Most overrated baseball superstar ever?

[Touch'EmAll]

Yeah, I am little bored ... waiting for the "Last Dance". Here is my ramble, right or not that's ok. Effective vs. Efficient. Ryan ranks #20 on career WAR for pitchers - just behind Steve Carlton at #19, and ahead of such notables as Bob Gibson, Carl Hubbell, Kershaw, Bob Feller and Verlander. Pretty decent if you consider WAR to be effectiveness. Now efficiency, I will admit Ryan not very efficient - he pitched sooo many pitches to get the average out and win. Strikeout pitchers do tend to be less efficient than easier throwing grounder/fly ball/control pitchers - takes more pitches to get the out - more pitches thrown has higher chance of walks, more walks tends to give up more runs.

Back to original topic, most overrated. A lot of modern-ish players listed, but going way back I might say Joe Jackson was overrated. Looking at his stats compared to contemporaries Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby & Heilman a bit later, Jackson overall not quite as good as you might expect.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Harold Baines anyone? I guess he's actually fairly rated by most except HOF voters. I definitely agree with Rose, Ryan, and Jeter.

Rose bated just over .300 for his career and while his average definitely fell off over the end of his career... he stuck around in order to be the hit king and people treat him as though it wasn't as such. Should be a HOFer based on his play but would be a middle of the road HOFer IMO and doesn't belong anywhere near the greats of the game even though most fans put him in that camp.

Ryan, like Rose, just played a long time. Also, like Rose, is a middle of the road HOFer but gets unjustifiably ranked among the best of the best by many fans.

Derek Jeter, in my mind, was seldom the best player on his team and should still be fighting to get in the HOF (albeit would eventually make it). I think his image and the fact he had a long career in the biggest market in the world is why he's ranked where he is.

Harper, also is overrated but not nearly as much as Kris Bryant. Bryant is today's Kevin Mass and thankfully people are starting to realize it. Still he is massively overrated IMO.

On the flip side it would be nice to look at the most underrated players. I would throw Dale Murphy, Lefty O'Doul, Gwynn, and Molitor in that camp to start. IMO, Murphy and O'Doul should be in the hall (even though O'Doul had a very short career). Sisler and Heilmann are also very underrated as well for batting over .400 but most casual fans have no clue who they even are (I don't care what era they played in).

[clydepepper]

The OP labeled his thread most overrated baseball superstar ever, not most overrated HOFer ever.

Harold Baines was a steady quality player, but I would never have called him a superstar.


My three all-time favorite players have been mentioned in this thread, but I do not think any of them are overrated. I would gladly pay to see any of them play at any time of their careers.
.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Harold Baines anyone? I guess he's actually fairly rated by most except HOF voters.

Actually, he was fairly rated by Hall of Fame voters, meaning the BBWAA, who never voted him anywhere close to election in 15 years. Another veteran's committee fail.

Ryan, like Rose, just played a long time.

I'm not sure these fall in the same category. Ryan as a 2 WAR season in his second to last season, and a 5.2 WAR season the year before that. Looking at Rose, you have to go back 8 seasons to get to his last 2 WAR season.

While Ryan's season wasn't going well (4.88 ERA through 13 starts), it's worth noting that he retired not because of ineffectiveness, but because of an injury.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

On the flip side it would be nice to look at the most underrated players.

McCovey.

Still managed 521 homers and a .889 OPS despite missing plenty of games over his final 10 seasons and hitting behind Mays. What career numbers would those two have had if they'd been reversed in the lineup all those years? Many managers back then were pretty vocal about how unusually much they pitched around McCovey

As a hitter, anyway. Never saw him play, but according to the defensive WAR stats, he needed a cartoon-sized novelty glove to play first base.

[999Tony]

I’ll go with bruce sutter for most overrated. For most underrated, Any of the top negro league players other than Paige maybe. Especially the pre-1940s guys.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Bill- the term "overrated" combines things players can and cannot control. It doesn't matter if I "like" Bryce Harper or not, the fact is his former team won the Series the very year after he left- if that's not a "hello" fact, I don't know what is... Although I admit I don't follow him closely, I'd bet old Bryce is a "master of the meaningless homerun" as well ( a la Adam Dunn, who was good for hitting dingers when his team was up by 8 or down by 8). The combo of press+talent+ his ego should translate to Harper setting the world on fire- and a 265 average isn't doing it. He is the very definition of overrated- he's paid way too much and produces too little, while his teams wallow.

Gardner is the little engine that could. He's a good player. He's steady, never spectacular. He's been an All Star once, and has won one Gold Glove. He also plays a good number of his games at center field, so he's getting a WAR adjustment Harper doesn't. He also played 79 more games over that period, a half season's worth. 334 more plate appearances.

Harper is erratic. That's his biggest problem. He has a great season, then a below average one. Another season that would have put him in contention for the MVP had he not gotten hurt, then a down season.

Harper has a real strong arm, but he's not a good defensive outfielder. Gardner is. He makes up a good deal of WAR from his defense. Offensively, though, there's no comparison. Gardner is 4% above league average as an offensive player 2013-2019. Harper is 39% above league average with a 139 OPS+. 35% better than Gardner. If he keeps that up, stays healthy, and has a few more big seasons, which I think he will, that's Hall of Fame caliber. Look at some of the players with a career OPS+ of around 140:

143-Eddie Mathews, Harmon Killebrew
142-Cap Anson, Mike Piazza
141-Eddie Collins, Chipper Jones, Larry Walker
140-Vlad Guerrero, Duke Snider
139-Reggie Jackson

Harper is at 137 now, 139 since his rookie season. Stathead has an interesting "did you know" on Harper's page: his 1.149 OPS with RISP was the highest by a Phillies player since Mike Schmidt in 1981.

And after a slow start, Harper had a really strong second half in 2019. His numbers after the All Star Break (July 9):

.270 AVG, 67 games, 45 runs, 19 HR, 52 RBI, 40 BB, .376 OBP/.564 SLG/.941 OPS. 147 OPS+

He was OPS'ing 1.841 in 22 spring training PAs, with 3 HR and 11 RBI before baseball was called for the virus. Obviously that's not against constant MLB caliber pitching. But he was crushing the ball. 20 bases (3 doubles, 3 homers) in 18 AB. That Phillies team has some real offensive potential.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Bill- the term "overrated" combines things players can and cannot control. It doesn't matter if I "like" Bryce Harper or not, the fact is his former team won the Series the very year after he left- if that's not a "hello" fact, I don't know what is... Although I admit I don't follow him closely, I'd bet old Bryce is a "master of the meaningless homerun" as well ( a la Adam Dunn, who was good for hitting dingers when his team was up by 8 or down by 8). The combo of press+talent+ his ego should translate to Harper setting the world on fire- and a 265 average isn't doing it. He is the very definition of overrated- he's paid way too much and produces too little, while his teams wallow.

The fact that his team won the World Series the year after he left is interesting. I certainly wouldn't call that a "hello" fact. There's nothing "factual" about it, besides that it happened. I would put their World Series win more on the fact that their two starting pitching studs were absolutely dominant in the post season, than anything to do with Harper's departure.

Strasburg was 5-0 in 6 games (5 starts), with a 1.98 ERA and 47 Ks in 36 1/3 IP.
Scherzer was 3-0 in 6 games (5 starts), with a 2.40 ERA and 37 Ks in 30 IP.

When your top two starters are a combined 8-0 in the playoffs, you'll be almost impossible to beat.

Oh, and besides those two dominant starting pitchers, the Nationals offense hit 231 home runs, ranked first in the National League in AVG, OBP, third in SLG, and second in OPS. So, they hit a little.

As far as Harper goes.

First...batting average? Did I slip through a wormhole back to the year 1985? The guy gets on base. He walks like crazy, and has ridiculous power potential. Give me a guy that has a .400 OBP and hits the ball out of the park. But just a FYI, he's not a .265 hitter. He's a lifetime .276 hitter, and a .278 hitter the last five years.

And, next time you're going to make an assumption...don't. Actually look it up, because it's not hard to do.

Last year, with runners in scoring position (RISP), Harper hit .357 with 10 HR and 75 RBI...in only 126 at bats. As I stated in my last post, Harper's 1.149 OPS (.459 OBP/.690 SLG) with RISP is the highest by a Phillies player since Mike Schmidt in 1981.

With any men on base, he hit .331 with 20 HR, 99 RBI in 254 AB. He slashed .422 OBP/.665 SLG/1.087 OPS.

So, 20 of his 35 home runs came with men on base. Those are all elite numbers.

He produces too little? What part of a 1.149 OPS with men in scoring position leads you to believe that? Harper was 8th in the NL with 114 RBI-a career high, a year after he recorded 100 RBI for the first time.

Oh, and by the way, the last five years? Harper's 144 OPS+ is the fifth best in baseball (minimum 2,000 AB)

1. Mike Trout 183
2. J.D. Martinez 152
3. Nelson Cruz 151
4. Joey Votto 146
5. Bryce Harper 144 (tied with Freddie Freeman)

If I eliminate the extremes of his MVP 2015 season, and his down 2016, his 136 OPS+ is still tenth in baseball.

He's an elite hitter, any way you care to cut it. The guy walks like crazy.

The last five seasons, most walks in baseball:

1. Joey Votto 569
2. Mike Trout 534
3. Bryce Harper 529

The last five seasons, highest SLG In baseball (min. 2,000 AB):

1. Mike Trout .605
2. J.D. Martinez .585
3. Nolan Arenado .575
9. Bryce Harper .535

And three of the guys ahead of him, Freddie Freeman and Trevor Story (.537) and Charlie Blackmon (.536) are within 2 points. Oh, and Blackmon and Story both play at Coors Field. As does Nolan Arenado. When you consider their SLG splits, Harper's a top 5-6 slugger in baseball the last five seasons.

Bryce Harper is a top 5 offensive player in baseball the last half decade. The last three seasons, he's easily top ten. Is he paid too much? Aren't they all?

So, no, he doesn't produce too little. That's a patently false statement. And "his teams wallow"? You know there are 40 players on a playoff roster, right? Unlike other sports, a hitter only comes to the plate again after 8 others have taken their cuts. Harper can't take 50 shots a game like Kobe Bryant or James Harden. He can't throw the ball 50 times like Drew Brees, or take slap shots from all over the ice like Alex Ovechkin. That's part of the beauty of baseball. I'm not sure how much you think one position player can impact a team's overall win loss.

Let's look at his recent teams.

2019 Phillies 81-81. The pitching staff was 11th of 15 in NL ERA. Not sure what Harper could have done there.
2018 Nats 82-80. They clearly underachieved. Not all on Harper. Pythagorean W-L was 92-70. 771 runs scored, 682 runs allowed.
2017 Nats 97-65 Lost the NLDS 3-2 to the Cubs
2016 Nats 95-67 Lost the NLDS 3-2 to the Dodgers

I would hardly call his teams "wallowers". Last year's Phillies team was pretty much rebuilt. Reamulto, Harper, Segura and McCutchen were all brought in. Some teams need time to adjust. The '18 Nats underperformed. The 2016 and 2017 were among the best teams in baseball.

Again, factually inaccurate.

Any other generalizations and assumptions you want disproven?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

OPS+ is a worthless stat to compare different players from different eras. No one is taking .298/.421/.557/.977 over .325/.398/.579/.977. It also doesn't adjust for park even though it claims to. Proof that Mantle is overrated. He might be top 20-25, but no where close to 7th.

He might be top 20-25?



You're so obtuse, it's comical.

I ran a report for all position players in the modern era (from 1919 forward), sorted by WAR. Minimum 2,000 games played. 201 players in total. Mickey Mantle is 11th all-time in WAR for modern era position players.

But hold on. I exported the workbook that Baseball Reference's index tool created, and imported it into Microsoft Excel. I then eliminated all data but WAR, and games played. I then created a simple formula to compute the rate (# of games played per WAR) for all those players.

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

Mickey Mantle has the 6th-best rate of WAR of the 201 players with over 2,000 games played in the modern era. He's behind only Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR


Mantle played in 2,401 games, and generated 110.2 WAR. 2,401 games is 14.82098765432099 162 game seasons. Per 162 games played, he averaged 7.44 WAR. An MVP season is 8 WAR. His average season was MVP caliber.

And his peak? His peak is ridiculous. From 1952, when he was 20 years old, through the 1962 season, when he turned 30, he played 1,579 games and amassed 89.2 bWAR. 1,579 games played is 9.746913580246914 162 game seasons. That means during his 11 year peak, he averaged 9.75 WAR per 162 games played.

So please, for the love of God--stop embarrassing yourself, man.

Mickey Mantle is inarguably one of the ten best offensive players of the modern era, and one of the truly elite players in baseball history. End of discussion.

[the 'stache]

Oh, and by the way, let's look just at the players in the game, in their primes, at the same time Mantle was. A 11 year period from 1954 to 1964.

During this period:
Mickey Mantle was between age 22-32
Willie Mays 23-33
Frank Robinson 20-28
Hank Aaron 20-30
Duke Snider 27-37
Stan Musial 33-42
Eddie Mathews 22-32
Orlando Cepeda 20-26
Rocky Colaviro 21-30
Al Kaline 19-29
Ernie Banks 23-33
Joe Adcock 26-36
Roger Maris 22-29
Jackie Jensen 27-34
Roy Sievers 27-37
Gil Hodges 30-39

Here's a link to the spreadsheet. While their ages don't perfectly line up, it's pretty close for some of the greatest hitters in the history of the game. Besides Mantle, Mays is in his prime. Aaron is in his prime. This includes several of Frank Robinson's prime years. All of Eddie Mathew's prime. Al Kaline's Prime. Ernie Banks' prime. A good chunk of Orlando Cepeda's prime. Even Stan Musial, playing into his early 40s, is still a force to be reckoned with for this decade, though his later years will have dropped his averages.

You get the point.

Look at Mantle, against some of the best the game has ever produced, at the same times of their careers. He tops them all. Nobody in the Majors combined Mantle's power and on base ability. And you'll notice, Mantle was a .312 hitter. His career average only dropped when his knees gave out, and he couldn't run anymore. In his prime, he was literally unstoppable.



Just stop with this 20-25 BS.

[earlywynnfan]

I think the 'stache just did a mike-drop, if that's still a thing!

[ClementeFanOh]

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

FWIW, I was talking about his Mantle argument.

[ClementeFanOh]

Hi Early- ah, I see. No questions Mantle was awesome. Harper? Not so much.

[Wrightfan85]

If anything, Mantle might be underrated. If he doesn't hurt himself in ST his rookie year...he may have been the best ever,

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

First of all, please stop with the condescending attitude. I don't need to switch anything. And I didn't need you to explain what overrated means. I'm not a child whose hand you need to hold.

Secondly, I didn't "carry on about him like he was part of the second coming". I took the time to provide factual evidence to disprove your absurd conclusion, where you relied on conjecture, and nothing more. Had you left at it "I feel he is overrated", fine. That is mere opinion, and one I have no issue with. But then you started tossing out reasons for your thinking so, reasons that had absolutely no basis in reality, whatsoever. And when you do so, you leave yourself open to rebuke.

First, trying to prove that his leaving the Nationals had anything at all to do with them winning the World Series, is plain silly. It is coincidence. You think the Nationals would have traded him if they could have afforded him? It's not the first time a team lets a star get away because of money, and it won't be the last.

Second, the rest of your post was complete fiction. You admitted that you didn't follow him that much, but assumed that he hit empty home runs (demonstrably false), and his teams "wallowed"; again, easily demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Furthermore, where did I say I would pay money just to watch him play? Another assumption. I don't even like Harper. I think he's an immature ass that needs to grow up. But to opine that he's not an elite talent is simply foolish. Or, do you think teams like the Phillies just give out $27 million a year to merely "good" players?

In the five years he's played since age 22, when some players are first starting to come to the Majors, he's had one historic MVP season, and another MVP caliber season cut short by injury:

In 2017, he hit .319, scored 95 runs, with 27 doubles, 29 home runs, 87 RBI, and slashed .413/.595/1.008, 250 total bases. In 111 games played. Take those numbers out to 158 games played, his average of the 159 games played in 2018 and in 17 in 2019, and this is where he ends up:

.319 AVG, 135 runs, 38 doubles, 41 home runs, 124 RBI, 356 total bases. 156 OPS+

So, he's the unanimous National League MVP in 2015. He finished 12th in the MVP in 2017, even though he missed 51 games, nearly a third of the season. Since the Nats went on to win 97 games in 2017, there's a very good chance a healthy Harper wins his second MVP in three years.

And that's merely "good"? Two MVP seasons before age 25?

His OPS+ In 2015 was 198.

Since 1919 (minimum 500 AB), there have been a grand total of 27 better individual seasons than Harper's 198 OPS+.

Here's the report on Baseball-Reference.

8 were by Babe Ruth
3 were by Lou Gehrig
3 were by Ted Williams
3 were by Rogers Hornsby
2 were by Jimmie Foxx
2 were by Mickey Mantle
1 each by Frank Robinson, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Dick Allen, Norm Cash, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi and Sammy Sosa.

Not bad for a "good" player, huh?

He had a drop off in performance in 2018, but that can be attributed to his recovering from his knee injury. He hyperextended it in August of 2017, and was able to return at the end of the season. But he struggled mightily, which isn't surprising given the injury. In 5 games before the end of the season, he hit .167 (5 for 18), and in the playoffs, .211 (4 for 19).

At the 2018 All Star break (July 17), through 94 games, he was hitting .214 and slashing .365/.468/.833. He'd struck out 102 times in 327 at bats. He did have 23 home runs, though. He clearly wasn't all the way back.

After the break, he did much better.

.300 AVG, 65 games, 46 runs, 11 HR, 46 RBI, 52 walks, 67 Ks, slash line .434/.538/.972.

His post All Star break numbers, taken to a full 162 game season, are MVP caliber:

.300 AVG, 115 runs, 50 doubles, 27 home runs, 115 RBI, 130 walks.

In an "off" 2018, he still hit 34 home runs, drove in 100, and led baseball with 130 walks.

In 2019, he hit 35 home runs, walked 99 times, and drove in a career high 114 runs.

So....

In 2015 unanimous National League MVP
2016 down season
2017 MVP front runner when he hurt his knee, hitting .326 slashing .419/.614/1.034.
2018 first half way below average after returning from injury, MVP second half
2019 All Star caliber season

You can stand by your comments. But when your statement is based purely in fantasy, don't take umbrage when somebody exposes your opinion as a dumb one. Even after I've produced indisputable evidence that Harper is, indeed, and elite offensive player, your only response is "meh", and, "I'll stick by my original opinion".

It's too bad that you're the kind of person that, when presented with facts, decides to stubbornly adhere to your original comment. Even after you admitted that you "really didn't pay attention" to him. That's okay, though. I know not to put any credence in anything you say about the game again.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

-

- "Any other generalizations and assumptions you want disproven?"

- "You're so obtuse, it's comical."

Unsolicited remarks that you first made to others in this thread. But when one of them responds and treats you the same way, you tell them not to be condescending.

You may have a high level of baseball stat expertise, but your hypocrisy just surpassed it.

[packs]

Overrated means public perception is that the player is better than they really are. Nothing you pointed out about Harper screams 300 million dollars to me. He is always going to be lumped in with Trout but he isn't Trout.

I think the MVP was Stanton's in 2017 no matter what Harper did. That was a monster year.

The Phillies were 2 games below .500 without Harper and then paid him 300 million to win one extra game. That makes him overrated in my book. He had no effect on his team despite being billed as its savior.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Unsolicited remarks that you first made to others in this thread. But when one of them responds and treats you the same way, you tell them not to be condescending.

You may have a high level of baseball stat expertise, but your hypocrisy just surpassed it.

Lol...that was my first thought.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

Uhh this is literally the opposite of a mic drop

[packs]

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

OK, but where was his former team without him? Oh yeah, World Series champs.

[ClementeFanOh]

Stache- my final word on you:
First, as other commenters so astutely observed, you don't like it that I treated YOU, the way you treated others prior to my opinion on Harper. Frankly, it's fun to toy with clowns like you- you know, the kind who quote stats but couldn't play, and simply cannot believe it when someone doesn't bow to your stat prowess. (In other words, you may have been had by this "dumb" commenter, hoss…)
Finally, you will NOT change my mind on Harper- especially after referring to him as "erratic" yourself. Harper is a talented player who has been, to this point, forgettable- despite that talent, despite the notoriety, despite his ego- just a guy who provides stat geeks with caffeine fueled rage when someone doubts their paper conclusions. It's been 8 seasons and nobody cares about Bryce Harper but Harper himself- and you. Again, when you are the "stud" who leaves a team, and that team IMMEDIATELY wins the Series, the word "overrated" clearly is in play. Keep trying though- with another commenter- because "I know not to put any credence in anything you say about the game again".
Thanks nolemmings, packs, howard38, cardsagain74- you called it correctly, and better, than I did.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

"Might be top 20-25"......?

Mantle's lifetime road OPS was .958. His WAR/season is also top 10 caliber.

I understand people thinking he's a little overrated (though I don't agree), but this is taking it way too far.

Thanks for proving my point. DiMaggio's lifetime road OPS was 1.016 and that is with losing age 28-30 seasons to World War 2.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

He might be top 20-25?



You're so obtuse, it's comical.

I ran a report for all position players in the modern era (from 1919 forward), sorted by WAR. Minimum 2,000 games played. 201 players in total. Mickey Mantle is 11th all-time in WAR for modern era position players.

But hold on. I exported the workbook that Baseball Reference's index tool created, and imported it into Microsoft Excel. I then eliminated all data but WAR, and games played. I then created a simple formula to compute the rate (# of games played per WAR) for all those players.

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

Mickey Mantle has the 6th-best rate of WAR of the 201 players with over 2,000 games played in the modern era. He's behind only Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR


Mantle played in 2,401 games, and generated 110.2 WAR. 2,401 games is 14.82098765432099 162 game seasons. Per 162 games played, he averaged 7.44 WAR. An MVP season is 8 WAR. His average season was MVP caliber.

And his peak? His peak is ridiculous. From 1952, when he was 20 years old, through the 1962 season, when he turned 30, he played 1,579 games and amassed 89.2 bWAR. 1,579 games played is 9.746913580246914 162 game seasons. That means during his 11 year peak, he averaged 9.75 WAR per 162 games played.

So please, for the love of God--stop embarrassing yourself, man.

Mickey Mantle is inarguably one of the ten best offensive players of the modern era, and one of the truly elite players in baseball history. End of discussion.

LOL. WAR what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Joe DiMaggio not even included in your list proves my point.

[clydepepper]

Bill- please don't ever actually 'drop the mic' - some of us thrive on your research!


.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

Thanks for proving my point. DiMaggio's lifetime road OPS was 1.016 and that is with losing age 28-30 seasons to World War 2.

That changes nothing about whether Mantle had a top 10 career. It only shows how much better Dimaggio was than his base numbers (since he was a right-handed hitter in Yankee stadium in that era).

Your other post about Dimaggio is wrong too, because he said that his chart only includes those with at least 2000 games. Dimaggio's career didn't have that many (otherwise he would've been way up there too)

[cardsagain74]

Another thing about the WAR numbers: look at the top 10 of that list, especially if you replace A Rod with Dimaggio. Most every day fans with no concept of the fancy modern statistical metrics would agree that those were pretty much the 10 best position baseball players of the modern era.

The only thing it doesn't account for is how much being a catcher hurts your offensive numbers, especially careerwise. Maybe substitute Bench in for someone.

But overall, the WAR numbers appear to do a great job of representing a player's ability, career accomplishments, and value to his team

[howard38]

Rollie Fingers seems overrated to me.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR

What I have always found amazing is the the lack of popularity of the Topps baseball cards of some of these guys on this list. Specifically, Musial, Robinson, and Mathews. Clearly some of the greatest hitters in the Topps era, yet their Topps cards (other than rookies) are priced ridiculously low compared to Mantle or Clemente.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by brewing

What I have always found amazing is the the lack of popularity of the Topps baseball cards of some of these guys on this list. Specifically, Musial, Robinson, and Mathews. Clearly some of the greatest hitters in the Topps era, yet their Topps cards (other than rookies) are priced ridiculously low compared to Mantle or Clemente.

That is why I say Mantle is by far the most over rated player. I have never said Mantle wasn't great. It is just that his cards are valued insanely compared to better players than him.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Another thing about the WAR numbers: look at the top 10 of that list, especially if you replace A Rod with Dimaggio. Most every day fans with no concept of the fancy modern statistical metrics would agree that those were pretty much the 10 best position baseball players of the modern era.

The only thing it doesn't account for is how much being a catcher hurts your offensive numbers, especially careerwise. Maybe substitute Bench in for someone.

But overall, the WAR numbers appear to do a great job of representing a player's ability, career accomplishments, and value to his team

Well even by WAR, Mantle is 21st. If you remove the one 19th century player, he is 20th. Remove the 3 steroid users 17th. That is not close to being a top 10 player even before addressing the problems with WAR that skew Mantle's numbers higher than they should be. Bill James and Nate Silver have been critical of WAR. I am not drinking the koolaid. In the end WAR is just one (or two) person's opinion of players value. I do not agree it does even an adequate job of representing a players value. It skews some players like Mantle too high. It skews catchers like Johnny Bench way too low. A stat that thinks Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven were better than Bob Gibson and Pedro Martinez can't be taken seriously.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by rats60

Well even by WAR, Mantle is 21st. If you remove the one 19th century player, he is 20th. Remove the 3 steroid users 17th. That is not close to being a top 10 player even before addressing the problems with WAR that skew Mantle's numbers higher than they should be. Bill James and Nate Silver have been critical of WAR. I am not drinking the koolaid. In the end WAR is just one (or two) person's opinion of players value. I do not agree it does even an adequate job of representing a players value. It skews some players like Mantle too high. It skews catchers like Johnny Bench way too low. A stat that thinks Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven were better than Bob Gibson and Pedro Martinez can't be taken seriously.

You're just looking at the basic cumulative career WAR totals. Mantle, Pedro, and Gibson had much shorter careers then Niekro and Blyleven. That's why the chart above looked at it per games played. It's the sensible measure of who was "better" for players who lasted long enough for HOF consideration.

And as mentioned above somewhere, Mantle led the league in on-base percentage, walks, and especially OPS a bunch of times. So even if you forget throw out the WAR stats, those Bill James type numbers are well in his favor too.

The only objective argument for Mantle not being a top 10 all-timer is if you punish him a lot for not having a really long career. Which is the same thing you don't want to do to Pedro or Bob Gibson (who are in the same boat).

[G1911]

Overrated superstars, these are the ones that come to my mind. Most of them have some emotional pull for a great many fans that seems to supersede math when rating them.


Cal Ripken, Jr. Deserving Hall of Famer and his game streak is one heck of an accomplishment, but overrated performance on the whole.


Nolan Ryan - Big points for longevity, but he wasn't particularly good at not giving up runs (112 ERA+), which is all that really matters at the end of the day for a pitcher. His extreme walk totals are as impressive as the K's that everyone talks about. 20+ seasons of effective pitching gets you a HOF ticket in my book, but many mediocre pitchers were better at not giving up runs than Nolan was. Probably the most overrated pitcher of all time.


Derek Jeter? - Torn on this. He is now so famous for being overrated that he is underrated by WAR lovers and still massively overrated by casual fans. His defense was not actually as bad as is often stated now.


Roberto Clemente - Value wise, he is pretty much the same as Al Kaline, a great Hall of Famer RF. He does not belong ranked with Mays and Mantle; perhaps the prime example of emotional attachment affecting rationality.


Bryce Harper - His hype train is still trucking and seems like it's not going to ever meet reality at this point. A talented man, whose numbers do not support the press clippings.


Pete Rose - Writing yourself into the lineup for several years after you have stopped being even a league average bat sure helps break records. Too much is made of his hits, and not his batting average and all-time plate appearances and at-bats records. I value longevity more than most, but Rose is still not the top 15-20 player he is usually made out to be by the public.

Carl Yastrzemski - A HOFer, a truly great player from 1967-1970, but the press clippings pretend he played at that level his whole career. He wasn't much special outside of a 4 year peak, just an effective, reliable bat.


Thurman Munson - Catcher stats are the hardest to evaluate I think, but he seems the primary example of the big market bias + tragedy = hagiography equation.


Hal Chase - Anecdotes aside, his numbers are not that impressive and a player rigging games against you almost certainly causes more losses than wins. a replacement player was probably more valuable to his teams winning percentage than Chase was.


There are many others that are overrated by certain fan groups (geographic/ team or ethnic usually) but these are the ones where I can't get the math to ever meet the broadly accepted narratives. As for Mantle, I think he is overrated in that he was probably the 2nd greatest player of his time and not the 1st, but this seems to me a rather pedantic and technical point that misses the forrest for a tree.




For the opposite end of the coin, Underrated:
Minnie Minoso, Frank Robinson, Ralph Kiner come to mind. I think Lefty Grove was severely underrated until Bill James.

Most players that played just a big below a Hall of Fame level, particularly in small or mid markets. Guys like Will Clark, Tori Hunter level players.

Most players who made the Hall of Fame but weren't really Hall of fame level players, and whose claim to fame is now being undeserving. They were almost all actually excellent players, and their accomplishments are no longer remembered, only that Frisch or someone else shoved them through to the Hall.


Most 19th century players. A huge portion of the baseball fan base speaks as if 1899 doesn't count, and 1900 is when the first good players came around.


Players elected to the Hall of Fame primarily for their defense, who are popularly attacked as underserving because they have mediocre hitting stats. HOF voters were well aware that Rabbit Maranville was not a titan at the plate, but the narrative has become that these players were mediocre or even worse.


Players who excelled by the stats of their day, but WAR doesn't like have become underrated as nuance is lost. George Sisler, Pie Traynor, etc.


Players who excelled in stats and areas of the game not known or fully realized in their own time. High on-base low-average guys through the 60's, for example.

[mcgwirecom]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

How are the Angels doing with Trout (and Pujols)?


Also someone mentioned the Nats winning the WS after losing Harper. How about the 2001 Mariners? They got rid of Griffey, Randy Johnson, Arod then went on to win more games than anyone ever.

[ClementeFanOh]

I am one of the someone who mentioned the Nats getting rid of Harper, then winning the WS immediately after. Yes, Seattle let loose of Aroid, Griffey, and Johnson- over a 3 year stretch though, not one. And, unless I am delinquent on my WS knowledge, Seattle did NOT follow up with a WS win. ( I am sure someone will correct me if wrong
In an effort to extend an olive branch, however, I'd be happy to include Griffey on the overrated list ( his career was a tale of two wildly different halves- one phenomenal and the other forgettable) and of course ARod (no explanation offered or, one would hope, needed).

[packs]

Originally Posted by mcgwirecom

How are the Angels doing with Trout (and Pujols)?


Also someone mentioned the Nats winning the WS after losing Harper. How about the 2001 Mariners? They got rid of Griffey, Randy Johnson, Arod then went on to win more games than anyone ever.

I really wish people used analogies correctly. The Angels have gotten 3 MVPs out of Trout. They didn't pay him to stay because they thought he was the difference maker in a tight window to win a title. They paid him to stay because he's maybe the greatest individual player in history and they're getting what they paid for in terms of his production.

If the Phillies signed Harper to put them over the top (which I don't think anyone can argue against), his play made him irrelevant which makes him overrated. It's that simple to me.

[Kenny Cole]

I think its probably too early to say that Trout's the greatest player ever (at least in my estimation). I do agree that he's been pretty phenomenal thus far.
And he certainly puts people in the seats and causes them to buy his stuff. So long as he's making the Angels money, I imagine the ownership will be happy.

[PowderedH2O]

Statistically, Rogers Hornsby is on the short list of the greatest players ever. During his lifetime he was rated as the greatest second baseman of all time and his stats are eye-popping. But, I wonder if we get past that, what do we have? Could you imagine a guy with these kinds of numbers getting traded so many times in such a short time? And, after the Frankie Frisch trade, he was getting traded for nobodies. Multiple teams felt that they were better off with "The Rajah" gone than to have him on the roster. I've heard other players say nice things about Ty Cobb. I've never heard anyone say anything positive about Hornsby's personality.

So, as far as overrated goes, could a guy be such a cancer in the clubhouse that he could actually be overrated despite putting up such gaudy numbers?