BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Salon: Kaufman: Neifi Perez: Bad baseball Hall of Famer

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Salon: Kaufman: Neifi Perez: Bad baseball Hall of Famer

Leapin’ Lance LeGault’s! The King is back!

Somewhere in there, I began to feel for Neifi Pérez. It wasn’t his fault managers kept writing his name on the lineup card. And those managers weren’t a pack of fools either. Baker and Detroit’s Jim Leyland have their critics, but they’ve each won more than 1,000 games and three division titles. Baker has won a pennant, Leyland two pennants and a World Series—the latter with Neifi on the postseason roster. Felipe Alou, Neifi’s manager in San Francisco, won a thousand games, too.

But more than that, I came to appreciate something important about guys like Neifi Pérez. To be a guy like that, to be a guy who makes fans in four cities tear their hair out, to be possibly the single worst regular player in the major leagues in multiple seasons, to last for a dozen years in the big leagues, start more than 1,200 games, get caught stealing an astonishing 45 times in 102 attempts, you have to be a hell of a ballplayer.

The worst player in the major leagues is a hell of a ballplayer. The worst player in the history of the major leagues, whoever he was, was a hell of a ballplayer. Neifi Pérez was a hell of a ballplayer.

It’s only in the context of the major leagues that the guy with the lifetime OPS of .672 is oh-my-gosh-is-he-playing-again awful. You see this if you ever watch big-league pitchers, who struggle to hit .100, take batting practice. They drill line drives all over the place. They’re the guys in your muni softball league who hit balls over the houses across the street from the park and everyone says, “He must have played pro ball.”

Repoz Posted: March 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM | 35 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: history, sabermetrics, site 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. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 12:34 PM (#3488547)

To me, the intriguing thing about players like Neifi is how GMs and managers keep going with the known lousy (replacement level) player instead of trying someone (anyone!) else. Especially when you're paying him seven figures.

Why do teams see the 28 or 29 y.o. Neifi Perez, who has proven he's replacement level, at best, and say "I want me some of that!"?

Why not take some career AAA guy with shiny minor league stats, or someone from the Mexican League and give them a shot?

2. flournoy Posted: March 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM (#3488555)

Leyland [has won] two pennants and a World Series—the latter with Neifi on the postseason roster.

Wrong.

3. AndrewJ Posted: March 30, 2010 at 01:02 PM (#3488564)

To be a guy like that, to be a guy who makes fans in four cities tear their hair out, to be possibly the single worst regular player in the major leagues in multiple seasons, to last for a dozen years in the big leagues, start more than 1,200 games, get caught stealing an astonishing 45 times in 102 attempts, you have to be a hell of a ballplayer.

"Anybody with ability can play in the big leagues. But to be able to trick people year in and year out the way I did, I think that's a much greater feat." -- Bob Uecker

4. RMc is the loyal supporter of the MLB event Posted: March 30, 2010 at 01:47 PM (#3488579)

Oh, my God. I had no idea.

5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 01:57 PM (#3488582)

Oh, my God. I had no idea.

Yeah, but Bill Bergen is the Babe Ruth of suckitude.

6. Barnaby Jones Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:03 PM (#3488585)

Oh, my God. I had no idea.

So wait, who is number one?

7. Chokeland Bill Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:09 PM (#3488589)

Everett Scott is Number 6

8. just plain joe Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:11 PM (#3488590)

Why do teams see the 28 or 29 y.o. Neifi Perez, who has proven he's replacement level, at best, and say "I want me some of that!"?

Why not take some career AAA guy with shiny minor league stats, or someone from the Mexican League and give them a shot?

I'm sure that it is mostly has to do with being comfortable with the known instead of being willing to take a chance on the unknown. Most GM's and managers are pretty conservative and would rather have the (relatively) sure thing of a replacement level Neifi Perez rather than taking a risk on some minor league lifer. The AAAA player might well be a better player than Perez but suppose he gets off to a slow start. Then the media start howling about how the team pushed aside the "proven veteran" for the unproven unknown and before you can say "Dusty Baker", Neifi Perez is back in the starting lineup.

9. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:17 PM (#3488595)

I cannnot believe Cy Young made the HOF with those putrid numbers. He must have had a hell of a glove.

10. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:21 PM (#3488599)

There's also the popular common wisdom that "fielding doesn't slump." Neifi was obviously a pretty good shortstop at his best. But if the Fielding Runs on B-Ref are at all reliable, he could sometimes turn in a below-average year with the glove. So for the 2002 Royals, you've got Neifi starting at shortstop -1.5 in Fielding Runs, to go with his ghastly -48.1 Batting Runs. No wonder they lost 100 games. But I bet the perception by nearly everyone was that at least Neifi was picking 'em in the infield. You'd run him out there figuring he'd do something right, but you could fool yourself.

11. Zach Posted: March 30, 2010 at 02:56 PM (#3488623)

It must be the law of the backup catcher at work: if you can fill a specialized role reliably, you can have a long career even if you don't do anything else.

12. The Fallen Reputation of Billy Jo Robidoux Posted: March 30, 2010 at 04:26 PM (#3488706)

Whether intentional or not, #7 is a brilliant reference.

Also, Cy Young played 5 games at 1B? Wonder if there's a story behind that.

13. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 30, 2010 at 04:35 PM (#3488715)

Also, Cy Young played 5 games at 1B? Wonder if there's a story behind that.

Rosters were much smaller back then. It wasn't that unusual to see a good hitting pitcher play the field if need be. Chief Bender played six games at first and five in the OF; Christy Mathewson played four games in the OF and three at first in 1902.

14. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 30, 2010 at 04:45 PM (#3488722)

15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 04:51 PM (#3488730)

So if you played 162 games between the absolute best MLB players (career) at every position vs the absolute worst MLB players (career) at every position, how many would the bad team win (if you assume normal random variance in career ability and no injuries)? 10? 5?

Very, very few. One? Two?

When you unleash the Ruth/Mays/Mantle/Wagner/Morgan/Schmidt/Gehrig/Bench lineup on Adam Eaton, Jose Lima and Andy Hawkins (just picking some modern names from the worst all time career ERA+, >1000 IP) they're going to put up 10+ runs per game.

I don't see the all time pitching staff losing too many with that kind of support.

16. toratoratora Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:19 PM (#3488879)

Cripes

Do you bunch OBP and speed at the top:

Morgan (L)
Mantle(S)
Mays (R)
Ruth (L)
Gehrig (L)
Schmidt (R)
Bench (R)
Wagner (R)

or do you alternate L,R as well as possible?

Morgan
Mays
Ruth
Mantle
Schmidt
Gehrig
Bench
Wagner

17. JJ1986 Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:26 PM (#3488884)

2B Hornsby
LF Williams or Bonds
CF Mantle
RF Ruth
SS Wagner
1B Gehrig
C Piazza
3B Schmidt

18. Bitter Calculus Instructor Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:34 PM (#3488892)

#17 has the best offensive player at each position in the lineup (unless you let Foxx or Ott play 3rd). I'd like to see that lineup put into a diamondmind simulation against 2010 MLB and see how many runs it averages.

19. phredbird

Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:35 PM (#3488895)

this thread took an interesting turn ...

20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:36 PM (#3488896)

or do you alternate L,R as well as possible?

Morgan
Mays
Ruth
Mantle
Schmidt
Gehrig
Bench
Wagner

I doubt this matters.

Platoon splits are not going to be a big issue with this crew. e.g. Ruth 1160 OPS vs. LHP, 1204 vs. RHP, Gehrig 988 vs. LHP, 1118 vs. RHP, Morgan 768 OPS vs LHP, 843 vs RHP.

2B Hornsby
LF Williams or Bonds
CF Mantle
RF Ruth
SS Wagner
1B Gehrig
C Piazza
3B Schmidt

Maybe we should take Hornsby over Morgan, I don't like that sub 1000 OPS ;-)

But can we have a little defense, please!?!? I'm starting both Mantle and Mays, and Bench or Berra. Actually a Berra/Bench platoon makes a ton of sense.

21. JJ1986 Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:40 PM (#3488899)

I like to split lefites, not to avoid the platoon disadvantage, but to make sure there's a righty in between them who gets to hit against the LOOGY.

22. The District Attorney Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:46 PM (#3488905)

Forget about the all-time best against the all-time worst... in Strat-O-Matic, I was able to go 162-0 with one year's All-Stars against one year's All-Scrubs. (2001 season; Bonds, Sosa, Pedro, etc. against Deivi Cruz, Peter Bergeron, Mark Petkovsek, etc.) I forget how many times I simmed the season before it happened, though.

23. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:57 PM (#3488908)

And to complete the circle of post #14, the worst team ever

Lineup (minimum 3000 PA fudged a little to have some names we recognize)

C Bill Bergen 21 OPS+
1B Phil Todt 81 OPS+
2B Doug Flynn 57 OPS+
SS Hal Lanier 49 OPS+
3B Aurelio Rodriguez 76 OPS+
LF Vince Coleman 83 OPS+
CF Darren Lewis 72 OPS+
RF Mike Hershberger 85 OPS+

Rotation (>1000 IP, 70% SP)
1. Harry McIntrie 83 ERA+
2. Kaiser Wilhelm (real player) 83
3. Jimmy Haynes 83
4. Happy Townsednd 84
5. Adam Eaton 84

Closer (>50 saves)
Mark Davis 89 ERA+

24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 07:59 PM (#3488911)

I like to split lefites, not to avoid the platoon disadvantage, but to make sure there's a righty in between them who gets to hit against the LOOGY

Eh, their LOOGY is Esteban Yan, 90 ERA+. No need for a platoon advantage.

25. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: March 30, 2010 at 08:27 PM (#3488926)

3B Aurelio Rodriguez 76 OPS+

Too good a fielder, I think. You might try Ken Reitz, who offers a career OPS+ of 79, -17.7 career Fielding Runs, and a blistering 10-for-24 in career stolen bases.

26. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 08:42 PM (#3488938)

I like to split lefites, not to avoid the platoon disadvantage, but to make sure there's a righty in between them who gets to hit against the LOOGY.

But remember, the LOOGY will be so bad, that although in reality the pitcher throws with his left arm, he actually has a reverse-split (or just sucks so bad as to it not mattering).

27. Willie Mayspedes Posted: March 30, 2010 at 08:54 PM (#3488951)

Vince Coleman was the worst left fielder ever?

28. zenbitz Posted: March 30, 2010 at 09:12 PM (#3488970)

I have a Neifi Perez "game used" bat. It's cracked.

29. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: March 30, 2010 at 09:20 PM (#3488977)

Vince Coleman was the worst left fielder ever?

Again, factor in defense and baserunning, and you might want to look elsewhere. If he weren't so far short of 3,000 PAs, Kevin Reimer would be a good pick.

30. The Good Face Posted: March 30, 2010 at 09:33 PM (#3488992)

Again, factor in defense and baserunning, and you might want to look elsewhere. If he weren't so far short of 3,000 PAs, Kevin Reimer would be a good pick.

I wonder how many runs it would have cost a team if they gave Kevin Reimer 150 games in CF. -50? -80?

31. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM (#3489009)

I wonder how many runs it would have cost a team if they gave Kevin Reimer 150 games in CF. -50? -80?

Due to a plethora of injuries to my outfielders during one week in the 1993 season, the Scoresheet simulation gave me the following outfield for 8 innings during one game (before bringing in a defensive replacement for my CF (and moving him to RF):

LF: John Olerud (my best fielding 1B)
CF: Kevin Reimer (my 5th ranked OF on my roster)
RF: Mike Stanley (my backup catcher)

I won, but every inning was filled with hits.

32. John DiFool2 Posted: March 31, 2010 at 12:44 AM (#3489097)

Maybe we should take Hornsby over Morgan, I don't like that sub 1000 OPS ;-)

Put Morgan in 1920's Sportsman's Park, and he won't be.

33. Ron Johnson Posted: March 31, 2010 at 02:52 PM (#3489405)

#23 If you need to stuff a weaker bat in there remember that Lanier spent years at second. You should be able to dig up a worse hitter than Flynn for SS.

The Giants generally had terrible hitters at both second and short in the 60s (helping to answer how a team with the core talent they had finished second so often)

34. Eric J is Financed by a Rich Grandpa Posted: March 31, 2010 at 03:25 PM (#3489439)

#23 If you need to stuff a weaker bat in there remember that Lanier spent years at second. You should be able to dig up a worse hitter than Flynn for SS.

The "nice" thing about Flynn in this context is that he wasn't much of a fielder either, at least according to TotalZone (-32 for his career, below average at all 3 infield positions). Lanier, on the other hand, grades out as an excellent defender at both short and second.

35. Steve Treder Posted: March 31, 2010 at 03:46 PM (#3489470)

The Giants generally had terrible hitters at both second and short in the 60s (helping to answer how a team with the core talent they had finished second so often)

Gee, thanks for the memories.

Here's a little something I wrote about Lanier in THT a while back:

... Lanier put together four, count 'em, four consecutive seasons from 1967 through 1970 that rank among the very worst offensive performances in history.

In order to pull off that feat, one might reasonably conclude that Lanier must have been a stupendously great defensive infielder, but that really wasn't the case. He was quite good: He was sure-handed, and his arm was terrific, but his range wasn't all that special. He never won a Gold Glove. The plain truth is that Lanier's defensive contribution, good though it was, wasn't good enough to justify the year-after-year deployment as a regular the Giants provided. Then again it isn't exactly a news flash to report that the Giants organization in that era wasn't always exercising the shrewdest possible judgment.

Lanier's hitting wasn't just bad in one or two ways, it was bad straight across the board. He could do it all. Despite the fact that he was fairly big (6-foot-2 and 180 pounds), he had utterly no power, but neither did he have the faintest hint of strike zone discipline. And despite the fact that Lanier strove for contact and attempted to do nothing more than poke and slap ground balls, he hit for a miserably low average as well. As a bonus, the constant poking and slapping of ground balls made Lanier a double-play machine: He was in the league's top 10 in GIDP for six consecutive years, four of them in the top four. If it was dreadful offense you wanted, Hal Lanier was your man.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Salon: Kaufman: Neifi Perez: Bad baseball Hall of Famer

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics