BBTF's Hall of Merit Discussion

Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, April 23, 2007

Pedro Guerrero

Eligible in 1997.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:06 AM | 37 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: April 23, 2007 at 12:21 AM (#2342502)

He had a few negatives attached to his career, but the man could flat-out hit.

2. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:45 AM (#2342546)

As the man himself said, "I can ####### hit."
Yes, Pete, you ####### could.
In 1980, 12 games as a second baseman. That must've been a disaster.

3. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:49 AM (#2342551)

His 1985, neutralized: 337/439/609/1048. That's 10.1 RC/game.
Yowza.

4. Jeff K. Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:50 AM (#2342553)

Echo numbers 1 and 2: Great hitter, lousy personality (or so I heard at the time.)

5. Howie Menckel Posted: April 23, 2007 at 01:00 AM (#2342570)

Whew, just my first glance - 7 OPS+s over 130, 5 of them over 145 and 4 over 150, and one at 181!
Best top 10 ranks in adj OPS+ - 1 2 2 6 6 7
4 times in the top 4 in MVP voting
Maybe Hall of Fame path at age 32

137 OPS+ in 6115 AB

I'm not the type of voter that favors this career, but he's worth a look - especially by peak voters.

6. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:26 AM (#2342864)

is there any glaring reason for me not to vote for this guy? Right now it is bewteen He, Bresnahan, and Doyle for the last two spots on my ballot. his peak isn't monstrous but it is long enough to give him some prime after one factors in strike credit.

7. Qufini Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:09 AM (#2342905)

The thing that I remember most about Pedro Guerrero is that in consecutive years, he was named to the All-Star team but didn't get into the game.

8. Qufini Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:13 AM (#2342908)

Looking at his baseball ref page, I guess my memory was off. Guerrero never went to consecutive All-Star games.

9. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:47 AM (#2342928)

Didn't Guerrero reach base in 14 or 15 consecutive appearances once? I have it in my head that he fell just short of the ML record (held, I think, by Ted Williams).

Unless, of course, all that happened in between Guerrero's nonexistent back-to-back All-Star games, making me equally bewildered. Perhaps Guerrero, like The Shadow, possessed the power to cloud men's minds.

10. Good cripple hitter Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:50 AM (#2342931)

If Pedro did possess that power, he really should've known better than to try it out on himself.

11. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: April 23, 2007 at 06:02 AM (#2342935)

"The accusation that Pedro Guerrero could finance and underwrite a drug deal is ludicrous. He doesn't have the acumen or the ability to finance anything more complicated than lunch."

12. OCF Posted: April 23, 2007 at 06:30 AM (#2342941)

He's only got about 1500 games played. I'm enough of a career guy for that to warn me off of him, even if I agree with everyone else's opinion that he could ####### hit. I think he suffered at least one serious injury while he was still in the minors, which helped delay his emergence as a star, and then another injury cost him almost all of the 1986 season. And he had the misfortune of becoming a regular in the 1981 strike season. If you want an injury-prone monster hitter partly hidden by a low offensive environment, then how about Frank Chance? Chance has only 200 fewer games than Guerrero, my system has them as near-equals offensively, and you can judge the defense for yourself. I would rank Jack Clark ahead of Guerrero - Clark has his own impressive offensive peak and about 450 more games played. The difference is mostly that Clark came up younger, but Clark had value in those younger years.

13. OCF Posted: April 23, 2007 at 07:00 AM (#2342944)

Does Pedro Guerrero = Pete Browning? Include the positions played lines - Guerrero played a fair amount of CF and 3B, whether he belonged there or not. Of course, I haven't been voting for Browning.

14. rawagman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 07:22 AM (#2342951)

OCF - I would agree with that, but give Pedro the edge considering his in-season durability.

15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM (#2342968)

Does Pedro Guerrero = Pete Browning?

No, because Browning was much more durable for his era and dominated his positions to a greater degree.

16. rawagman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM (#2342986)

maybe I was wrong in my off the cuff remark. I ran the numbers, but I'll do a direct comparison of the two today to set my rankings.

17. rawagman Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:38 PM (#2342992)

I think I'll stand by my assertion on the Pete Browning/Pedro Guerrero question. Browning missed significant time in all but two seasons (1885 and '87). He was mostly an outfielder, so he didn't have a McGraw type excuse.
Guerrero also missed significant time in all but 4 seasons (1982, 83, 87, 89). I believe that most managers give the odd day off to nearly everyone these days, so I don't hold modern guys up to the standards employed by century old managers.

18. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM (#2343004)

A commonly told story about Guerrero that was probably made up by Lasorda:

Pedro was taking ground balls at 3B when Tommy came over to encourage his struggling slugger. "Pedro, what do you think about when the ball is hit?" asked Tommy. Answered Guerrero, "First I think, `I hope they don't hit it to me." "Aw, c'mon," said Tommy, "What are you really thinking?"
Replied Guerrero, "I think `I hope they don't hit to Sax."

19. Spencer Benedict Posted: April 23, 2007 at 02:42 PM (#2343079)

Is there any truth to the rumor that the Mets turned down a package that included Guerrero and Rhoden for Seaver in June 1977?

20. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2007 at 02:58 PM (#2343095)

The accusation that Pedro Guerrero could finance and underwrite a drug deal is ludicrous. He doesn't have the acumen or the ability to finance anything more complicated than lunch.

Yup. His lawyer got him off! Your lawyer convincing the judge that you have an IQ of 70 is a pretty humiliating way to get acquitted.

21. Kyle S Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:37 PM (#2343122)

For yall that are voting for Guerrero - does this mean that you'd vote for Chipper Jones if he got hit by a bus today? 143 OPS+ in 7625 PAS (Guerrero 137/6115). Chipper played third base a lot more than Guerrero and though he's no great shakes at third is not nearly the butcher Guerrero was.

22. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: April 23, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2343141)

kyle,

absolutely. chipper's in. the 1500 PAs and with 6 points more OPS+, that's good stuff. Oh and a tougher position that he played a lot more often.

23. JPWF13

Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:01 PM (#2343149)

I always thought that Pedro Guerrero = Danny Tartabull...

Pedro was better, but not by much 270 more PAs, 137 OPS+ to 133...

24. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:44 PM (#2343179)

For yall that are voting for Guerrero - does this mean that you'd vote for Chipper Jones if he got hit by a bus today?

I think even a better question is will they be voting for Daryl Strawberry, since the Strawman was a better player than Guerrero?

25. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2343180)

Of COURSE I'd vote for Chipper Jones if he retired today. First-ballot elect-me slot no-brainer. What's the argument against Larry?

26. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2343184)

I agree that Chipper will and should make it, BTW.

27. DL from MN Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2343202)

I think I'd take Pedro (Tony) Oliva over Pedro Guerrero as the best available Pedro but it is close.

28. Mark Donelson Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:19 PM (#2343210)

Is there any glaring reason for me not to vote for this guy?

If Guerrero, why not Dave Parker? At least if you're a WS voter...

Parker would seem to have a slight peak advantage, a slight prime advantage, and slight career advantage. While Guerrero's time, however execrable, at 3B would make that (and perhaps a bit more) up, I can't see how it would put Guerrero on ballot unless Parker is at least pretty close. (Maybe he is, for you?)

29. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: April 23, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2343216)

Your lawyer convincing the judge that you have an IQ of 70 is a pretty humiliating way to get acquitted.Beats being the smartest man on your cellblock.

30. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: April 23, 2007 at 09:08 PM (#2343357)

I really like the Pedro Guerrero/Pete Browning comparison. I'd take Guerrero, but I think it's close.

I don't think either was a HoMer. Browning's WARP2 EQA was .313, Guerrero's was .309. Using the neutralized stats on baseball-reference.com for playing time only, Browning ends up with 6538 AB+BB, Guerrero with 6001. Both were butchers - but I think I'd give Guerrero the slight edge with the glove - CF was not an important position in Browning's day. I think Guerrero also peaks out a little higher too.

It's very close. Neither should be going in - but if don't think you'll vote for Guerrero, I don't see how you can justify a vote for Browning. Either Browning should drop, or Guerrero should do well, if we are going to be consistent.

31. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 09:17 PM (#2343364)

It's very close. Neither should be going in - but if don't think you'll vote for Guerrero, I don't see how you can justify a vote for Browning.

Except Browning was a more dominating player and better hitter (taking into account both players' competition), plus it was easier to ring up games played in Guerrero's era than it was in his.

32. Juan V Posted: April 23, 2007 at 09:29 PM (#2343371)

Yeah, I have Browning with a (slightly) better peak and a considerably longer career. And I'm not a fan of Browning.

33. Juan V Posted: April 23, 2007 at 09:34 PM (#2343378)

For yall that are voting for Guerrero - does this mean that you'd vote for Chipper Jones if he got hit by a bus today? 143 OPS+ in 7625 PAS (Guerrero 137/6115). Chipper played third base a lot more than Guerrero and though he's no great shakes at third is not nearly the butcher Guerrero was.

Definitely. He'd still be below this year's top newbies, but in a worst-case scenario, he's Bus Clarkson (#3 in my prelim).

34. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: April 23, 2007 at 09:55 PM (#2343410)

I don't think it was easier for OF/3B types to ring up games played in Guerrero's era. Other than catcher I don't see this as ever being an issue.

I also don't think Browning was a more dominating player - Guerrero was arguably the best hitter in baseball during the early-mid 1980s. You can't ever say that about Browning (once you adjust for the fact that the AA was a much weaker league).

35. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2007 at 10:10 PM (#2343421)

Guerrero was arguably the best hitter in baseball during the early-mid 1980s

Hard to say that with Schmidt winning OPS+ titles in 80,81,82,83,84,86 with durability (and a 5th place in 85). Guerrero is on the short list though.

On the topic of Browning, it may be 100 years late, but has anyone ever calculated "NLE's" for noted AA stars?

36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2343453)

Hard to say that with Schmidt winning OPS+ titles in 80,81,82,83,84,86 with durability (and a 5th place in 85).

Eddie Murray was better, too.

37. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: April 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM (#2343459)

I don't think it was easier for OF/3B types to ring up games played in Guerrero's era. Other than catcher I don't see this as ever being an issue.

I personally don't think it's really arguable, Joe. Yes, there were some notable outliers from the 19th century who played forever, but on balance, players didn't last as long as they did 20 years or today.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, April 23, 2007

Pedro Guerrero

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate