HONORS VS. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
VI. The Horribly Over-Honored
There is an imbalance here that, by the nature of the study I am doing, I cannot run away from as most people do. Saying that a player is underrated is an easy, non-controversial thing. No one will argue with you if you say that, unless you say it about Barry Bonds or somebody; you can say that these 200 players are all underrated, and nobody will argue with you because it is a friendly, supportive comment and who is going to say that it is false?
Saying that a player has been OVERrated, on the other hand, will make people mad every time. I am offering my face up to a baseball bat here. Who are you to say that Don Drysdale was overrated? How many hits did YOU get off of him? Every player was the childhood favorite of somebody—not some ONE somebody, but a few hundred somebodies. Fred Whitfield, obscure 1960s first baseman. I’ll bet if I worked at it I could find ten people who would say that Fred Whitfield was their favorite player as a kid. I’ll bet if I said that Fred Whitfield was overrated, somebody would be mad about it.
Nonetheless, if we are trying to move "overrated" and "underrated" into the sphere of research, pull them into the bubble of actual knowledge as opposed to talk show bullshit, we have to balance the scales, have to name names of the over-honored as well as the under. We shouldn’t take it TOO seriously; we shouldn’t pretend that every conclusion we reach is going to be the last word on the subject. This is more like the first word than the last. But let’s get to it. The most over-honored player of the post-World War II era, according to my study, is:
1. Bill Mazeroski. Over-honored 417 to 107.
Rather than arguing about the right or wrong of the conclusion, let’s look first at the underlying facts. Mazeroski was elected to the Hall of Fame within 30 years of his final major league game, for which he is credited with 140 "Honors Summary Points". He started 6 All Star Games and was part of the show in 4 others, which is equivalent to another 122 points worth of honorin’. He was named to four post-season All Star teams (32 points), finished 8th in the MVP Voting in 1958 (3 points) and won 8 Gold Gloves (120 points). 140 + 122 + 32 + 3 + 120 = 417.
I’m not exactly arguing that Mazeroski did not deserve any one of those awards, except the Hall of Fame; he clearly was not a Hall of Fame caliber player. Looked at one by one, they’re OK; it is the sum total which presents our immediate problem.
So now we look at how many Award Points Mazeroski might have been EXPECTED to win, based on how good of a player he was. Mazeroski is credited with 219 career Win Shares, which would make him comparable to Roger Maris (223), Harvey Kuenn (223), Darrell Porter (222), Curt Flood (221), Carl Furillo (217) or George Scott (217). Maris received 274 Honors Summary Points in his career, Kuenn 205, Porter 49, Flood 162, Furillo 36 and George Scott 122. Our conclusion is that it is not normal or expected for a player with 219 Win Shares to receive 417 points worth of Honors. The normal number—based not only on the players named but on all of those in that area—would be 106.
Second, we look at how many Award Points Maz might have been expected to win based on his career WAR. His career Baseball Reference WAR was 36.5, which would make him comparable to his long-term double play partner Dick Groat (36.9), George Scott (36.6), Wally Moses (36.5), Don Money (36.5), Eric Davis (36.1), Don Buford (36.1) or Cecil Cooper (36.0).
Players who earn 36.5 WAR do not ordinarily get 417 Honors Share Points. Dick Groat got 192, George Scott 122, Wally Moses 16, Don Money 39, Eric Davis 77, Don Buford 8, and Cecil Cooper 135. The expected number for a player with 36.5 WAR would be 110 Honors Points.
And third, we get to comparable players. By the system explained yesterday, the ten most-comparable Honors Candidates to Bill Mazeroski would be Frank White (similarity score of 935), Dick Groat (932), Junior Gilliam (931), Dick McAuliffe (928), Curt Flood (921), Maury Wills (917), Rick Monday (915), Pete Runnels (914) and Jose Cardenal (914). The Awards given to those players range from 248 points (Maury Wills) to zero (Jose Cardenal.) Based on all of the comparable players, not just those ten, the Expected Honors going to Mazeroski would be 105 points.
So now we have three estimates of Bill Mazeroski’s expected honors—106 points, based on his Win Shares, 110 based on his WAR, and 105 based on the most-comparable players. The average of those is 107, so Mazeroski’s Expected Honors are 107. So he is 417 over 107, or +310.
I ranked the players in the study one through 310 based on (1) the number by which they were over-honored, and (2) the percentage by which they were over-honored. The rankings here are based on the combination of those two.
So we conclude that Mazeroski was very heavily over-honored compared to his accomplishments, and you can agree with that or not; that’s up to you. But assuming for the sake of discussion that this may be a valid conclusion, Why did that happen?
There are about 50 "overrating factors" that I could site here, but at the root of them in this case is the Gold Gloves. First, the mere existence of the Gold Glove creates a "special benefit" for a certain type of player, unless all types of players are in line for some award designated for their type. Yes, there is a "Silver Slugger" award which is parallel for a hitter, but (a) that wasn’t invented until 1980, and (b) it doesn’t have anything LIKE the stature of the Gold Glove Award.
The Silver Slugger Award, being essentially a rubber stamp for the player’s batting stats, adds little or nothing to his reputation as a player. If he has a poor year with the bat next year, it is as if that Silver Slugger thing never happened. But since the fans had no other regular frame of reference as to who was a good fielder until recent years, a Gold Glove was a semi-permanent endorsement of his defensive quality. If a player had a bad defensive year the next year. . .well, he’d probably win the Gold Glove again anyway, just because that was the way it was done. If he didn’t repeat as the Gold Glove winner, his reputation as defensive standout stuck with him anyway, at some level.
My argument is that the mere existence of the Gold Glove tends to create a mild over-awarding of good defensive players relative to their actual value. A slight over-recognition for the group. But the bigger problem is that the Gold Glove voting system was, until about 2010, absolutely terrible.
My experience is that most people won’t take seriously the notion that voting structures matter, but they do. The MVP Award system works because the voting system was well thought through 110 years ago, and still works. The Hall of Fame is a mess because they resist all efforts to construct a reasoned, effective voting structure, persisting in the obstinate belief that what matters is who votes, not HOW they vote or what the rules are. But the Gold Glove voting, until about 2010, was just terrible. They would just hand out the ballots, and people could write in whoever you want. A certain number of the voters—let’s guess 30%--had not given the issue one second’s thought before the ballot was in their hand, and they would just write in whoever was obvious. After a player had won a couple of Gold Gloves, he became the obvious choice. And if one player starts out ahead 30-0 in the voting and there are two or three other players just as good, there is no way that anybody else can win. A couple of players won the award at a position when they weren’t even PLAYING the position; Joe Rudi won a Gold Glove in the outfield one year when he was playing first base, and Rafael Palmeiro won the award at first base one year when he had been a DH basically all year.
So Gold Glove voting, until about 2010, was very, very sloppily awarded, and was dominated by repeat winners.
That’s two points (1) the existence of the Gold Glove creates some little inherent over-awarding for "defensive specialist" players, and (2) that effect was greatly exaggerated by the very poor selection system used in the Gold Glove selections.
(3) The Gold Glove Award started in 1957. A group of young players quickly established "ownership" of the awards, and won them every year—not that those were not very good defensive players, but they were not necessarily better than everybody else every season.
And (4) the fact that they were Gold Glove fielders became an additional credential for those players, and helped to cause them to win OTHER awards.
This is actually the dominant lesson that I have learned from doing this study—that the process of selecting award winners is heavily distorted by the fact that people use previous awards as a credential for future awards. If you look analytically at on-line disputes about the Hall of Fame, you will see this happening constantly. If you take two players whose credentials for Hall of Fame selection would appear to be even, the crocodile’s share of the Hall of Fame support will be directed to the player who has won more previous major awards. The more awards you have won in the past, the more people will say that you should be in the Hall of Fame—regardless of the empirical evidence for that position.
I will try to explain that phenomenon better later on, but it’s significance NOW is that the players who won Gold Gloves repeatedly also got boosted up the line further, so that they also tended to make the All Star team repeatedly, and also tended to over-perform in MVP voting.
The combination of those four factors, in my opinion, acted as steroid shots to Mazeroski’s reputation—Mazeroski, and Brooks Robinson, and Luis Aparicio, and others, but those three more than any others. Those three and Bobby Richardson—Aparicio, born 1934, Richardson, born 1935, Mazeroski, born 1936, and Robinson, born 1937. They were all young when the Gold Gloves started, and they seized control of the Gold Gloves like invaded territory, and built their recognition from that base. This syndrome boosted their reputations to such an extent that, over time, their positives and negatives were not seen in balance. They were untouchables, in a sense; you couldn’t argue, at the time, that they should NOT be perennial All Stars, or that others in the league at the same time may actually have been more valuable.
The instructive opposite to Mazeroski would be Eddie Yost. Yost and Mazeroski have many things in common. They were both infielders, had careers of about the same length. They were both medium-sized white guys with not deeply impressive athleticism, average or a tick below average speed. Both men had very good arms. Both reached the majors and established themselves as regulars at a very young age. They played about the same number of years in the majors (18, 17) and about the same number of games (2109, 2163). Their batting averages are about the same, .255 and .260. About the same number of career triples. One of them hit 139 career home runs, the other 138. Both men would have hit many more home runs playing in some other park. Mazeroski in his career hit 45 home runs in his home park, 93 on the road; Yost was 44 and 95. Mazeroski in his career earned 219 Win Shares and 36.5 WAR. Yost earned 265 Win Shares and 35.0 WAR.
And both men had a "specialty", a thing they did that made them stand out from everybody else. What Mazeroski did better than anybody else, ever, was turn the double play—and he really did. It was something to see. The ball just passed through his hand, and was redirected toward first base in one quick, smooth motion. I think that Joe Gordon (1940s) and Robby Thompson (1980s) were as good as Mazeroski on the pivot, but nobody was ever better. Glenn Hubbard was in that discussion somewhere.
What Eddie Yost did better than anyone else of his era, certainly, maybe better than anyone else ever, was to get on base with the walk. He was "the Walking Man", leading the league in walks six times although (like Mazeroski) he was nothing special with the bat.
But whereas Mazeroski earned 417 Honors Points in his career, Yost earned 15. Whereas Mazeroski made it to 42% in Hall of Fame voting and had his option picked up by the Veterans Committee, Yost was never on a Hall of Fame ballot. And the reason for that disparity is very, very simple. It is that Mazeroski’s special skill—the ability to turn a forceout into a double play—was perceived while he was active as being more valuable than Yost’s special ability. And the observers were just wrong about that; just flat wrong about it. Mazeroski in his career turned about 200 more double plays than an average second baseman would have turned for the same teams, the same pitchers. Yost in his career drew about 800 more walks than an average player, about 1200 more than Mazeroski. One double play turned is more valuable than one walk taken, but there is no way in hell than 200 double plays are more valuable than 1200 walks. Mazeroski’s special ability was nowhere near as valuable as Yost’s—but the perception that it was is what put him in the Hall of Fame.
2. Brooks Robinson. Over-honored 963 to 433.
First of all, I should stress that Brooks Robinson IS a legitimate Hall of Famer. Unlike Bill Mazeroski, Brooks Robinson should have been elected to the Hall of Fame based on his actual accomplishments. He deserves recognition as a Hall of Famer, and let us say for the sake of argument that he deserves recognition as the greatest defensive third baseman of all time.
The Hall of Fame is baseball’s highest honor. So how can a player who DESERVES to be in the Hall of Fame be said to have been overrated or over-honored?
Let’s agree to not say that he was overrated. The issue with Brooksie is not that he did not deserve any honor that he was given; it is, rather, that he was given every award that he conceivably COULD have been given. It’s not normal. Players do not win every honor that they’re at the head of the line for.
Brooks was named the American League MVP in 1964. It’s not a bad selection. Mickey Mantle was probably more valuable, but Mickey had won the MVP three times already, and it is traditional that we don’t give the Award to a player like Mickey every year. There are good reasons for that. Dean Chance was probably just as valuable, but the Angels struggled with the .500 mark and the Orioles came within two games of beating the Yankees, so Robinson would be the natural preferred pick. It is reasonable that Robinson won the Award, but it is not inevitable that he would win the Award, like Yastrzemski in 1967 or Shohei in 2021.
Or the Gold Glove in 1971. In 1971 Robinson had 131 putouts at third base. Graig Nettles had 159. Robinson had 354 assists. Nettles had 412. Robinson made 16 errors, fielding .968. Nettles made 16 errors, fielding .973. Robinson started 35 double plays. Nettles started 54. According to Baseball Reference, Robinson’s dWAR was 2.8. Nettles’ was 3.9. Robinson won the Gold Glove.
Was it reasonable that Robinson won the Award? Well, OK. If you say that it was reasonable, it was reasonable. But it would also have been reasonable for Nettles to have won the Award. Nettles didn’t; Robinson did.
Pete Ward was the same age as Brooks Robinson, but was three years later entering professional baseball—with the Orioles—so he was trapped behind Robinson for years in the minor leagues. In 1963 Ward, breaking through with the White Sox, hit .295 with 22 homers, 84 RBI. Brooks hit .251 with 11 homers, 67 RBI. Brooks had an OPS of .670; Ward, of .835. Ward had 25 Win Shares and 4.1 WAR; Brooks had 19 Win Shares and 1.6 WAR. Brooks made the All-Star team. Ward did not.
If you want to say that it’s reasonable, OK. It’s reasonable. It’s not inevitable. How about this one. In 1966 Robinson hit .269 with a .333 on base percentage, .443 slugging. According to either Win Shares or WAR, he was not one of the 10 best players in the league.
He finished second in the MVP voting. The Orioles won their first pennant. The Robinson duo—Frank and Brooks—was the story line of the year, how those two Robinson guys had led the Orioles to the top of the standings. Sonny Siebert had 4.6 WAR that year; he finished 28th in the MVP voting. Brooks Robinson had 4.6 WAR; he finished second.
Brooks in his career had 78.5 WAR, 356 Win Shares, and 433 Expected Honors. These are great numbers. They are Hall of Fame numbers.
But he won more Awards than Hank Aaron. He won more Awards than Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan, Rickey Henderson, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle. Robinson, 963 Honors Summary Points, Hank Aaron, 934, Ted Williams, 925, Frank Robinson, 723, Joe Morgan, 679, Rickey Henderson, 556, Mike Schmidt, 870, Ken Griffey Jr., 812, Joe DiMaggio, 681, Mickey Mantle, 891. He was honored throughout his career as if he was that level of player, but he actually wasn’t. That’s all I am trying to explain here.
The instructive opposite to Brooks Robinson would be Lou Whitaker. Whitaker was not as great a player as Brooks Robinson, but he was more than 90% as great. Robinson had 356 Win Shares, 78.5 WAR, and 433 Expected Honors Points. Whitaker had 351 Win Shares, 75.1 WAR and 440 Expected Honors Points. But in terms of actual honors, Robinson was at 963. Whitaker was at 136. Whitaker just never clicked with the public. The nickel just never dropped for him.
3. Roy Campanella, 465 to 146.
This is a very different case. Campanella was not over-honored for the same reasons that Mazeroski and Robinson were, and you can make an argument, if you choose, that he was not over-honored at all. I don’t think that you can make a reasonable argument that either Mazeroski or Brooks Robinson was NOT over-honored, but you can argue that this (Campanella) is more a case of the system not quite working than it is of Campanella being over-honored.
Campanella won three MVP Awards in a career in which he had only three seasons with more than 4.0 WAR. That’s very unusual; in fact, I would guess it is unique. Joe DiMaggio won three MVP Awards in a short career, but he had 12 seasons with more than 4.0 WAR. Mike Schmidt had 14, Mickey Mantle 12. Mike Trout has already had 9.
The unusual shape of Campanella’s career stress-tests the Honors Summary system, and you can reasonably argue that the system fails, but let’s look at the 1951, 1953 and 1955 MVP Awards. Campanella never led the NL in WAR or WAR by a position player. He was 7th in the NL in WAR in 1951, 8th in 1953, well outside the top 10 in 1955.
That said, the first two of those MVP Awards appear to be more expected than not, and the 1955 Award is not completely unreasonable.
In that era, catchers were dramatically over-valued in MVP voting.
Well, yes, but that really is just Campanella and Yogi. And it appears to be more about Yogi than it does about Campanella.
The Dodgers of that era were all dramatically over-honored.
Absolutely not true. I didn’t include Jackie in this study, because that raises outside issues. No one else on that great team appears to have been over-honored. Duke Snider wasn’t, Pee Wee Reese wasn’t, Carl Furillo wasn’t, Jim Gilliam wasn’t; even Gil Hodges, although I opposed his Hall of Fame selection, was not seriously over-honored. More of them were under-honored than over-honored.
It appears to be not an issue of catchers being over-honored, or Dodgers being over-honored, but simply of Campanella soaking up honors that might reasonably have gone to Duke Snider or Jackie Robinson. That’s a weak argument. Campanella’s honors are aberrant, unexpected, and flukish—but not exactly wrong.
The instructive opposite to Campanella is Charlie Keller. Keller had more career value than Campanella, 218 to 207 Win Shares and 43.8 to 41.6 WAR—and in 250 fewer career games. But in terms of recognition, Campanella beat Keller, 465 to 64.
4. Luis Aparicio, 549 to 223.
I grew up nourished on the image of Luis Aparicio as a kind of base-stealing and defensive wunderkind, more or less a combination of Ozzie Smith and Lou Brock. When I launched this kind of analysis, it was very difficult for me to stand up and say "You know, Luis Aparicio has been pretty badly overrated."
But he was. He benefited from the Bill Mazeroski syndrome, and also from the over-valuing of stolen bases in that era. Aparicio simply was not a good leadoff man; not only not a great one, but not really a good one. His base stealing did not offset his low on base percentage.
The instructive opposite to Aparicio is Bert Campaneris. Aparicio and Campaneris—contemporary enough that they played against one another for almost ten years--are the two most nearly identical hitters in the history of baseball. There is no other set of hitters whose seasons are so completely indistinguishable. Aparicio in his career hit .262 with a .311 on base percentage, .343 slugging; Campaneris hit .259 with a .311 on base percentage, .342 slugging. . .same number of doubles, triples, homers in a season, runs scored, RBI, everything. Each man would steal 50 to 55 bases a year. Campaneris’ OPS+ is higher, 89 to 82, not because he was a better hitter but because he played in places and times where runs were a little harder to come by. Aparicio was a key member of the 1959 White Sox, who lost the World Series, and the 1966 Orioles, who won it, but Campaneris was a key part of the three World Championship teams in Oakland. In terms of Win Shares and WAR, it is 280 and 53.0 (Campaneris) and 293 and 55.8 (Aparicio.)
The difference between them is that Aparicio was a highly polished defensive shortstop when he came to the majors, whereas Campaneris was still trying to sort out his defensive role. Aparicio’s father was a famous shortstop in Venezuela. The father turned the position over to his son in a theatrical gesture when Luis Jr. was 15 or 16 years old. Aparicio had played high-level international competition for years before he came to the majors at age 22, and he arrived as the most polished, most complete defensive shortstop in the majors, day one. Campaneris had played all over the field in the minor leagues, and had to find himself defensively at the major league level. That took about three years.
After those three years, though, the two men were as equal defensively as they were with the bat. Campaneris was every bit as good a shortstop from age 25 on as Aparicio was—but Aparicio continued to win Gold Gloves, while Campaneris never won one. Aparicio beat Campaneris’ in career honors, 549 to 84.
5. Jim Rice, 444 to 165.
Two factors here—the fact that RBI men are often overrated compared to their complete offensive value, and the fact that hitters in very good hitting parks are often overrated. I think that ten of the 20 men on this over-honored list led the league in RBI at least once, most of those more than once.
Jim Rice in his career hit .320 with a .920 OPS in Fenway, .277 with a .789 OPS on the road. Ernie Banks hit .290 with an .886 OPS in Wrigley Field, .259 and .773 on the road. But the ballpark influence on this list, overall, looks surprisingly small. Perhaps the ballpark influence on how players are casually evaluated is just not as strong as the competing influences.
Instructive opposite case to Rice: Roy White or Jack Clark. This chart compares them:
|
|
Win Shares
|
WAR
|
Expected Honors
|
Actual Honors
|
|
Jim Rice
|
282
|
47.7
|
165
|
444
|
|
Roy White
|
263
|
46.8
|
173
|
23
|
|
Jack Clark
|
316
|
53.1
|
226
|
88
|
While Rice had a career .789 OPS on the road, Clark was at .855. Rice in his career hit 174 home runs on the road; Clark hit 185. But Rice was named to the Hall of Fame within 10 years of his retirement; Clark dropped off the ballot at 1.5%. Rice started five all-star games and was named to five post-season all-star teams; Clark, one and two. Rice won an MVP Award and finished in the top four in the voting five times; Clark finished third once.
I will mention this, however, that while I was with the Red Sox, people always spoke well of Jim Rice, as a person. He had an aura about him, a mystique. People would tell you about the time they played golf with Jim Rice, about the time they rode in a cab with him or the time they saw him taking batting practice when he was in his fifties. I don’t think you would find that to be true of Jack Clark. Clark in San Francisco was nicknamed "Jack the Ripper" for things that he said, and his judgment was always seen to be a little bit off.
6. Tony Oliva, 361 to 131.
There’s no "ballpark bias" for Tony Oliva. In his career he hit .304 at home, .304 on the road, and hit 30 more home runs on the road than he did in Minnesota.
Was he actually overrated? I’ll leave that up to somebody else to say. I was 14 years old in 1964, and he seemed pretty special to me.
7. George Kell, 311 to 104.
The instructive opposite case here is another Tiger, Dick McAuliffe. Kell had 37.6 WAR; McAuliffe, also 37.6. Kell is credited with 229 Career Win Shares in 1,795 games; McAuliffe, 241 Win Shares in 1,763. Kell beat McAuliffe in Awards taken home, 311 to 42.
Most of the reason for that was batting average, of course. Kell was a high-average hitter, and those guys have always been overrated. McAuliffe did everything EXCEPT hit for average. McAuliffe’s batting average was 60 points lower than Kell’s, but he hit twice as many home runs, drew 40% more walks and scored more runs. Kell also was regarded at the time as perhaps the best athlete in baseball, and was an exceptional defensive third baseman. Kell was a sleek, shiny racehorse. McAuliffe was a mule.
8. Bobby Richardson, 196 to 26.
I listed Mazeroski as the most over-honored player in the study because I had a formula and that was what the formula said. If I had just been doing it myself, I would probably have listed Bobby Richardson.
According to Baseball Reference, Bobby Richardson had a career value of 8.1 WAR. Eight. Single digits. Less than Tom Brookens, Duke Sims or Jose Oquendo. A third as many as Woodie Held, who was another of the young infielders that Richardson beat out to secure his job.
In return for those 8.1 WAR, Richardson:
· Won five Gold Gloves
· Played in eight All Star games, or at least was named to the team eight times (actually played in six.)
· Was named to five post-season All-Star teams,
· Finished second in the MVP Voting in 1962,
· Was mentioned in the MVP voting in six different seasons,
· Was named the Most Valuable Player of the 1960 World Series, and
· Stayed on the Hall of Fame ballot for three years.
All this adds up to a total of 196 Award Points.
Now I should say, to begin with, that Baseball Reference’s "WAR" number is kind of absurd. It’s not really reasonable to say that his career value was 8.1 Wins Above Replacement. It should be more like 20 or 25.
But while Baseball Reference’s very low WAR number is slightly absurd, the number of awards and honors given to Richardson is equally absurd. It’s ridiculous. It’s fantastic. He may well be the most over-honored player in baseball history.
Is it because he was a Yankee in those years when the Yankees were demi-Gods; Christ, those people have more World Series rings than I do.
Well, yes, but there were Yankee players from that same era who were under-honored. A lot of it is the Bill Mazeroski Syndrome again. While Bill Mazeroski won four Gold Gloves in the years 1961 to 1965, Richardson won five. The Gold Glove helped solidify his position as an All Star, and helped boost him up in the MVP voting.
There is something else that may be THE largest factor in who winds up overrated and who winds up overlooked; it may be the biggest thing there is, but nobody ever talks about it. Playing time density.
Bobby Richardson had 662 at bats, 706 plate appearances in 1961. He had 754 plate appearances in 1962, 668 in 1963, 728 in 1964 and 713 in 1965. Even in 1963, which was the only year in that series when he didn’t have 700 plate appearances, he still led the league in at bats.
Everybody on this list so far except the catcher has had a high Playing Time Density. Bill Mazeroski led the National League in Games Played in 1966 and 1967. He usually batted 6th-7th-8th, but he still had 660 Plate Appearances in 1966, and 679 in 1967. He had 644 in 1964. Brooks Robinson led the American League in at bats in 1961, 668, and had 736 plate appearances that year. Let’s stick with at bats here. Robinson had 668 at bats, 634, 620, 612, 610, 608, 608. Luis Aparicio had 659 at bats in 1966, leading the American League; he also had 625, 622, 612, 601 and 600. Jim Rice led the American League in at bats and plate appearances in 1977; his at bat totals include 677, 657, 644, 626, 619 and 618. Tony Oliva had 672 at bats as a rookie; despite his constant knee issues he also had 637, 628 and 622 at bats. George Kell led the American League in at bats in 1950, with 641. Ernie Banks led the National League in at bats in 1958. Steve Garvey had at bat totals of 642, 659, 631, 646, 639, 648, 658, 625, 617 and 654. It is a huge separator between the overrated and underrated classes—perhaps the biggest there is. You know why?
Standards. Before the evolution of modern metrics, players were evaluated almost 100% by where they stood with regard to performance standards. The thing about magic numbers is, it’s not just the magic numbers that matter. What matters is the standards that they create. 100 RBI, 100 runs scored are the magic numbers, but what the magic numbers mean is that how impressive any batting number was depended on where it stood with regard to the magic number. 80 RBI wasn’t 14% more impressive than 70 RBI; it was more like 33% more impressive, because it was 33% closer to 100.
The interpretation of batting records through standards caused the "meaning" of each number to increase with at bats not linearly, but geometrically. It caused the lines to curve upward. It caused the lines to curve upward unfairly, unjustly and unrealistically. And that made marginal playing time tremendously important in how players were evaluated by the media.
The RBI men on our list didn’t often lead the league in at bats, because leadoff men and second-place hitters usually do that, but they mostly had very high rates of at bats for RBI men. The catchers had high playing time density for catchers.
Norm Cash drove in far, far more runs per at bat throughout his career than Steve Garvey did, but it never seemed like he did because of playing time density. Cash drove in 100 runs only once; Garvey did it five times. Norm Cash drove in more runs per at bat than Harold Baines, Lee May, George Bell, Ron Santo, Andre Dawson, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Billy Williams, Don Mattingly, Joey Votto, Carl Yastrzemski or Tony Oliva—but they all seemed to be much better RBI men than Cash because they had much higher playing time density. Gene Woodling’s career high in RBI was 82; Steve Garvey beat that number eight times—but Woodling drove in more runs per at bat than Garvey did, and scored far more. Woodling was a tremendous hitter, but wound up underrated, under-honored despite playing for the New York Yankees, because his playing time density was low. The great majority of players who were over-rated and over-honored had high playing time density; the great majority of those who were under-rated and under-honored had low playing time density.
There was a whole field of standards. 40 doubles was a standard, and 30 doubles was a standard, and 10 triples. Richardson, because of his full-to-the-brim playing time, did relatively well on standards like hits, runs, and doubles, whereas if he had been batting 550 times a year like a normal person, rather than 650, his numbers would have been recognizably weak.
But now I have to go in the opposite direction for a moment. The instructive counter-example to Bobby Richardson is the man who succeeded him at second base when he retired, Horace Clarke. Richardson had 120 Win Shares, 8.1 WAR; Clarke, in a shorter career, had 126 and 15.6. In terms of honors, Richardson beat Clarke 196 to zero. And Clarke’s playing time density was just as high as Richardson’s.
As to what happened there. . .well, Richardson’s WAR is just wrong; you have to deal with that first. But the Yankees collapsed in the mid-1960s, and the Yankee-centric media focused their frustration on Horace Clarke. If you look at their career numbers you can see that they were pretty much the same player, but Richardson was celebrated and Clarke, I can say honestly, was widely ridiculed, because Richardson was doing that in that in the middle of a great team, whereas Clarke was doing that for a consistently disappointing team.
9. Ernie Banks, 651 to 332.
When you look at Ernie Banks’ 1958 and 1959 seasons with a child’s eyes, they seem like fantastic performances. A Gold Glove shortstop, he hit 47 and 45 home runs, drove in 129 and 143 runs, and hit over .300 both years, winning the MVP Award both seasons despite playing for teams that were well over .500.
When you pick the seasons apart analytically, they lose a little bit of luster but not a lot, perhaps being downgraded from "obvious MVP" to "legitimate MVP candidate." Yes, Mays and Aaron were perhaps better players, but even if we assume that Mays and Aaron could have been given the MVP Awards, that would only cost Banks 40 to 60 points worth of honors, since he would still have finished second or third in the voting. Banks won the Gold Glove in 1959 with what look at a glance like really good fielding stats. If you dig deeper, the Cubs had the most ground-ball oriented pitching staff in the league, and. . . .odd thing. . .there were only two other regular shortstops in the league, one of whom was the defensively-challenged Dick Groat, who led the league in errors with 29, and the other of whom was the 33-year-old Johnny Logan.
But mark the Gold Glove down a little, that’s only a handful of points. Banks, like Brooks Robinson, and like Ozzie Smith, Johnny Bench, Ivan Rodriguez and Tony Gwynn, lower on this list, was a legitimate Hall of Fame player who received perhaps a few more awards than we would expect him to receive because he established himself as a premier player early in his career, and Awards just flowed to him. When in doubt, vote for Ernie. When in doubt, vote for Brooks, or Ozzie, or Bench or Pudge or Gwynn. We’re not saying THEY were overrated; merely over-honored.
10. Steve Garvey, 356 to 153.
Garvey has been well-known to our community as an overrated player since the 1970s, so I don’t know that I need to say a lot here. He had more or less all of the things that make a player overrated—a high batting average, a low on-base percentage, very high density playing time, and he played on championship teams. In Los Angeles. And he actively worked at charming the press. Steve Garvey had 279 Win Shares, which is a near-Hall of Fame number, on its own, although he hasn’t made the Hall of Fame. Garvey had 279 Win Shares, 38.0 WAR, but 356 Honors Summary Points. John Olerud had 302 Win Shares, 58.2 WAR, but 86 Honors Summary Points.
11.Ozzie Smith, 664 to 367.
Ozzie was like Aparicio, but he was a better player than Aparicio mostly because his on base percentage was 26 points higher.
Ozzie played 21,785 innings at shortstop, but never played an inning at any other position. Aparicio played 22,409 innings at shortstop, but never played an inning at any other position. The last time I checked, Ozzie and Aparicio were the only two players like that—the only two players who had long careers at shortstop, but never played an inning at any other position. Mazeroski played 18,337 innings at second base, never played any other position until his last couple of years, when he played a few innings (63) at third base.
I’m verging now into talking about underrating factors, rather than overrating factors, but the first principle of camouflage is that you break up the silhouette to prevent it from being recognized. You break up the color patterns, disrupt the outline. If an animal recognizes you by scent the camouflage won’t matter, but if an animal recognizes prey by sight, they won’t see you if you break up your silhouette and keep still.
The same thing with players. If a player breaks up his silhouette by playing different positions, by playing for different teams, by playing in both leagues, by having his best years here and there, rather than all together, he won’t be "seen" and recognized for his value. I haven’t done it, but you could measure the extent to which a player has a "coherent" image, as opposed to a "diffused" image. Most of the players on this list have coherent images, meaning that they are clearly identified with one position and one team, rather than playing here and there and everywhere. I am quite certain that if you created a "camouflage index" for all players and combined it was this study, you would find that players who have a high camouflage index would have low ratios of honors to expected honors.
12. Johnny Bench, 857 to 489.
Bench’s career is more like Campanella’s than anyone else—an MVP in 1970, 1972 and a near-MVP in 1974, but with weak and injury-plagued seasons acting as mortar between the bricks. But Bench had 12 seasons of more than 4.0 WAR, so the effect is not nearly the same level as for Campanella.
13.Ivan Rodriguez, 786 to 438.
Rodriguez won his first Gold Glove at age 20, and was named to his first All-Star team at age 20. The instructive opposite player is Gary Carter, who had essentially the same Win Shares and WAR as Rodriguez, but (as documented in yesterday’s article) was honored merely at the expected and appropriate level, because he did not take the league by storm when he first came up. Rodriguez had 338 Win Shares and 68.7 WAR; Carter had 337 Win Shares and 70.2.
14. Roger Maris, 274 to 113.
Came to be an over-rated player, of course, by hitting 61 home runs in 1961. Maris 1960 and 1961 seasons are very good seasons, of course, but Maris had 67 Win Shares and 14.4 WAR over those two seasons. Eddie Mathews had 71 Win Shares and 14.6 WAR over the same two seasons, didn’t win an MVP Award either time and in fact never won an MVP Award, although he had MANY seasons better than his 1960 and 1961 seasons. Bobby Murcer’s 1971-1972 seasons are better than Maris’ 1960-1961 seasons, but they are rarely remembered because (a) he didn’t lead the league in homers or RBI, and (b) the Yankees were not a great team in Murcer’s era.
In discussions about who should be added to the Hall of Fame, Roger Maris is a popular candidate. Why? Because he has been previously over-honored, and people treat previous honors as if they were accomplishments. I am trying to break people of the habit of treating previous awards as if they were accomplishments. Of course that is beyond what I can accomplish this week, but I can start the ball rolling, maybe.
I have been aware of this problem since Rollie Fingers was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1992, but until doing this study I had no concept of how pervasive that problem is, how much it distorts award voting and in particular Hall of Fame voting. Voters at that time (1992) were just starting to go public, explain in public who they had voted for and why. Several voters listed as reasons for voting for Fingers that he had won the Cy Young Award in 1981.
When people argue that Dale Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame, they will usually begin by pointing out that he won two MVP Awards. He did, yes, but that is not an accomplishment, exactly. That is an honor given to him for his accomplishments. If we think of the accomplishment as "work" and the honor as a paycheck for the work, then the 1982 and 1983 seasons have been paid off. The seasons are not THAT impressive; a lot of comparable players have had better seasons than that without winning an MVP Award.
The fact that a player has been previously honored in excess of his real accomplishments is not a logical reason why he should be given additional honors. Roger Maris has been dramatically over-honored for his previous accomplishments.
Roger Maris and Bob Allison have very similar career stats, and are the most-similar players to one another on Baseball Reference:
|
|
G
|
AB
|
R
|
H
|
2B
|
3B
|
HR
|
RBI
|
BB
|
SB
|
Avg
|
OBA
|
Slug
|
OPS
|
|
Maris
|
1463
|
5101
|
826
|
1325
|
195
|
42
|
275
|
850
|
652
|
21
|
.260
|
.345
|
.476
|
.822
|
|
Allison
|
1541
|
5032
|
811
|
1281
|
216
|
53
|
256
|
796
|
785
|
84
|
.255
|
.358
|
.471
|
.829
|
They were both born in 1934, and lived in the same neighborhood in Kansas City during the off-seasons for at least a few years. Although the comp system used here is quite different, Allison and Maris remain the most-comparable players to one another. Maris beat Allison in Honors, 274 to 51.
15.Nellie Fox, 447 to 225.
I always liked Nellie Fox. He had a very high playing time density. He led the American League in At Bats in 1952 (648), 1955 (636), 1956 (649), 1959 (624) and 1960 (605). He batted 600 times in a season seven other times. He would have one of the highest playing time densities of all time. In his career he played 20,000+ plus innings at second base, only parts of eight games (53 innings) at any other position, so his image was not broken up by shifting around. He was a regular with one team for 14 straight years. This enabled him to lead the league in hits four times, to score 100 runs four times, although he was not really a great offensive player.
16.Orlando Cepeda, 414 to 206.
In a traditional similarity system he is highly comparable to Jim Rice, Cepeda hitting .297 with 379 home runs, 1365 RBI, and Rice hitting .298 with 382 and 1451. Cepeda in his best year hit .311 with 46 homers, 142 RBI; Rice hit .315 with 46 and 139.
In THIS similarity system, used to identify comps by quality, the player most similar to Cepeda was Norm Cash, who I have already talked about. Cash and Cepeda played the same position in the same years, 1958 to 1974. Cash hit 377 home runs. Norm Cash was ahead of Cepeda (or Rice) in terms of OPS (.862 for Cash, .849 for Cepeda) or OPS+ (139 to 133).
Cepeda and Rice did much, much better in terms of meeting standards. This chart compares the number of times that each player had 600 at bats in a season, 550, 500, and also the number of times that each one hit 40-30-20 homers, and drove in or scored 100-90-80 runs:
|
|
RICE
|
CEPEDA
|
CASH
|
|
600 AB
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
|
550 AB
|
9
|
8
|
1
|
|
500 AB
|
11
|
10
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 HR
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
30 HR
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
|
20 HR
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 RUNS
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
|
90 RUNS
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
|
80 RUNS
|
10
|
8
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 RBI
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
|
90 RBI
|
9
|
8
|
3
|
|
80 RBI
|
11
|
10
|
6
|
Cepeda batted 500 times in a season 10 times; Cash, only 3 times. Cepeda batted 600 times 4 times; Cash, only once. Despite that, Cash was able to match Cepeda home run for home run. But Cepeda (and Rice) had many more seasons of 100 RBI, 100 runs scored, or 90 or 80. And that, I would argue, is the ONLY reason that Cepeda and Rice are in the Hall of Fame, and Cash is not.
Cepeda in his career had 310 Win Shares and 50.1 WAR. Cash had 315 Win Shares and 52.0 WAR.
Cepeda was given awards amounting to 414 points. Cash had awards amounting to 96 points.
17.Monte Irvin, 195 to 51.
A Negro League star. In my opinion, Irvin is a legitimate Hall of Famer.
18.Tony Gwynn, 693 to 491.
Another legitimate Hall of Famer who got to be just habitually honored.
19.Willie Stargell, 574 to 335.
As a kind of counterpoint to the Cash/Cepeda point, Stargell also had great difficulty remaining in the lineup. He had injuries that nagged him most of his career. I’ll add him to that Cash/Cepeda/Rice chart:
|
|
RICE
|
CEPEDA
|
CASH
|
STARGELL
|
|
600 AB
|
6
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
|
550 AB
|
9
|
8
|
1
|
0
|
|
500 AB
|
11
|
10
|
3
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 HR
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
30 HR
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
20 HR
|
11
|
11
|
11
|
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 RUNS
|
3
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
|
90 RUNS
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
3
|
|
80 RUNS
|
10
|
8
|
4
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 RBI
|
8
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
|
90 RBI
|
9
|
8
|
3
|
9
|
|
80 RBI
|
11
|
10
|
6
|
11
|
Stargell, like Norm Cash, had great trouble staying in the lineup, but he was SUCH a great hitter that he overpowered that problem, producing as many runs in 525 at bats as the other Hall of Famers would in 600.
Stargell was probably under-honored and under-rated for most of his career. He had what we might think of as MVP seasons in 1971 and 1973, but did not win the MVP Award either time. In 1971 he hit .293 with 48 homers, 125 RBI (in 511 at bats) for a World Championship team, but he finished second in the MVP voting behind Joe Torre. I’m not suggesting that that was wrong, but you CAN win an MVP Award with a season like that. Lots of people have. In 1973 he .299 with 44 homers AND 43 doubles, but again finished second in the MVP voting. In the season between those two, he was third in the MVP vote.
After 1973 he was plagued by injuries for several years, and he very well might have retired at that time, and I would predict that had that happened, he would have missed the Hall of Fame as well. But then a kind of flukish thing happened. Stargell was the undisputed clubhouse leader of a second World Championship Pirates team, the 1979 team, and also, a couple of big home runs in September of that year were mythologized, written about as if they represented the entire season. Stargell, then 38 years old, suddenly emerged as a beloved popular icon, and, with no obvious MVP around the league, wound up in a tie for first place in one of the oddest Hall of Fame votes of all time. His career Honors count surged forward at the end of the line.
20.Don Mattingly, 298 to 139.
Mattingly was a great player for four years, but had his prime chopped in half by injuries.
I charted the position breakdown of the most-over honored list, as a check on the system. If the positions don’t balance, that could indicate on the one hand that players at some positions are honored disproportionate to others, or it could tell us that our balancing system is broken somehow. But the top 20 most over-honored include:
3 catchers
3 first basemen
3 second basemen
2 third basemen
3 shortstops
3 left fielders
No center fielders, and
3 right fielders
VII. The Seriously Over-Honored
Or At Least Our Formulas Think They Were
1. Rod Carew (770 to 472)
2. Elston Howard (250 to 110)
It is not JUST the 1963 MVP Award. Howard was named to 12 All-Star teams. Casey would name him to the All-Star team every year when he wasn’t even a regular with the Yankees.
3. Del Crandall (226 to 95)
4. Yogi (681 to 425)
5. Dale Murphy (310 to 155)
6. Phil Rizzuto (294 to 149)
7. Vladimir Guerrero (420 to 251)
8. Ralph Kiner (285 to 144)
9. Joe Medwick (381 to 222)
10. Dave Winfield (631 to 411)
11.Ken Griffey Jr. (812 to 550)
12.Mike Piazza (528 to 332)
13.Joe Rudi (148 to 57)
Again, we learn from this study that the players most commonly sited as underrated are more probably over-honored than under-honored. The ten most-comparable players to Rudi were Ben Oglivie, Wally Moon, George Bell, Rico Carty, Lonnie Smith, Mike Hargrove, Jim Northrup, Tito Francona, Norm Siebern and Jeff Burroughs. None of them won as many honors as the famously underrated Joe Rudi. Bell and Burroughs won MVP Awards, but even they did not match the overall recognition of Rudi, who won three Gold Gloves, was named to three All-Star teams, made three post-season All-Star teams, and finished 2nd and 4th in MVP voting.
Jim Northrup—essentially the same player as Rudi—had a career honors score of zero.
14.Roberto Alomar (574 to 373)
15.Harvey Kuenn (205 to 98)
16.Bill Freehan (294 to 165)
17.Joe DiMaggio (631 to 434)
When I was young, there was a raging debate about the relative greatness of Joe DiMaggio. ..was he better than Willie Mays, was he better than Mickey Mantle, etc. At that time the last members of the generation of sportswriters who covered DiMaggio were still active, and many of them had lionized him probably to a greater extent than any other player, ever. They literally saw him as a perfect player, and would write absurd things like "he was never thrown out going first-to-third in his career." The generation of fans that grew up watching him was still very much around, about 15 years older than me, and they would take offense if you said that his teeth were not perfect. All of those sportswriters and 80% of those fans are gone now, so the dust has mostly settled. DiMaggio was a very great player, and he does belong in the conversation about the greatest center fielders of all time.
18.Thurman Munson (264 to 147)
19.George Bell (128 to 51)
20.Zoilo Versalles (110 to 42)
21.Sandy Alomar Jr. (104 to 37)
Sandy Alomar Jr. was Rookie of the Year, and was named to six All Star teams. Players who play well when they first come to the majors tend to overperform in awards for all of their careers. Alomar had 18.2 WAR and 104 Win Shares. Jason Varitek, six years younger than Alomar, had 24.2 WAR and 130 Win Shares, but less than half of the honors.
22.Bill White (193 to 97)
23.Joe Torre (343 to 214)
See comments below on Schoendienst.
24.Fred Lynn (274 to 161)
25.Red Schoendienst (299 to 178)
Schoendienst and Torre are special cases, in that they have managerial credentials mixed in with Hall of Fame or near-Hall of Fame playing credentials. The numbers above are a little misleading because the "Honors" were given in part in recognition of the managerial record, whereas the "accomplishments" score is based only on his record as a player.
VIII. The Significantly Over-Honored
1. Dave Parker (323 to 198)
2. Andre Dawson (440 to 291)
3. Harmon Killebrew (505 to 346)
4. Maury Wills (248 to 143)
5. Omar Vizquel (264 to 159)
6. Roberto Clemente (768 to 579)
7. Lou Brock (414 to 278)
8. Joe Gordon (293 to 184)
9. Dave Concepcion (245 to 148)
10.Terry Pendleton (138 to 71)
11.Derek Jeter (677 to 510)
12.Frank Thomas (589 to 438)
13.Ernie Lombardi (269 to 169)
14.Larry Walker (416 to 288)
15.Scott Rolen (395 to 272)
16.Joe Pepitone (68 to 25)
17.Cal Ripken (797 to 631)
18.Al Rosen (125 to 72)
19.Harold Reynolds (61 to 27)
20.Mike Schmidt (870 to 713)
21.Ken Boyer (310 to 215)
22.Frank White (174 to 108)
23.Fred McGriff (341 to 253)
24.Keith Hernandez (321 to 237)
25.Reggie Jackson (655 to 531)
26.Larry Bowa (125 to 77)
27.Pedro Guerrero (175 to 117)
28.Dick Groat (192 to 130)
29.Al Kaline (781 to 652)
30.Tommy Davis (102 to 61)
IX. Perhaps Slightly Over-Honored, Just a Tiny Bit
1. Ichiro Suzuki (334 to 261)
2. Tony Kubek (66 and 35)
3. Darryl Strawberry (190 and 137)
4. Ferris Fain (91 and 57)
5. Enos Slaughter (341 and 269)
6. Ted Kluszewski (113 and 78)
7. Moose Skowron (101 and 68)
8. Mickey Mantle (891 and 790)
9. Bobby Doerr (258 and 202)
10.Tony Pena (100 and 68)
11.Eddie Murray (542 and 459)
12.Wally Moon (85 and 57)
13.Stan Musial (1010 and 913)
14.Ron Santo (346 and 283)
15.Willie McCovey (497 and 425)
16.Earl Averill (242 and 191)
17.Andruw Jones (268 and 215)
18.Curt Flood (162 and 125)
19.Willie McGee (137 and 104)
20.Gil Hodges (188 and 146)
21.Ted Williams (925 and 836)
22.Hank Sauer (87 and 61)
23.Jim Thome (477 and 413)
24.Mike Sweeney (75 and 52)
25.Harold Baines (239 and 197)
26.Jermaine Dye (70 and 49)
27.Johnny Mize (389 and 336)
28.Jackie Jensen (95 and 72)
29.Alfredo Griffin (43 and 29)
30.Fernando Vina (38 and 25)
31.Bobby Bonds (219 and 188)
32.Mark Belanger (128 and 105)
33.Ron Hansen (60 and 44)
34.Jeff Burroughs (80 and 62)
35.George Brett (662 and 622)
36.Bob Skinner (45 and 33)
37.Cecil Cooper (135 and 116)
38.Edgar Martinez (309 and 284)
39.Boog Powell (181 and 160)
40.David Eckstein (48 and 37)
X. Players Whose Honors Received
Were Commensurate With Their Accomplishments
1. George Scott (122 and 106)
2. Joe Cronin (337 and 315)
3. Cesar Cedeno (132 and 117)
4. Larry Hisle (50 and 42)
5. Wade Boggs (609 and 591)
6. Roy Sievers (89 and 80)
7. Larry Doby (223 and 210)
8. Gary Carter (473 and 445)
9. Rocky Colavito (168 and 158)
10.1950s Frank Thomas (53 and 48)
11.Norm Siebern (55 and 53)
12.Alan Trammell (330 and 325)
13.Carl Yastrzemski (689 and 685)
14.Lance Parrish (146 and 144)
15.Jeff Blauser (37 and 37)
16.Luis Castillo (69 and 69)
17.Dick Stuart (24 and 24)
18.Ken Keltner (91 and 92)
19.Granny Hamner (43 and 47)
20.Sammy Sosa (252 and 257)
21.Duke Snider (330 and 340)
22.Bobby Murcer (117 and 124)
23.Gil McDougald (90 and 97)
24.Jason Varitek (46 and 52)
25.Mickey Vernon (160 and 171)
26.Hack Wilson (127 and 138)
27.Mark McGwire (278 and 294)
28.Johnny Pesky (72 and 83)
29.Amos Otis (132 and 145)
30.Gorman Thomas (29 and 36)
31.Frank Robinson (723 and 743)
32.Jim Davenport (26 and 34)
33.Eddie Kasko (16 and 23)
34.Devon White (108 and 123)
35.Frank Howard (124 and 141)
36.Magglio Ordonez (94 and 110)
37.Gus Zernial (15 and 25)
38.Hal McRae (82 and 98)
39.Stan Lopata (16 and 26)
40.Tim Wallach (100 and 119)
41.Freddie Patek (36 and 51)
42.Lenny Dykstra (77 and 96)
43.Willie Mays (1131 and 1155)
44.Tommy Herr (32 and 47)
45.Dick Dietz (8 and 21)
46.Eric Davis (77 and 100)
47.Vic Wertz (56 and 77)
48.Alvin Davis (28 and 46)
49.Hank Bauer (48 and 70)
50.Billy Williams (339 and 380)
51.Doc Cramer (57 and 81)
52.Joe Morgan (679 and 726)
53.Pee Wee Reese (281 and 318)
54.Matty Alou (31 and 51)
55.Jerry Lynch (0 and 13)
56.Jim Edmonds (188 and 222)
57.Manny Sanguillen (56 and 80)
58.Tino Martinez (60 and 87)
59.Dick Allen (219 and 262)
60.Pete Runnels (73 and 105)
61.Wally Westlake (8 and 28)
62.Chuck Hinton (8 and 28)
63.Chipper Jones (503 and 564)
64.Joe Cunningham (16 and 40)
65.Ted Simmons (267 and 318)
66.Willie Aikens (0 and 17)
67.Robin Yount (488 and 556)
68.Ben Oglivie (38 and 71)
69.Placido Polanco (65 and 105)
70.Wes Covington (0 and 20)
71.Del Ennis (53 and 92)
72.Phil Nevin (8 and 32)
73.Al Oliver (125 and 177)
74.Paul Molitor (474 and 552)
75.Andy Carey (0 and 23)
76.Dolph Camilli (76 and 124)
77.Lonnie Smith (52 and 94)
78.Tito Francona (18 and 47)
79.Aurelio Rodriguez (10 and 37)
80.Pete Ward (7 and 33)
Thank you all for reading. This series will resume on Thursday with the horribly underrated.