Wednesday, June 15, 2011

ARE THEY BACK?

I have watched the past few Phillies games, including last night's rout of division rival Florida and have wondered who the guys wearing the home team colors are. For the past few games the guys in the red pinstripes have been doing things that the Phillies haven't been doing all season, and even the LSF has been caught up in the excitement. No, I have not decided to become emotionally involved. If I do I know what will happen - the team will revert to what they were before I made my decision to become an observer rather than a devotee looking to make excuses for every failure on the field. I will not allow yet another Phillie team break my heart.

Someone suggested that the tone of my last posting was optimistic. Please do not confuse my being happy at the team playing the way they are capable of, and the way they are supposed to with optimism. I am no more optimistic about the Phillies than I believe that my beloved Pirates will win their division. I am, however, happy when any team representing the greatest city in the world wins. Despite winning the past few games in fine style, this aging team is fully capable of becoming what they were before the latest offensive outburst. No Kool-Aid for me please.

Seeing the power outburst last night was surely exciting. The LSF loves home runs and loves great pitching. I saw both last night, and couldn't help but thinking at just how scary good they would be if they can maintain their hitting and their pitching. If this team can continue getting production from the middle of the line up, continue to get lights out pitching, and continue to play good defense, they will run away from the rest of the division and will have a great chance of winning the whole thing - something I would love to see. I continue to maintain that this team's window of opportunity is closing due to age, injuries, and complacency - so this year is critical. A change of guard is coming whether or not they win, so I want them to win.

The mark of a great franchise is that they can continue to stay on top while changing the names of their players as needed. The Yankees over the years have shown that they can do this as have teams like the Lakers and the Celtics. Most franchises are capable of putting together a few good years, but hit a wall at some point and fall back to just being average. The jury is still out on the Phillies who seem to have a couple of replacements showing promise. I speak of guys like Brown, Stutes, and the like who seem to be coming into their own. Brown had a helluva game last night and shows so much potential that other teams should be afraid of this guy and what he can do.

So, last night I get a call from my son who wanted to ask me if I knew which team had the best record in baseball. He wanted to hear me say that the Phillies did - which I was happy to acknowledge. The LSF believes in facts and the fact is - the Phillies do have the best record in baseball so far this season. Scott wanted to rub that fact in, when all the rubbing in the world was irrelevant since I am not unhappy at where they are - more amazed that they are there considering that the team batting average going into last night was .221 for the month of June. By all that is holy this team should be in a free fall because of their slumbering bats - that they are not is a testament to stellar pitching and the fact that their competition isn't hitting either.

Part of our conversation had the kid making the points that the game has changed and that I shouldn't judge these players by standards set when the game was different. Balderdash! Part of the beauty of the game is the fixation on statistics and the history of the game. Nobody cares about how many yards Red Grange gained while playing for the Bears or how many rebounds Wilt got, but we do compare baseball players from different eras because of our attention to the numbers. Yes, the game has changed (not all for the good) but I'll maintain that compared to other games - the changes made do not invalidate the achievements of the players from the past.

One of the changes I do not care for is the conferring of superstar status on guys with serious flaws in their game. Of course, I am speaking of Ryan Howard who is nothing more than a player with excellent power who otherwise has too many deficiencies in his game for me to confer superstar status on. The guy has elevated his defense to where he is slightly above adequate. He is nowhere near being the best defensive first baseman in the game, but I do give him credit for the work he has put in to improve. Going into this season the guy had a .279 career batting average, and I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT NUMBER TO BE THE NUMBER OF A SUPERSTAR! I don't even want to hear a word until the number is .300, a long time baseball yardstick for greatness. In his first seven seasons the guy has hit 253 home runs (36 per year) which isn't bad for the post steroid era, but at his current pace he will fall far short of 500, another baseball benchmark for greatness and superstardom. Now we all know that big home run hitters have a tendency to strike out a lot. Howard strikes out 32% of his at bats, by far the largest % of the guys I looked at. Babe Ruth struck out 15.8% of his at bats, and Ted Williams did so at a rate of 9.2%. Need I say more?

I decided to do an analysis of the greatest first baseman of all time so as to see where Howard fit in. I began my search with the Hall Of Fame and identified six or seven HOF first basemen to compare "Superstar" with. Items for consideration include: batting average, home runs, RBI's, OBP, slugging percentage, and strikeouts-to-at-bats ratio. I eliminated guys like Stan Musial and Harmon Killebrew who are enshrined as first baseman but who played more games at other positions than they did at first base. Ernie Banks is listed by the HOF as a first baseman, but played far more games at SS - so he was also dropped from the conversation. Also eliminated were those who played before 1900 or who played in the dead ball era - I had to keep Frank Chance and Cap Anson from the game.

The results are interesting. The names to be looked at are: Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, Hank Greenberg, Eddie Murray, and Tony Perez. All spent all or most of their careers at first base and all have been enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. To a man they all used big boy bats rather than the pussy bat used by Superstar. None of them used body armor, nor did they have a pre-pitch ritual of the Babe Ruth pointing coupled with the ass squat used by Howard prior to swinging at a bad pitch. I swear the guy does his little ass squat to get rid of a wedgie. Superstar compares favorably with my list of all time greats in a couple of areas, but overall falls short of their accomplishments in most catagories.

Let's start out with defense. Howard has worked very hard in this area and has become what I will call a decent defensive first baseman. Not great, but decent. I realize that he just made his first error of the year last night, but defense includes throwing and range - both of which are weaknesses for Howard. Lou Gehrig was considered the best defensive first baseman of all time, with McCovey, & Eddie Murray all significantly better than Howard with the glove. He ranks ahead of Hank Greenberg and Tony Perez, and about equal to Cepeda. All in all I believe I am safe in assuming that Howard won't be winning any gold gloves for his trophy room.

Hall Of Famers don't normally get elected to the Hall for their defense - Brooks Robinson might be the exception. Robinson was the best fielding third baseman I have ever seen and that includes Mike Schmidt. Guys get to the Hall because of their offense, and it is in this area that we must compare Howard to the best of the best. Sorry gang, but the guy pales against the statistics the other guys made for their careers. Remember - Superstar isn't even the best first baseman playing today despite what some drinkers of Red Kool-Aid may think, so don't be surprised at what follows.

First, let me provide you with Howard's career statistics. In his seven years with the Phillies (I did him a favor and did not include this year) Howard has hit for a career batting average of .279. He has hit 253 home runs which breaks down to an average of 36 per year. He has driven in 748 RBI's which breaks down to 107 per season. He has an OBP of .372, and a slugging average of .572 (quite decent) Unfortunately, he has struck out 33% of his times at bat. In this catagory he leads all of the others by a wide margin.

I'll start my comparison with a guy I don't believe belongs in the HOF, and probably got in because he played for one of the best teams of all time - The Big Red Machine. Tony Perez finished with a .279 average, hit 379 home runs and drove in 1,652 runs. His OBP was .341 and his slugging average a mere .473. He played for twenty-some odd years and Howard has already put up better numbers than Perez in seven. I rate Howard ahead of Perez.

One of my favorite players of all time was the great Eddie Murray. I was fortunate to see him play several times when he was with the Orioles. Murray finished with a .287 average, hit 504 home runs, drove in 1,917 runs and had an OBP of .359. His slugging average was .476. The last two catagories fall below what Howard has accomplished to date, but Murray is one of only four players to finish with both 500 home runs and 3,000 hits - neither of which Howard will achieve. Murray struck out 18.4% of his at bats - far less than Superstar. I rate Murray clearly better than Howard, and he was a switch hitter to boot.

Next on the list is Orlando Cepeda. Cepeda hit for a career average of .297 (Howard can't even dream that high), hit .379 home runs, (a number Howard should surpass) drove in 1365 runs and had an OBP of .350. His slugging percentage came in at .499. Cepeda struck out 14% of his at bats. Cepeda was in my opinion a very good player and when he wasn't hurt he was among the best of his era. His numbers fall short of getting my vote for the Hall and I rate him on a par with Howard based on his overall game.

My next Hall Of Famer played his entire career in the shadow of the best player I ever saw play. Both he and Mays had to overcome playing at Candlestick Park where hitting home runs was difficult at best. Willie McCovey also played hurt for most of his career and he had problems running the bases and fielding his position because of horrible knee injuries. Nonetheless, he managed to finish with a .270 average, hit 521 home runs and drove in 1,555. I do not believe Howard will reach either total. "Stretch" had an OBP of .374 and a slugging percentage of .515. He struck out 19% of his at bats. Howard compares favorably with McCovey with higher batting averages, OBP and slugging percentage, but with his batting average declining on a yearly basis I doubt if Howard will finish with his current .279 and may fall into the .260's. I rate McCovey slightly ahead of Howard.

I can only wish that I had been able to see Hank Greenberg play baseball. Greenberg finished with a career batting average of .313, hit 331 home runs (he missed four seasons due to a broken elbow and three years of military service). He drove in 1,276 runs, had an OBP of .412 and a slugging percentage of .605. Greenberg struck out 16% of his at bats. Yes Virginia, you can hit for average and have power! Greenberg truly was a superstar, not a pretender. He clearly rates above Howard.

Philadelphia did indeed have a superstar at first base in one Jimmie Foxx who starred for the great Philadelphia A's teams. Foxx, who finished his career with the Phillies, put in a career average of .325, hit 534 home runs and drove in 1,922 runs. Shall I stop? His OBP was .428 and he finished with a slugging percentage of .609. Foxx who struck out 16% of his at bats was clearly the best first baseman ever to play in the greatest city in the world - not Superstar Howard.

It wasn't that Lou Gehrig was the luckiest guy in the world - rather he was one of the best baseball players of all time. His career average was .340. His home run total was 493. The guy drove in 1,995 runs and had an OBP of .447 with a slugging percentage of .632. He struck out at a rate of 9.8% of his at bats. He is my pick as the best first baseman to ever have played the position.

As a basis for comparison the guy with the best career totals was not a first baseman, but rather a former pitcher who picked up a telephone pole one day and proceeded to hit for a .342 career batting average. With this lumber he stroked 714 home runs, and when he pointed to the outfield he was able to hit the ball there. While driving in 2,213 runs he managed an OBP of .474 and a slugging percentage of .690. How sick is that? This overweight party guy struck out at a rate of 16% of his at bats, and I guarantee you Mr. Ruth had a lot more fun playing the game than does Ryan Howard.

The LSF understands that few players in history can compare favorably with Ruth and, while I would trade Howard in a NY minute for Pujols or even Votto, I do recognize him as a good player. He isn't a great player in my judgement because of his inability to show discipline at the plate. Perhaps given the way the game is played today, my standards for being considered great are a bit harsh, but they are what they are. That being said, until and unless Howard can stop swinging at stupid pitches and until he can learn to hit to the opposite field, I cannot consider him a great player, and he would never get my vote to join the above mentioned players in the Hall.

I never considered Mike Schmidt a great all-around player either. Schmidt was the second best defensive third baseman I've ever seen play, and was a great power hitter, but his inability to hit for average, and his propensity to strike out, especially in the clutch, keeps me from anointing him with superstar status. I believe that we now confer the title of greatness to too many athletes, statesmen, generals and mediocre performers in all walks of life. As we liberalize the meaning of the word "greatness" it demeans those who have truly attained such status.

Having said all of the above I must be honest and admit that I just don't like Ryan Howard. I don't care for his undeserved smugness, his pre-pitch drama and his lack of discipline at the plate. Despite all of that, he wears the uniform of my home town team I want him to do well and help the Phillies win another World Series. I just can't consider him a great player. You certainly can if you wish. Hell, Frank Sinatra once had a hit called "Everybody Has The Right To Be Wrong," and you so you do.

I'm listening to the Phillies as I write and in the ninth the Phils are one out away from another big win - having scored eight runs. Tonight Halladay can give me a birthday sweep tonight, so enjoy the game while I am dancing with my ladies.

No comments:

Post a Comment