Was Harmon Killebrew a better thirdbaseman than Brooks Robinson?

[leecemark]

--I expect this question will sound crazy at first glance to most people, but I think there is a pretty good arguement for Killebrew (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=killeha01) being a better thirdbaseman than Robinson (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=robinbr01). Of course, I don't mean he actually played thirdbase better than Brooks. That would be absurd. What I'm asking is "would a team be better with Harmon Killebrew at third than Brooks Robinson?"
--Killebrew was the better hitter by a pretty wide margin. His OBP was over 50 points higher, his slugging percentage was over 100 points higher and of course that means his advantage in OPS+ was hyge - 143 to 104. Despite playing 400 less games, Killebrew hit over twice as many HR (557-268) and drove in over 200 more runs (1584-1357).
--The question then is "was Brooks' defensive edge enough to make up the offensive gap?". Robinson is generally considered to be the greatest defensive thirdbaseman of all time. Killebrew had a terrible defensive rep. No question Brooks looked better. He made "web gem" type plays on a regular basis, while Harmon looked kind of awkward in the field. In fact there is no question Robinson was better defensively, although I think Harmon was better than he looked. They played at pretty much the same time and the league averages for 3b over their careers is the same - range factor 2.74 and fielding percent .953. Robinson better than league at both with 3.10 and .971. Killebrew was worse than league at both with 2.52 and .940. So Robinson got to about one more ball every other game and made 10-15 less errors per season, depending on chances. That is very valuable, but is it worht as much as Killebrew's offense edge?
---Thirdbase was Killebrew's second most frequently played position. He played 969 games at first, 791 at third, 470 in LF, 158 at DH and 11 at 2b. The numbers say first was Killebrew's best defensive position (he was slightly better than league at both RF and FP) and I'm sure thats true. He was at best below average at third. However, you could live with him there and I think thats where he helped his teams most.
---In 1969 Killebrew was 33 and an establlished star. After bouncing between lF/3B/1B early in his career he had settled in at first, playing there almost exclusively for two seasons. He did not seem a good candidate for moving back to a more demanding defensive position. However, the Twins had a young firstbaseman whose bat they wanted in the lineup (Rich Reese) and Harmon shifted to third for the good of the team. The Twins won the divsion with Killebrew winning the MVP and Reese chipping with .332. They won the divison with the same arrangement the next year, although Reese proved to be a flash in the pan. (As an aside, the Twins confidence that Reese and Killebrew would be their 1B/3B combo for years led them to trade away a young 3b by the name of Graig Nettles. That part didn't work out so good).
---If I got to pick either Robinson or Killebrew as my thirdbaseman, I think I'd have to go with Harmon. It would be alot easier to find a firstbaseman who could outhit Robinson than a 3B who could outhit Killebrew. I value defense, but I don't think there is enough action at third to make up the offensive difference between these two players.

[macintosh]

I'm a defensive minded individual(mainly because my dad says to concentrate on that and the hitting will come), but I'd have to take a better hitting third basemen. I like to think of 3B as a power hitters spot. Harmon couldn't field very well, but he could field.

[ElHalo]

This is probably a bias of mine, I admit, and it's very not Sabermetric of me, but...

I forgive Brooks Robinson his career .267 BA because of his defensive prowess; you don't expect a lot of offense out of a defensive specialist. Pretty much gravy.

But Harmon Killebrew is a guy who had offense as his bread and butter. And when I think of Harmon Killebrew, there's only one number that pops into my mind.

.256.

I just can't see past that. I'll tell you this; I was suprised a few weeks ago when I glanced at home run leaderboards and I saw where Killebrew what as for his career... That .256 number had overwhelmed my thoughts on Killebrew to the point where I guess I had just figured his home run number was somewhere near Dave Kingman's.

Now, Leecemark, you know me, I know all about the ins and outs of sabermetrics and the value of OBP and SLG. But I just can't get over an offensive player with a .256 batting average. If he was on my team, I'd be perpetually dissapointed in him (the way I'm perpetually disappointed now in Jason Giambi... I have no time for guys who go .250/.410/.550. I know how much value that they have, and how they'll put great OPS+'s up... but I can't get past that .250).

So I can excuse it for Brooks the same way I could excuse it for Ozzie Smith or Maz. But for Harmon... or Schmidt or Joe Morgan for that matter... it just seems to me like, if you're that good an offensive player, get the wood on the ball.

But it's not a very rational viewpoint, and it's not backed up by the math. Oh well.

[Roy Hobbs]

The goal of baseball isn't necessarily to hit the ball. Hitting the ball is just a way of achieving the goal. The goal is scoring runs.

And OBP+SLG = OPS is a better way of finding out who contributes to that as opposed to batting average.

But, like you, knowing all of that, I have a VERY hard time "liking" players with sub ~.270 averages.

Hell I kind of dislike sub ~.275 averages.

[Brad Harris]

Career Value, Age Comparison of Win Shares

Age Value Leader (Margin)
18 neither (--)
19 tie (1)
20 tie (3)
21 Robinson (+5)
22 Robinson (+14)
23 Robinson (+12)
24 Robinson (+10)
25 Robinson (+10)
26 Robinson (+5)
27 Robinson (+15)
28 Robinson (+17)
29 Robinson (+19)
30 Robinson (+10)
31 Killebrew (+3)
32 Robinson (+2)
33 Killebrew (+11)
34 Killebrew (+18)
35 Killebrew (+25)
36 Killebrew (+31)
37 Killebrew (+13)
38 Killebrew (+12)
39 Killebrew (+15)
40 Killebrew (+15)

Example, thru age 30, Brooks Robinson's career win shares were +10 more than Harmon Killebrew's.

One other thing to consider is the level of peak performance these players produced.

Killebrew had 12 all-star caliber (20+ ws) seasons (ages 23-31, 33-35)
Robinson had all-star seasons (ages 23, 25, 27-31, 33-34 and 37).

So far as MVP-caliber seaons (30+ ws), Killebrew had four such seasons (to Brookise's one.)

Not sure I'd take one over the other. (Though I'd probably own Killebrew, if forced to pick just one.)

[leecemark]

El Halo, I agree Brooks gets a pass on his slightly above average batting average due his being a great defender. I can see - not agree, mind you, but see where you could hold a low batting average against an offensive specialist like Killebrew. However, I don't understand why its okay to be a slightly better than average hitter with a great glove (Robinson), but you resent a guy who was a great offensive player, except for BA, and won 10 Gold Gloves (Schmidt). I think its debatable whether Brooks was any better than Mike with the glove. If so, not by much. THere is no debate about which was the greater hitter.
---I think the OBP issue speaks to another topic I see on Robinson all the time - the idea that if he and Santo traded parks they would have traded offensive stats. That is simply not true. Brooks would have hit more homers and raised his slugging. His home park didn't have anything to do with his hack away approach though. Santo was an extremely selective hitter, usually amoung the league leaders in walks. No matter what park you put them in Santo would have had the better OBP.
---Anyway to answer the question at hand, would you have taken the bopper and lived with your disappointment in his BA or gone with the gloveman?

[J W]

If I have a bunch of ground-ball pitchers, I take Robinson.

If I have a bunch of fly-ball pitchers, I take Killebrew.

Also of note is Chancellor's age factor. How about this: which player would you rather sign to a long-term deal in today's market?

[leecemark]

JW, I think the answer to that is pretty clear. In their 20s, Robinson was a noticably more valuable player than Killebrew. In their 30s, Killebrew was a MUCH better player than Robinson. That was at least somewhat predictable too. Harmon's best qualities, power and patience, age well. Brooks was far more dependant on his quick reflexs. That Killebrew would have his best years in his mid-30s probably couldn't have been predicted, but that he would be better than Robinson was likely. I guess the best scenario would have been to have Robinson come up through your farm system, enjoy his best years and then sign Killebrew as a free agent to replace him.
--I think your point about the type of pitching you being a factor in your decison is well taken. If you have an extreme ground ball staff, Robinson's value goes up and Killebrew's shortcomings become more of a problem. Thats especially true if you have lefthanded ground ball pitchers. Robinson's range factors actually went up in his early 30s. I don't think it was because he became a better fielder. I think it was because Cuellar and McNally were pitching 500 innings a year and creating more opportunities for him.

[Roy Hobbs]

As far as Win Shares go you'd be wise to remember that if you take Alex Rodriguez from 2003 and put him on say, the New York Yankees that year instead of the Texas Rangers his win share total goes up, because it is based off team wins.

So win shares aren't the perfect system for comparing two players that many assume, a great player on a horrible team can lose out to a really good player on an awesome team.

[Roy Hobbs]

So Killebrew's margin of +15 is misleading.

Brooks Robinson played on the Baltimore Orioles from 1955-1977 when they were a very very good team. They were 2013-1643 during his career.

Harmon Killebrew played on the Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins from 1954-1974, and his final year in 1975 was with the Kansas City Royals.

The two teams were a combined 1722-1773 during Killebrew's career.

If Harmon had been playing in Baltimore and Brooks with the Senators/Twins, well Brooks would have fewer win shares still and Harmon's would be even higher.

[leecemark]

---If Win Shares work correctly you should not benefit or suffer due to the quality of your team. Good teams have more wins and more shares shares, but they also have more good players to divide them amoung. Bad teams then would have fewer shares, but also fewer good players to divide them amoung. I've never read Win Shares, but James explains the concept in The New Historcial Baseball Abstract. One of the issues he was concerned about in developing the formula is that there not be a team bias either way.
---Whether he succeeded or not is open to question. However, if you don't assume the formula works then there isn't much point to using it. I really am not enthused about using ANY one number as the end all of player evaluation, but think Win Shares are another usefull tool.
---In Harmon's case you don't need sabermetrics to see that he was a great player. He finished in the top 4 in the MVP balloting 5 times before anyone had ever heard of sabermetrics, OPS+ or Win Shares. I'm old enough to have seen them both and knew when they were active Killebrew was better. Better understanding of stats only reinforced that.

[DoubleX]

Ugh, this whole talk about Killebrew's low career average is silly. Robinson's defense aside, his average was not all that impressive either. Plus, I don't think Robinson's stellar defense contributed as much to his teams' success as Killebrew's much better ability to drive in runs and score runs did for his teams'.

In over 450 less games and over 2500 less at-bats, or about 4-5 seasons less of hitting than Robinson, Killebrew knocked almost 230 more RBI's (about two good season's worth) than Robinson and scored more runs in less time. Granted, their spots in the batting order explains why Killebrew regularly drove in more, but he drove in two good seasons worth more while having almost 5 seasons worth of less chances than Robinson. Plus, Robinson for many years batted in front of some very good hitters, but even with soooo many more opportunities to bat and get on base than Killebrew, he still scored 50 less career runs than Killebrew.

And as for the batting averages, you really have to take into consideration the era in which the players were in their primes. In this case, both players were at their best for much of the 60's, but the 60's as a decade had much lower batting averages in the AL than any other decade. So if the best hitters are hitting in the .320s instead of the .350s, you have to think that a power hitter like Killebrew would be batting in the .250s instead of the .280s. I think in many ways Jim Thome is like a modern-day Killebrew, and he has a respectable career average of .285, but that's still like 50-60 points behind the best in the league, so Killebrew wasn't too far off from having a respectable average in his day by hitting around 60 points lower than the typical best. The measure of what constitutes a respectable average fluctuates from era to era. Below, I offer some stats that back-up my claims. These show the mean of the American League's leading average for the years of each decade, plus the highest and lowest averages of each decade:

90s: .350; Highest = John Olrerud, .363 ('93); Lowest = George Brett, .329 ('90)

80s: .356; Highest = George Brett, .390 ('80); Lowest = Willie Wilson, .332 ('82)

70s: .345; Highest = Rod Carew, .388 ('77); Lowest = Rod Carew, .318 ('72)

60s: .325; Highest = Norm Cash, .361 ('61); Lowest = Carl Yastzemski, .301('68)

50s: .347; Highest = Ted Williams, .388 ('57); Lowest = Ferris Fain; .329, ('52)

40s: .349; Highest = Ted Williams, .406 ('41); Lowest = Stuffy Strinweiss, .309 ('45) - This was a war year, and like the other WWII years, the league leading average was under .330 for each year, way down from the every other year of the 40's.

30s: .370, Highest = Al Simmons, .390 ('31); Lowest = Jimmie Foxx and Buddy Myer, .349 ('38 and '35, respectively)

20s: .392; Highest = George Sisler, .420 (.369); Lowest = Lew Fonseca, .369 ('29)

10s: .388; Highest = Ty Cobb, .420 ('11); Lowest = Ty Cobb, .368 ('14)

00s: .360; Highest = Nap Lajoie, .426 ('01 - first year of the AL); Elmer Flick, .308 ('05)

As you can see, the averages of the 60's were well below any other decade of the AL. Also, the highest and lowest of each decade are respectively all higher than the highest and lowest of the 60's; and the 60's highest average, Norm Cash's .361 in '61 came during the first expansion year, and with the exception of Rod Carew's .332 in '69, no other season in the 60's had an AL hitter over .326 - so just imagine how low the mean for the 60's would have been without Cash's expansion induced .361.

Additionally, Killebrew's and Robinson's careers spanned parts of the 50's and 70's, the two next lowest batting average decades for the AL (yet still way ahead of the 60's). So to say that Killebrew's .256 average is mediocre, is to ignore the era he played in, because the batting average standards were much more depressed during the era he played in than during any other era. Like I said before, his .256 during that period, is in terms of respectability, probably something like a .280, or Jim Thome today.

My overall point? I'd take Killebrew to play over Brooks at 3B.

[Roy Hobbs]

A major part of the Win Shares formula is 1) run differential and 2) team wins.

The formula makes certain adjustments but overall there is still a clearcut advantage for players who play on teams with more wins.

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

Trust me when I say that I know that what I'm about to say is illogical. It doesn't make any sense, and there's really no way of logically defensing it. It's just the way I feel.

As I said, Brooks is seen as primarily a defensive player, so I don't really hold his low batting average against him. You take the good with the bad when it comes to defensive stars with the bat.

Schmidt was a great defensive player. Some argue that he was better than Brooks. Maybe he was. But Schmidt's defense was secondary. He was primarily an offensive star. Offense was his bread and butter. And I have a very hard time accepting a primarily offensive player with such a low batting average... even though his defense was great, maybe as great as Brooksie's. He was an offensive player first, and a defensive player second. As such, I hold his low BA against him to a greater extent than I do to Brooks... even though Schmidt was maybe as good a defender as Brooks.

Make sense? No, not really. But it's just the way things are. It's the same way I hold Shaquille O'Neal's free throw shooting against Shaq a heck of a lot more than I hold Ben Wallace's poor free throw shooting against him... one's primarily defensive, one's not, so offensive foibles are more acceptable for one than the other. That would be true even if Shaq was as good at defense as Ben (which he's not).

So that's pretty much that. When I think of Brooks Robinson, the first thought that comes to mind is "great defense." When I think of Mike Schmidt, the first thought that comes to mind is "horrible batting average." When I think of Harmon Killebrew, the first thought that comes to mind is "Dave Kingman."

Fair? No, not really. Just reality.

Oh, and if given a choice between the three, I take Brooksie. For the reasons described.

[Brad Harris]

There's no such thing as a "perfect" stat. If, however, you want a statistic that summarizes the value of a player's production in a simple integer that can be used to make accurate comparisons across teams, seasons and eras, then win shares (imo) is the most accurate and comprehensive such statistic available.

While I would expect anyone with legitimate criticisms of win shares to have spent time reading the book and working out the formulas themselves, it is not my intention to defend the methods behind the statistic. If someone else chooses not to put much faith in that stat, I have no more persuasion over changing that person's mind than changing the mind of a person who is convinced 50% of players take steroids, without any evidence. However, let me take a quick moment to refute a misunderstanding that Roy Hobbs brought to our attention.

To borrow from Roy's example in his post:

Alex Rodriguez's 2003 performance was worth 33 win shares last year. His performance value would still be worth 33 win shares, however, had he played for the Yankees last year instead. The idea is that Rodriguez was worth (approximately) 11 wins to any team. It just happened to be the one in Arlington, Texas last year.

While his statistics would not have been the same - because he would not have been playing in the same playing conditions (ie. different ballpark for 81 games) - Rodriguez's value would have been the same, roughly a difference of 11 wins.

As leecemark correctly pointed out, the Yankees had more wins (and thus more win shares), but they also had more high-talent players to share in the "extra" booty.

This is explained in greater detail in the book, Win Shares, which I recommend anyone interested in learning more about how the system works read. Like any system, it isn't perfect. But for my money, it's the best one out there right now.

[santotohof]

Brooks ,to his credit, always made the most of the big stage.His defense was outstanding but so was Ron Santos defense. Brooks hit for a very low average in a lineup where he had plenty of help. His seasonal RBI and HR totals don't come near Killer or Santo. brooks had the stage ,did the job and reaped the rewards.Would I take Killer over Brooks? As a player ,yes,as a third sacker ,no.Killer played too many other spots.If I had to choose a peer of Brooks at third.A player whose offensive numbers easily best his.A player whose 6 gold gloves are representative of stellar defense,I'd take Santo

[Brad Harris]

Just to add some facts to the discussion, re: batting averages.

Brooks Robinson batted .267 against a .249 league average, 7% better.
Harmon Killebrew batted .256 against a .248 league average, 3% better.

Of course, these figures don't account for how their respective parks would have helped/hurt these players.

Robinson's OPS was .723 against a .706 league average, 2% better.
Killebrew had an .884 OPS against a .722 league average, 22% better.

OPS has been adjusted for park effects, however, (over at Baseball Reference) and here's the park-adjusted differences:

Robinson was 4% more productive at the plate than league average.
Killebrew was 43% more productive at the plate than league average.

Were I a manager, with both of these two guys to choose from at the start of their careers, I'd have to select Harmon Killebrew. The edge in getting on base and driving in runners is so huge that the fielding discrepancies would become negligible.

Keep in mind, also, that in the earlier look at win shares, Killebrew was being graded on what he did, not on what he could have done necessarily. So many of those win shares were accumulated at first base. Killebrew might have added more, particularly earlier in his career, if his manager hadn't insisted he play so many games at first base and left field. In other words, it's almost impossible to find a third baseman with a 143 OPS+ while left fielders and first basemen who can rake are much more common.

Knowing what each would do in his career, I'd have taken Killebrew over Robinson and left him at third as long as possible.

[Brian McKenna]

Funny how people keep arguing about coulda, woulda, shoulda.

What actually happened?
I think Robinson was the one who played on the winningest team of the 1960s, one of the greatest dynasties of all-time (1969-71) and was a key member of one of the most successful long-term franchise runs in history during his full time career (1960-75).

Myopic fantasy evaluations aside, I think the Orioles made the right call.

[64Cards]

I think it's pretty damn simple, put Brooks at 3B and Killebrew at 1B or LF.

[leecemark]

Funny how people keep arguing about coulda, woulda, shoulda.

What actually happened?
I think Robinson was the one who played on the winningest team of the 1960s, one of the greatest dynasties of all-time (1969-71) and was a key member of one of the most successful long-term franchise runs in history during his full time career (1960-75).

Myopic fantasy evaluations aside, I think the Orioles made the right call.

--What call did they have to make? They had Robinson and didn't have Killebrew.

[538280]

Funny how people keep arguing about coulda, woulda, shoulda.

What actually happened?
I think Robinson was the one who played on the winningest team of the 1960s, one of the greatest dynasties of all-time (1969-71) and was a key member of one of the most successful long-term franchise runs in history during his full time career (1960-75).

Myopic fantasy evaluations aside, I think the Orioles made the right call.

It's strange how you bring up a two year old thread to make a comment like this. How do people keep arguing about this when they did it two years ago?

That Robinson's teams were more successful that Killebrew's is not relevent to the discussion at all. What is relevent is how they themselves performed. Robinson was probably the best fielding 3Bman of all time, but of course he was not an elite hitter. Killebrew hit for awesome power and got on base a lot. The bat just generates more than the glove. Killebrew's the man.

[UTforever22]

But Harmon Killebrew is a guy who had offense as his bread and butter. And when I think of Harmon Killebrew, there's only one number that pops into my mind.

.256.



his OBP was consitantly in the top 10, and there is a very good argument to be made that OBP is more important than BA

[538280]

his OBP was consitantly in the top 10, and there is a very good argument to be made that OBP is more important than BA

Very good argument? It is common sense that OBP is more important than BA. It correlates with run scoring MUCH better as well.

[Ubiquitous]

Funny how people keep arguing about coulda, woulda, shoulda.

What actually happened?
I think Robinson was the one who played on the winningest team of the 1960s, one of the greatest dynasties of all-time (1969-71) and was a key member of one of the most successful long-term franchise runs in history during his full time career (1960-75).

Myopic fantasy evaluations aside, I think the Orioles made the right call.


Perhaps you are getting the Robinson's confused?
In 1962 Brooks was probably the Orioles best player and the Orioles had a losing record.
Frank Robinson comes over in 1966 and the Dynasty begins.

Yes Brooks was part of a great team that doesn't mean he was the cause of it.

[Rose4theHall]

his OBP was consitantly in the top 10, and there is a very good argument to be made that OBP is more important than BA

Its a plain fact OBP is more important that BA, but does it weird anyone else out that Harmon drew a ton of walks yet was a pure power hitter? He only hit over .270 5 times in a regular season but was always .350+ OBP. Normally high walks guys are great hitters and have a "good eye" but it seems Harmon was either mashing HRs or making outs (his strikeouts lessened as he got older). Was he an "unlucky" hitter? Id kill to see his BABIP numbers...

[CTaka]

Its a plain fact OBP is more important that BA, but does it weird anyone else out that Harmon drew a ton of walks yet was a pure power hitter? He only hit over .270 5 times in a regular season but was always .350+ OBP. Normally high walks guys are great hitters and have a "good eye" but it seems Harmon was either mashing HRs or making outs (his strikeouts lessened as he got older). Was he an "unlucky" hitter? Id kill to see his BABIP numbers...

There were a number of power hitters who had good OBP but not particularly impressive batting averages. Off the top of my head, Frank Howard (BA .273 - OBP .352), Mark McGwire (BA .263 - OBP .394), Willie McCovey (BA .270 - OBP .374), and Mike Schmidt (BA .267 - OBP .380) come to mind. I'd say their threat of going yard resulted in pitchers staying from the middle of the plate against them. Granted, there are the Dave Kingman's of the world that had loads of power, but didn't hit for a high average nor receive many walks, but it doesn't "wierd me out" that Killebrew walked a lot despite a batting average not among the leaders.

For what its worth on this two year old thread, I'd take Killebrew and his superior offense over Brooks Robinson and his golden glove at 3B. Heck, I'd probably take Jimmie Foxx at 3B over Brooks because of the overwhelming offensive advantage.

[538280]

Its a plain fact OBP is more important that BA, but does it weird anyone else out that Harmon drew a ton of walks yet was a pure power hitter? He only hit over .270 5 times in a regular season but was always .350+ OBP. Normally high walks guys are great hitters and have a "good eye" but it seems Harmon was either mashing HRs or making outs (his strikeouts lessened as he got older). Was he an "unlucky" hitter? Id kill to see his BABIP numbers...

I don't understand what you mean here. Since when do you have to have a high BA to walk a lot? There are a ton of players who didn't have a good BA, but still had awesome OBPs because of their walks.

[jalbright]

Actually, there seems to be a group of hitters whose approach is to work the pitcher for a hit he can drive. That group of hitters will take a walk if they can get it, and will try to crush their pitch if they get that. Harmon seems to be one of that group.

Jim Albright

[KCGHOST]

As much as I admire Robinson and his fielding prowess I'd take Killebrew.. In RCAA Killebrew beats Robinson 516 - 51. I just can't fathom a 3B getting enough fielding opportunites to make up that differential. That's the same reason why I'd take Schmidt, Mathews, Brett and Boggs over Robby, too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

See, Killebrew wasn't a "third baseman". He was a multi-position star, much like Pete Rose and Dick Allen. Of course, Killebrew wins the character contest in that group, but . . .

Killebrew was a guy who didn't have a set position until he was too old to play anywhere but first base. That he was very versatile and had a significant number of games at 3B and in the OF is an indication that he wasn't a defensive zero. Third base, however, was not his best position, nor the position that best suited him. I doubt Killebrew would have lasted as long as he did, or gotten to 500 career HRs if he had been a career 3B. Of course, if he had done so, he'd be viewed as a significantly greater player than he is now.

Killebrew's versatility allowed the Senators/Twins to get guys in the lineup that had ability, but limitation as well. The Twins had guys at 1B that were good platoon players (Don Mincher, Rich Reese) and in the outfield (Jimmie Hall) and they had, at one point, an All-Star caliber third baseman in Rich Rollins (who faded faster than you could say "Jeff Cirillo"). How MUCH this helped the team is debatable. The Twins would have been better off to have, early on, put Killebrew at first base and left him there. He certainly hit well enough, and he was a defensive plus at 1B. It is rarely a good strategy to make your team's BEST POSITION PLAYER a guy who shifts from position to position.

It's also not ususally a good idea to apply the Peter Principle to a player's defensive position. Bill James once pointed out that putting a player at the most demanding defensive position he could handle was a good strategy for Strat-O-Matic or Rotisserie, but it's not what successful teams do. It's why Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson played LF and not CF. It's why Bagwell played 1B and not 3B. It's why Clete Boyer and Chipper Jones played 3B and not SS. Putting Killebrew at 3B and giving playing time to Jimmie Hall and Don Mincher was good Strat-O-Matic strategy, but the Twins would have been better off with Killebrew at ONE defensive position and platooning at the other spots.

[leecemark]

--That really does not appear to be true. The Twins made the playoffs 3 times in Killebrew's career and all three times it was when they were using KIllebrew at 3B to get another bat in the lineup at 1B/LF. Also Killebrew moved BACK to thirdbase at age 33 after several years at first and won an MVP while leading the Twins to the division title. He had another of his very best seasons the next year at 3B (and the Twins won again) and was still playing significant time at third the next year at age 35. If he could return to third at that relatively advanced age and be adequete, then it seems highly likely he could (and should) have stayed at thirdbase all along.
--Killebrew was not a great - or even good - defensive thirdbaseman, but you could live with his glove there and the extra bat you got the lineup made for a better team. So yeah, the Twins would have been best served by playing Killebrew at one spot, but that spot should have been 3B.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--That really does not appear to be true. The Twins made the playoffs 3 times in Killebrew's career and all three times it was when they were using KIllebrew at 3B to get another bat in the lineup at 1B/LF. Also Killebrew moved BACK to thirdbase at age 33 after several years at first and won an MVP while leading the Twins to the division title. He had another of his very best seasons the next year at 3B (and the Twins won again) and was still playing significant time at third the next year at age 35. If he could return to third at that relatively advanced age and be adequete, then it seems highly likely he could (and should) have stayed at thirdbase all along.
--Killebrew was not a great - or even good - defensive thirdbaseman, but you could live with his glove there and the extra bat you got the lineup made for a better team. So yeah, the Twins would have been best served by playing Killebrew at one spot, but that spot should have been 3B.


Killebrew played 3B for 44 games in 1965; it was probably the last 44 games, I grant you. He was at 3B in the World Series, as the Twins benched Rich Rollins, whose bat went south. The Twins had Don Mincher, so it was easier to replace Rollins with a first baseman and move Killebrew than it was to replace a third baseman.

It seems clear to me that the Twins would have been better off keeping Killebrew at 1B and giving the 3B job to Graig Nettles in 1969. They underrated Nettles and overrated Rich Reese, who was little more than a platoon player with not enough power for 1B.

[leecemark]

--Well I certainly won't argue that Reese was a better player than Nettles. That really doesn't have anything to do with Killebrew though. Given the Twins actual personnel Killebrew probably should have made the move to 1B around 1970 when Nettles was ready to play. That they thought keeping the 34 year old Killebrew at 3B and Rich Reese (who did have a terrific season in 1969) at 1B and trade Nettles does look bad in retrospect, especially since the main guy they got for Nettles was Luis Tiant - whose arm was never right when he was the Twins property.

[Dodgerfan1]

Wow, this thread has been ongoing now for more than two years! I just joined BF recently, so I don't know how common that is, but I've never seen one this old yet! I find this discussion fascinating! Evidently, so do many others, as more and more keep posting to it.

I must admit to being ignorant of sabermetrics, although I have been telling myself for a long time now that I would study up on it and be able to hold an intelligent conversation regarding it's finer points, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. The opinions expressed on this topic have pretty much all been lucid and logical, yet there is one point that leaps out at me that I have yet to see proffered here.

While it must be agreed upon that Killebrew was a MUCH better hitter than Robinson (BA notwithstanding), and that Brooks was a MUCH better fielder than Harmon, there's something intangible that may not be taken into as much consideration as I think it should be, and that is not how many runs a player, as a hitter, produces, but how many runs, as a fielder, he allows.

When a player is such a great run producer as Killebrew was, I realize the ratio of runs produced to runs actually allowed is heavily weighted in favor of the former, even when a fielder is absolutely horrendous and makes many errors (Killebrew was not a horrendous third baseman, just a below average one, IMO), but baseball, being the 'game of inches' that it is, can be quite unforgiving of even a single error, at times.

To know how many one-run games the Twins lost because of a fielding error, a throwing error, a mental mistake or the very limited range exhibited by Killebrew, could go a long way toward really knowing just how tolerable his fielding was when compared to his hitting. With all the focus on his huge batting and run-producing statistics (and scoring runs is, indeed, the name of the game), it's easy to lose sight of the fact that he may very well have given away a lot of runs, as well, which could potentially lead to many one-run losses, which could very well mean the difference between winning a pennant and not winning it.

I realize there isn't a whole lot of thinking or sabermetric logic involved in this point of view, but the whole point of my rambling is that Brooks Robinson's glove certainly did much more than Killebrew's to contribute to, and preserve, many one-run victories the Orioles accumulated over the years, and thus he may be a BIGGER part of being on so many great teams than some people want to give him credit for, seeing as he may have been overshadowed at times by the Frank Robinsons and Boog Powells of the world.

To me, preventing runs is just as important as saving them, although it's almost impossible for a third baseman to save 3 runs with one fielding play, while it's easy to produce three runs with one swing of the bat. On the surface, the edge toward hitting is obvious, but in reality, the importance of glove work, and PREVENTING a run or two here and there, is much more subtle and understated.

This probably wasn't a very good post, I still haven't had my morning coffee yet... :coffee

[Ubiquitous]

How many 0-4's costs Brooks team a game? How many GIDP killed a rally? The same is true on the flipside as well.

[rsuriyop]

There were a number of power hitters who had good OBP but not particularly impressive batting averages. Off the top of my head, Frank Howard (BA .273 - OBP .352), Mark McGwire (BA .263 - OBP .394), Willie McCovey (BA .270 - OBP .374), and Mike Schmidt (BA .267 - OBP .380) come to mind.

But the question is, can we really give all those power hitters credit for their high OBP? Because I find it hard to believe that all of the above (with maybe few exceptions) possessed truly extraordinary plate discipline. In many cases, these type of hitters are either intentionally walked or unintentionally intentionally walked, bringing their OBP above the leage average. So is it really fair to give them credit for something that's out of their control?

It's this kind of issue that gives me a really hard time when trying to evaluate certain players.

[Ubiquitous]

If these players couldn't hit the ball why would they be walked? I mean if they were so bad as you think they are to the point where a pitcher has to intentionally walk them just to get their OBP above average why would a pitcher bother doing that?

So is it really fair to give them credit for something that's out of their control?


Yes because it is within their control.

[soberdennis]

This is probably a bias of mine, I admit, and it's very not Sabermetric of me, but...

I forgive Brooks Robinson his career .267 BA because of his defensive prowess; you don't expect a lot of offense out of a defensive specialist. Pretty much gravy.

But Harmon Killebrew is a guy who had offense as his bread and butter. And when I think of Harmon Killebrew, there's only one number that pops into my mind.

.256.

I just can't see past that. I'll tell you this; I was suprised a few weeks ago when I glanced at home run leaderboards and I saw where Killebrew what as for his career... That .256 number had overwhelmed my thoughts on Killebrew to the point where I guess I had just figured his home run number was somewhere near Dave Kingman's.

Now, Leecemark, you know me, I know all about the ins and outs of sabermetrics and the value of OBP and SLG. But I just can't get over an offensive player with a .256 batting average. If he was on my team, I'd be perpetually dissapointed in him (the way I'm perpetually disappointed now in Jason Giambi... I have no time for guys who go .250/.410/.550. I know how much value that they have, and how they'll put great OPS+'s up... but I can't get past that .250).

So I can excuse it for Brooks the same way I could excuse it for Ozzie Smith or Maz. But for Harmon... or Schmidt or Joe Morgan for that matter... it just seems to me like, if you're that good an offensive player, get the wood on the ball.

But it's not a very rational viewpoint, and it's not backed up by the math. Oh well.
I agree. Killebrew was a great power hitter. But that lifetime BA was inexcusable. Give me a lifetime BA over .270 and I might agree with the starter of this thread.

[Ubiquitous]

So if Harmon had 113 more singles and 113 less walks then Harmon would be better then Brooks? So basically 6 extra singles a year instead of walks per season makes him better?

[rsuriyop]

...if they were so bad as you think they are to the point where a pitcher has to intentionally walk them just to get their OBP above average why would a pitcher bother doing that?

For fear of the hitter hitting the ball out of the park, of course. You could have a relatively low BA but still be a threat if you have a repuation as a feared power hitter.


Yes because it is within their control.

If they get intentionally walked, no it isn't.
If they get unintentionally intentially walked, perhaps. But it would be absurd to swing at something that would be clearly out of the strike zone even from the batter's perspective.

I don't want to mislead anyone. There are certainly some great power hitters who do possess truly extraordinary plate discipline (i.e. Ted Williams, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, etc.). All I'm saying is that not all the great hitters who do draw walks do so because they have the eye or plate discipline that would allow them this opportunity. Look at David Ortiz for instance. His OBP this year is above .400. Do you honestly believe that if he was any less of a hitter than he is that he'd still have a .400+ OBP? Of course not, because they pitch to him differently out of fear. And that's something that I just cannot give anyone credit for.

[538280]

I agree. Killebrew was a great power hitter. But that lifetime BA was inexcusable. Give me a lifetime BA over .270 and I might agree with the starter of this thread.

This is the kind of comment that makes me want to slam my head against the wall.

Lifetime BA inexcusable? How do teams score runs? Do they score runs through hits? Well, yes, quite often they do, but the two key components to scoring runs are 1.Getting people on to be moved along, and 2.Moving them along.

The first part has to do with getting on base, and though Harmon didn't get a ton of hits, he was walking enough that he was strong in that area. Brooks was about average there. Killebrew obviously was doing a lot to move runners along with his great HR and power stroke. Brooks was probably slightly above average there.

So how is the BA inexcusable? It was still producing runs, and runs are the bottom line, they're what wins the game.

[538280]

For fear of the hitter hitting the ball out of the park, of course. You could have a relatively low BA but still be a threat if you have a repuation as a feared power hitter.

If they get intentionally walked, no it isn't.
If they get unintentionally intentially walked, perhaps. But it would be absurd to swing at something that would be clearly out of the strike zone even from the batter's perspective.

I don't want to mislead anyone. There are certainly some great power hitters who do possess truly extraordinary plate discipline (i.e. Ted Williams, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, etc.). All I'm saying is that not all the great hitters who do draw walks do so because they have the eye or plate discipline that would allow them this opportunity. Look at David Ortiz for instance. His OBP this year is above .400. Do you honestly believe that if he was any less of a hitter than he is that he'd still have a .400+ OBP? Of course not, because they pitch to him differently out of fear. And that's something that I just cannot give anyone credit for.

A reputation is something you EARN. If a player's great power allows him to get on base at a .400 clip, then that is another benifit to his team that comes from the original skill. Sure, the power is only one skill, but it results in him doing other things to help his team. Don't get caught up in looking at a player's tools, even if they don't truly have a great eye, they're getting the benifit of having one. That's all that really matters from a value standpoint.

[Rose4theHall]

I agree. Killebrew was a great power hitter. But that lifetime BA was inexcusable. Give me a lifetime BA over .270 and I might agree with the starter of this thread.

Hypothetical: Would you take a .270 hitter with a .330 OBP over a .230 hitter with a .400 OBP? Just wondering....

[jalbright]

Hypothetical: Would you take a .270 hitter with a .330 OBP over a .230 hitter with a .400 OBP? Just wondering....

If the .400 OBP guy has a slugging percentage as high or higher than the .270 average guy, the .400 OBP guy.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Hypothetical: Would you take a .270 hitter with a .330 OBP over a .230 hitter with a .400 OBP? Just wondering....

Assuming that SLGs are equal, if you'd take the .270 BA guy you might as well say you want your team to score less runs.