...even if they ultimately don't agree. As to Freehan, well, Harvey and I seem to agree there, so no harm no foul for me! ; )
   36. sunnyday2 Posted: September 05, 2006 at 03:33 PM (#2168089)
I sorta prefer Brown Rice myself.
   37. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: September 05, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2168119)
I prefer Rice Miller myself.

Oh wait, I thought this was the Catfish thread....
   38. OCF Posted: September 05, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#2168192)
There's a THT article by Steve Treder, linked on the Newsblog page, about the offensive drop of the mid-70's. He specifically deals with Roy White, and also with a number of the other players in Dr. Chaleeko's posts.
   39. ronw Posted: September 05, 2006 at 08:02 PM (#2168343)
Here's a good general rule of thumb for the HOM;

When a candidate is no longer receiving at least 100 pts in any election, the HOM voters have rejected him.

However, this is a general rule, with some exceptions, particularly Dickey Pearce. (now there's a candidate with no statistical evidence.

Don't worry, Freehan will get in some day soon.


Returning to Roy White, he seems to be a more consistent version of Heinie Manush, i.e. not quite a HOMer.
   40. fra paolo Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:23 PM (#2169004)
Here's White's OPS+ against the league average for LFs during the period I have defined as his prime (1968-76):

1968 112
1969 139
1970 140
1971 141
1972 143
1973 92
1974 121
1975 116
1976 124

1973 does stand out. Do we know what happened there?

During this period, he accumulated 283 BRAA and 47 FRAA as adjusted by season according to BPro.

OPS data, including park factors, easily assembled from Retrosheet. I'll probably be doing a couple more players like this over the next few days.
   41. andrew siegel Posted: September 06, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#2169023)
I have White ahead of Rice, though I admit it is close. White is in the general vicinity of guys like Cuyler and Veach (somewhere around 50) while Rice is in the general vicinity of guys like Manush and Boog Powell (somewhere around 70). Neither will make my PHOM.
   42. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 06, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2169027)
Don't worry, Freehan will get in some day soon.

I would bet money that it will be less than two weeks from now.
   43. KJOK Posted: September 06, 2006 at 05:13 PM (#2169281)
So far the consensus is that Bill James was wrong on the White/Rice thing,

I seem to remember Bill himself admitting he may have been wrong, along with being wrong about Musial over Ted Williams, but my memory "ain't what it used to be..."
   44. Jim Sp Posted: September 06, 2006 at 10:01 PM (#2169790)

I'm really going to have to reign in my emotions when Le Grand Orange is finally eligible. My gut says that he's outside of the HoM, but my heart...


No kidding. I remember crying as an 8 year old when the Mets got rid of Seaver and Staub.

And my all time favorite baseball memory is Staub having to play the outfield in an extra inning game, I think it was his last year. They "platooned" him, moving him back and forth between left and right. Sure enough, in like the 15th inning there's an opposite field looper heading towards the line, Rusty is chugging along at about 2 miles per hour, and plucks it out of the air like an ice cream cone in his glove.

We can vote strategically during discussion week, right?

:-)
   45. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 06, 2006 at 10:37 PM (#2169850)
And my all time favorite baseball memory is Staub having to play the outfield in an extra inning game, I think it was his last year. They "platooned" him, moving him back and forth between left and right. Sure enough, in like the 15th inning there's an opposite field looper heading towards the line, Rusty is chugging along at about 2 miles per hour, and plucks it out of the air like an ice cream cone in his glove.

I remember watching that game myself, Jim. I think it was with the pre-Johnson Mets, amybe '82 or '83.

What's scary is that he was a couple of years younger than I am now. :-0 He looked like Methusaleh out there. At least I can still run fast without running out of steam quickly. :-)

I remember crying as an 8 year old when the Mets got rid of Seaver and Staub.

I didn't cry, both moves did leave me in a daze for a while.

We can vote strategically during discussion week, right?

:-)


Heh.
   46. Howie Menckel Posted: September 07, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#2170205)
Just from my memory, and I was AT this game at Shea Stadium:

Staub's last game ever in the field, it turns out, Mets-Pirates.
Strawberry batting cleanup, bases loaded, nobody out in the first. Grand slam, Mets lead, 4-0.
Pirates eventually tie it 4-4, game goes 18 innings.
Yes, Staub is alternated between left and right field in extra innings (Mets out of 'real fielders', depending on the batter (very softball-esque, hide the fat guy).
As he trots, barely, to either side, our side goes wild.
But Rusty fools us all, comes up with a shoestring, forward-sliding catch to keep the game alive.

If this turns out right, my reward is reposting it to Rusty's thread in a few 'years'.
   47. DavidFoss Posted: September 07, 2006 at 02:45 PM (#2170478)
Staub's last game in the field

They don't mention the switching back and forth in the field. But that sounds like a detail that retrosheet might actually miss.

The catch must have been the ball hit by Rick Rhoden in the top of the 18th. Rhoden batted right, so it makes sense that Rusty would be in RF. Looks like that was the only OF putout during the 7 innings he was out there. Gorman did a good job. Mets won it in the bottom of the 18th on and error by Jason Thompson (turns out that wouldn't be the last time the Mets won on walk-off E-3).
   48. Dizzypaco Posted: September 07, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2170736)
Since this conversation has focused partially on Rusty Staub, along with other corner outfielders who played a long time and were good hitters, I'll say it now.

During the endless debates about Jake Beckley, I was thinking of who I would compare him to among recent players. One player I thought about was Staub - very long career, OPS+ around 125, no substantial peak to speak of, didn't play a key defensive position.

Not that I'm asking this to turn into another debate about Beckley.

But there were a lot of guys who played in the 60's to 80's with similar credentials. Perez is another that comes to mind. Dewey Evans?
   49. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 07, 2006 at 08:43 PM (#2170793)
1973 does stand out. Do we know what happened there?

He had a horrific April -- 176/274/176. Take that out and his season is more like 255/340/400; still a down year, but not quite the sore thumb that it is. I could be hallucinating this, but I want to say that there was an aborted flirtation with contact lenses.
   50. fra paolo Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:14 PM (#2170818)
I guess I could check out ProQuest before the SABR service shuts down. Narrowing it down to a month of horrors makes it a more manageable task.
   51. Guapo Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:29 PM (#2170832)
What's the policy regarding White's play in the Japanese leagues?

You've Gotta Have Wa has him in Japan from 1980-1982. In 1980 he hit .298 with 29 HRs.
   52. Repoz Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:33 PM (#2170834)
but I want to say that there was an aborted flirtation with contact lenses.

Yea, for a while White had some sort of eyeglass/vision problem going on...at one time he even tried a pair of those hideous eyedrop glasses that look like they fell out of Carol Channing over-taxed valise.

BTW...It's a little known fact that Roy White invented Karaoke...but back then it was called Carryoakie, because of his having to pick up Bobby Murcer in the lineup all the time.
   53. OCF Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2170845)
Since the key problem with 1973 seems to be an upward spike in strikeouts, vision problems would be one of the likelier explanations.
   54. OCF Posted: September 07, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2170847)
What's the policy regarding White's play in the Japanese leagues?

You've Gotta Have Wa has him in Japan from 1980-1982. In 1980 he hit .298 with 29 HRs.


The problem is that he was clearly in decline in the majors in 1977-79, and that in particular his shortened 1979 season makes him look like toast. In this case, his Japanese play would be like some teens/20's long-time major league star who went on to play a few more years in the PCL after his major league career was over. We weren't giving any credit to those guys, not that I remember.
   55. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:37 AM (#2171116)
Re: The Good Doctor's Post #9 --

Am I wrong to think that Singleton, Bonds and Winfield are the only likely HOMers? The rest of the players have serious warts:

R. Smith - In-season durability
Luzinski, Foster, Murcer - Career length
Staub, Parker - Peak/prime issues
White, Cruz, Mathews, Griffey - Career length AND peak/prime issues
Brock - HUGE peak issues (his best OPS+ season would crack the Top 5 for half the players on the list)
Rice - Worse than his OPS+

The big question mark is Dwight Evans. If you season-adjust Dewey's 1981 season, he has a very nice peak -- something like 39 Win Shares, IIRC -- probably enough to push him into the HOM.

How do the voters feel about adjusting season length for strike seasons?
   56. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: September 08, 2006 at 03:45 AM (#2171122)
BTW, Reggie Smith was durable up through his age-26 season (1971), playing 158, 155, 143, 147, and 159 games in his first five seasons. After that, he had only eight more seasons with at least 100 games:

148, 143, 137, 135, 128, 115, 112, 106

Smith could obviously rake and played 43 percent of his defensive games in center field, but durability is a skill, too.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6752 seconds
68 querie(s) executed