Look at all of those RBI!!! :-)

Seriously, nobody can say that he wasn't durable.

Greatest player of his generation.

'His generation' consisting of all players born on July 30th, 1983?

From perusing the bbref list, it appears as though Joe holds the record for most seasons of 100+ RBI/<100 OPS+ since 1901. He also appears to hold the record for the lowest OPS+ in a 100 RBI season, with a 76OPS+/102RBI season in 1997.

Forgot to specify, that record is three seasons.

Out of morbid curiosity, I ran him through my offensive value system. The best overall value match I could come up with was Bobby Wallace. Nellie Fox with the ends of his career trimmed off was also in the picture. But Lloyd Waner was a hair better. So if he could have hit like that and played really good middle infield ...

From perusing the bbref list, it appears as though Joe holds the record for most seasons of 100+ RBI/<100 OPS+ since 1901.

The immortal Pinky Whitney also had three such seasons.

The immortal Pinky Whitney also had three such seasons.

Some immortal, he died in 1987.

In 1995-97 he enjoyed almost 2000 plate appearances with OPS+ less than 90, so Toronto management gets some of the credit.

His 1990 season is remarkable, you will never be able to convince a mainstream fan that he wasn't a productive hitter, "my gosh he drove in 115 runs". (A VERY healthy total pre-1995).
Some 55% of his plate appearances came with men on. (He had 697 PAs- he made a staggering number of outs that year)
He did hit better with men on: .252/.330/.441 as opposed to .212/.247/.343 (that's right, with no one on, Joe Carter in over 300 PAs in 1990 hit worse than an average late inning defensive sub SS)

The 1990 Padres went 75-87 (Pythag of 81-81) The lineup typically went Roberts, Alomar, Gwynn (in some order) then Carter or Clark.

OBP
Gwynn .357
Roberts .375
Alomar .340
Clark .441

The team OBP was .320- so you can guess how the rest of the lineup did.

So essentially, if Carter batted 5th (which he did most games that Clark played), that was it- no offense in spots 6, 7, 8 & 9.
If Clark batted 5th (which he did in 17 games) that was a complete waste- no one to drive him in.
So in an odd way Carter's low OBP didn't matter as much as it would on a more balanced team- if he got on no one was going to drive him in.

Sounds to me like Carter was the perfect type of hitter for his role on that team . . . his lack of OBP doesn't hurt nearly as much if no one is coming up behind him anyway, and his power brings in the guys on base.

In 1990 at Jack Murphy Stadium, the .252/.330/.441 with runners on isn't a half bad line.

Sure, Carter was overrated by anyone who actually voted for him for MVP during his career. But for a low-average power hitter who doesn't walk much, he was about as good as you can ask for, given that he had some defensive value and some speed. Through age 29 on B-Ref, his comps include Wally Post, Kevin McReynolds, Eric Karros, and the hitting Mike Marshall. Carter outlasted that crowd by a considerable stretch -- and really it wasn't his fault that he was still playing every day hitting 234/284/399 at the age of 37. He was good enough to be an everyday middle-of-the-order hitter on two World Champions. Hall of the Pretty Good ...

I'm still stunned that Carter didn't do better in the Hall of Fame voting - I mean, we're talking about a guy who had 10 100+ RBI years, and over 1400 for his career, as well as almost 400 HRs, while having a reputation as a run-producer and clutch player, as well as hitting one of the biggest home runs in World Series history.

I'm not saying that he should have been in the Hall of Fame. I'm just surprised that the writers din't shovel a couple more votes his way.

That being said, I have no doubt that he's going to be a non-factor in the HOM voting.

Will we ever again see a pure baseball, non-financially motivated blockbuster trade like Joe Carter-Roberto Alomar for Tony Fernandez-Fred McGriff?

Come to think of it, Carter was involved in a couple big deals in his career. He was also dealt for Sandy Alomar and Carlos Baerga, and very early in his career was dealt with Mel Hall for Rick Sutcliffe and Ron Hassey.

Some immortal, he died in 1987.

He didn't die, he became more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

In 1990 at Jack Murphy Stadium, the .252/.330/.441 with runners on isn't a half bad line.

OPS+ of 110. Around 3 points above league average for that split.

Sure, Carter was overrated by anyone who actually voted for him for MVP during his career. But for a low-average power hitter who doesn't walk much, he was about as good as you can ask for, given that he had some defensive value and some speed.

He was also the AL's highest paid player during three of his seasons. "Overrated" is often an unfair label, but Joe seemed to be a poster boy for it. The BBWAA deserves a bit of credit for putting his career into perspective on this one and not continuing to overrate him after retirement.

The immortal Pinky Whitney also had three such seasons.

Pinky Higgins also had two consecutive seasons with 106 RBIs and OPS+'s of 100 and 95. (It's too bad neither he nor Whitney ever played with Dave Brain.) In light of this, I move that Joe be retroactively granted the nickname "Pinky" Carter.

It would have been hard to find a baseball fan in Toronto in November 1993 who didn't think Carter was going to the Hall of Fame. Same for Alomar, I guess. Hopefully, one out of two will make it.

(It's too bad neither he nor Whitney ever played with Dave Brain.) In light of this, I move that Joe be retroactively granted the nickname "Pinky" Carter.

Why? So they could rule the world? ;-)

Joe had a flukey season at age 26 that made everyone think he was a lot better than he was. He hit .302 and had a 29-29 year and slugged .514. No one knew that was as good as it was ever going to get, and, in the words of Christoper Walken as Vincent Coccotti, "it won't ever get that good again."

The Indians were hot, unbelievably hot. At least, in the minds of prognosticators. It's hard to believe, but it was true. Rotisserie baseball was just becoming popular, and Joe Carter was dwarfed only by the obsession with Cory Snyder ("Can you win without Snyder?" was the battle cry of spring 87).

Carter was a disaster as a franchise player in Cleveland and San Diego. He was terrific as just another guy on the Blue Jays. You put him in a lineup with 5-6 other good hitters, and you knew what you would get from Carter: 30 homers, 70 extra-base hits, play every game -- he was going to get his 110-120 RBIs a year. He had some other good markers: He was a good baserunner for a guy his size, and a good percentage basestealer most of his career. For a corner outfielder, he was a decent defensive player and he rarely hit into double plays considering how many RBI opportunities he had.

The bad part about Carter? Well, you could also plug him into a bad lineup and he'd still get his 100 RBIs, masking how bad he really was.

"Touch 'em all Joe, you'll never hit a bigger home run."

I'm just surprised that the writers din't shovel a couple more votes his way.

I'm not. Batting average is as important to those BBWAA guys as other traditional stats. .259 just does not say Hall of Fame, unless you have 500 HRs or some gold gloves or something.

As I recall, in The Politics of Glory Bill James predicted that Joe Carter would be elected to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA in 2011. . Carter would be one of two players elected that year, according to James,the other being Barry Bonds.

Of course, Carter was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2003 - the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame, that is.

I think that Carter didn't get more support from the Raccoon Lodge in the Hall of Fame voting shows that statistical analysts are making some headway in showing the world what a grotesquely overrated baseball player looks like.

That said, I appreciate the couple of posts here that have talked about the things Joe Carter could do, instead of the things he couldn't. He was a fine baseball player. He could help your team, but if he was the highest-paid guy on your team, he was a problem. Excellently put, DavidFoss.

I'm just surprised that the writers din't shovel a couple more votes his way.

I'm not. Batting average is as important to those BBWAA guys as other traditional stats. .259 just does not say Hall of Fame, unless you have 500 HRs or some gold gloves or something.

which is pretty much why they haven't voted Jack Morris in as well, that ERA is just too ugly in their minds, the equivalent of a .250ish batting average.

I remember all the hue and cry in saber circles when he announced his retirement, and how every one was panicking that the "mediots" would elect him and his clutch hitting as soon as he was eligible. Comes the moment and he doesn't even get close to the 5% threshold. I think sometimes we don't give the writers enough credit, tho it is admittedly inconsistent for them to vote him 3rd in the MVP in 1992, then forget all about him 10 years later.

Joe Carter is a terrific human being.


Just sayin'

I think sometimes we don't give the writers enough credit,

I start to think the same and then...Bruce Sutter. Go figure.

Joe Carter is a terrific human being.


Just sayin'

I agree with this, but I would also like to note that Carter was (is?) also a terrible announcer.

I agree with this, but I would also like to note that Carter was (is?) also a terrible announcer.

Oh man, I had erased that from my mind. Thanks a lot.

What?

I thought that the team of Chip Carey and Joe Carter did a great job for the Cubs. I especially liked it when they sat out in the bleachers with the fans. When I was watching the game, it felt like I was right there with them, sharing a brew and talking with friends about the game. You just don't manufacture camaraderie like that.

Now, when I'm watching the Cubs, I have to suffer through Bob Brenly. Agh! Now he's a bad announcer. He even tried to make the case during an interleague game for writing a pitcher into the line-up in the DH slot and then using pinch-hitters throughout the game because that would give you more flexibility as a manager, not just with lefty-right match-ups but also with sacrifice bunts. Bob: you have a DH so that you don't have to bunt. You actually have a player who can get a hit instead.

With respect to his announcing, the only thing that I can clearly remember was his incredible ability to relate anything (and I mean ANYTHING) back to him hitting the World Series winning home run, so that you would hear about it an average of 2000 times a game.

God, I hated watching games which he worked.

>I think sometimes we don't give the writers enough credit, tho it is admittedly inconsistent for them to vote him 3rd in the MVP in 1992, then forget all about him 10 years later.

I think we give them exactly the credit they deserve.

And when I think Joe Carter I also think Juan Gone, who WON 2 MVPs. When he becomes eligible for the HoF, then the writers will recognize him appropriately. In '95 and '98? No. Not quite appropriately.

I remember the Boston papers always talking about how the Sox should get him, because he always hit well at Fenway Park. See the bb-ref splits; turns out he liked Milwaukee just as well. 21-22 HR, 57-60 RBI, .300+ BA in about a half-season's worth of games. If he had played in one of those parks, and maintained that level of home production, he might have been another Jim Rice BBWAA candidate.

***

My wife is a casual Red Sox fan who hates the Yankees, watches an occasional game with me on TV, gets on board the bandwagon when the playoffs roll around, etc. She went to Fenway Park with me once many years ago -- Joe Carter hit 3HR, and the Red Sox still won the game. She has shown no desire to go again.

And when I think Joe Carter I also think Juan Gone, who WON 2 MVPs. When he becomes eligible for the HoF, then the writers will recognize him appropriately. In '95 and '98? No. Not quite appropriately.

But Juan Gone was a much better hitter than Carter, OPS+ of 133 versus 104 for Carter- he was less durable and had less defensive value.

I never had much fear that the HOF would elect Carter. I think Bill James once wrote something about the hall not being kind to RBI guys. If Jime Rice and Andre Dawson, two RBI guys who were clearly better than Carter, can't make it, then Joe isn't going in either.

He even tried to make the case during an interleague game for writing a pitcher into the line-up in the DH slot and then using pinch-hitters throughout the game because that would give you more flexibility as a manager, not just with lefty-right match-ups but also with sacrifice bunts. Bob: you have a DH so that you don't have to bunt. You actually have a player who can get a hit instead.

Also, in the first time through the order, the pitcher would have to bat.