Also, I want to make a clear case for the greatness of Jose Contreras. He shut down the Orioles offensive juggernaut in 1999 when he was about 35 years old and first got a chance to face a major league team:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullp ... ion_SeriesHe struck out ten guys and you can look at who was on that team. If he had been allowed to pitch in the majors we would be speaking of him in the same breath with Clemens, Johnson, Maddux, and Pedro.
I'm going to quote Bill James from
Baseball Abstract because it applies precisely to Jose Contreras:
"
1. Adjustment for Undocumented Parts of a Player's CareerJoe DiMaggio was in the United State Army in 1943, 1944, and 1945. It is my belief that, in rating players, it is appropriate to make an adjustment for this.
I don't make adjustments for players who are injured; I don't make adjustments for players who are suspended or who voluntarily retire, no matter what the conditions. I make adjustments for any player
who is clearly a major league player, but who is prevented from playing in the major leagues by forces beyond his control. One might imagine that it was obvious that we should make an adjustment for this; how in the hell can you evaluate Joe DiMaggio
without making an adjustment for that? But if it is obvious to me, it is not obvious to everyone:
Bill James decried the years [Lefty] Grove spent languishing in Baltimore while Jack Dunn held him back from the major leagues, but Grove was no great shakes pitching for a strong second place club in 1925 when he finally did get a chance, and anyway the "what if" game is silly in this context, and endless. What if Alexander had never touched alcohol? What if Feller hadn't gone to war? What if Satchel Paige had been white? What if Earl Averill hadn't broken Dizzy Dean's toe? -Henry Thomas, Walter Johnson: Baseball's Big TrainLefty Grove was injured in 1925, but that's a side issue. I had argued in the first version of this book that Lefty Grove should rank ahead of Walter Johnson, in part because of his very large number of great seasons, some of which were in the minor leagues.
Thomas, who is Johnson's grandson, naturally wants to see Grandpa ranked as the greatest pitcher who ever lived, and I have decided, given the evidence of the Win Shares method, to go along with him. But, it seems to me, he is lumping together arguments which can be easily distinguished, and therefore limited. I am not arguing that Lefty Grove
would have been a great pitcher in 1923 or 1924. I am arguing that Grove
was a great pitcher in 1923 and 1924.
Let's start with Satchel Paige. Is it silly to say that Satchel Paige was a great pitcher in 1933? Hell, it's silly to suggest that he
wasn't. Does he have any statistics to prove this? Not really. But in rating players, why is it silly to give Satchel Paige credit for being what he was?
The same with DiMaggio during the war. I am not arguing that DiMaggio
would have been a great player in 1945. I am arguing that Joe DiMaggio
was a great player in 1945. He was prevented from playing in the major leagues by circumstance beyond his control, but that does not mean that he was not a great player. Exactly the same is true of Lefty Grove in 1923 and 1924. He was a great pitcher who was prevented from playing in the major leagues by circumstance beyond his control.
Now the idea that Dizzy Dean would have been a great pitcher for many years had he not broken his toe- that's a different argument. That's a "what if" argument, arguing that Dean "would have been great". I don't know that I'd describe it as silly, but it's certainly a dangerous line of analysis, because there's no exact limit to it... if Dizzy Dean, why not Herb Score, if Herb Score, why not Jim Maloney?
You never give players credit for what they
might have been- but you always give them credit for what they
were. In rating players I give compensatory credit for five types of gaps in playing careers:
1. Wartime service.
2. Seasons missed because of racial segregation.
3. Seasons in which a major league star was trapped in the minor leagues by factors beyond his control.
4. Seasons missed by players born before 1856 who may have been in mid-career before the National League was organized.
5. Players who were blocked from playing by league wars impacting their contracts."
I think it's pretty clear that Contreras falls into category 3. You might even say he falls into category 5 as well.
Anyway, I think the same argument can be made for Contreras as is made for Paige or DiMaggio or Grove:
Is it silly to say that Joe Contreras was a great pitcher in 1995? Hell, it's silly to suggest that he
wasn't. Does he have any statistics to prove this? Not really. But in rating players, why is it silly to give Jose Conteras credit for being what he was? I am not arguing that Contreras
would have been a great player in 1995 or 1996 or 1997. I am arguing that Jose Contreras
was a great player in 1995 and 1996 and 1997. He was prevented from playing in the major leagues by circumstance beyond his control, but that does not mean that he was not a great player.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
