Wade Boggs - What did we have there?

Who is the most under-appreciated Sox? (flies under the radar/more forgotten than they should be)


  • Total voters
    205

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
From the 80's thread:
 

 
The early 80s for me were about the end of Yaz and the start of Boggs.  Watching Boggs was remarkable--the batting eye, the ability to foul pitches off, the consistent solid contact, the ritual at the plate, the unique stroke.  You would plan your game-watching around making sure you saw all his atbats.  
 
In 1985 he had "three pop-ups in 758 plate appearances."

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-31/sports/sp-20020_1_wade-boggs
 
 
 
 
Boggs was also mentioned in another thread.  Again, I'm a bit puzzled at the apparent lack of the 'nation's appreciation for him.  People have pointed out the signing with the Yankees, the Margo Adams thing, the invisibility, the chicken, the OCD ritual-ness, the Tampa hat, the lack of a signature moment.  I'm still puzzled though.  I wonder if one (or two) of these things were erased, if he wouldn't be a quirky but brilliant former player.  
 
I can't think of a former Sox player of his caliber that is so marginalized by the fan base.  Well, sorta.  There's Clemens who has a ton of baggage and sort of openly spat on the fan-base.  On the other hand there's Manny who, while he led people to pull out their hair, is still very much appreciated as a player and, to an extent, as a personality.  
 
That got me to looking up some careers on baseball reference.  Some odd bits:  John Valentin's WAR with the Sox is higher than Fred Lynn's.  Bob Stanley's WAR with the Sox is higher than Lowe, Beckett, Eck's and Shillings's.  Nomar's WAR with the Sox isn't all that far from Ortiz's.    
 
Anyway, given Boggs's place as the third greatest hitter (in terms of contribution to the Sox) that the Sox have ever had, I was curious as to what everyone thought about under/over-rated Sox players.   
 
Anyone I should add to the poll?
 
(edited per request to add Nomar to over valued)
 
(edited per request to add Manny to over valued)
 
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I think that you should probably take Mo Vaughn off that list. As much credit as Dan Duquette and Theo Epstein get for the "new" Red Sox, some of those huzzahs should go to Mo Vaughn. When Mo came up, the perception of Boston was that it was a hugely racist city ("Goin' up South to Boston, eh?") and that black players never got a fair shake in the city. I was just a suburban kid during that time (I was a college freshman when Mo made his debut) so A. I can't talk too much about whether that was true or not but B. the perception bothered me. Vaughn was the first real black superstar that came out and said, "Boston isn't a bad place to play at all. If you do well, people will love you." And I think that his words meant something. 
 
I'm not sure if it was a direct cause-and-effect (what Mo said went) but after Mo, more and more minorities started to star for the Red Sox and that leftover stigma of the Winter Haven Country Club dissipated. I don't even think it's really an issue any more (for the fans).
 
I answered that Manny was the most under appreciated player that I've seen play. The dude was a monster who, by all accounts, worked very hard on his hitting. He was indifferent to fielding, sometimes to comical effect, but I know a couple other all-time greats who had the same distaste for the leather glove. If you read a lot of the media accounts when Manny was here, it never seemed that they gave him a fair shake. And that's too bad because, Manny was the best damn right-handed hitter I've ever seen in my life. It's too bad that some people's tastes are influenced by a bunch of paunchy, middle-aged cynics who won't understand why "players today won't play the damn game like it was meant to be played".
 
But, that's baseball. I'm sure some asshole writer said that Ty Cobb should be more respectful to opponents and the game itself, like Cap Anson. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Boggs not only didn't win a title in Boston, but he jumped ship and then won one with Yankees at a time when there was no 2004 to cool the fiery hatred we had for them and everything they stood for. That goes a long way toward explaining the tepid feelings toward Boggs, despite how great he was.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Is Wade Boggs under-appreciated or disliked? Seems even the haters will agree that it had more to do with not liking the guy than recognizing that he was a great player.
 
Dewey is legit under-appreciated. To the point where even if they retired his number tomorrow, in a few years people would look up and be like, 'Oh, they retired 24 for Manny!'
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I agree with JMOH that Manny is already kind of the forgotten star.
 
The offseason where he was signed was another, micro, Yankees/Red Sox battle.   Both teams wanted Mussina, but Mussina's wife wanted to live in New York.  Duquette could have done what his predecessors would have done and signed the second or third best pitcher left available (IIRC, Mike Hampton and Denny Nagle) to an overpriced contract and said "Hey, we tried!", but instead he went out and paid fair market price for a legit star in Manny.
 
Manny was the tentpole to the Red Sox offense for the better part of a decade.  He was a monster.  His presence allowed the Red Sox to withstand the decline of Nomar and the complete bed shitting of Carl Everett, and along with Ortiz (who was an inferior hitter for most of their run together), formed the greatest back-to-back hitting tandem in some 50 years.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
It would be an interesting poll question to ask Sox fans to list the team's top 5 hitters of all time, and to see how often Boggs' name comes up.  
 
I'm not sure how much of a thing the under appreciation of Boggs really is.  Yes, some posters get hot and bothered about his number not being retired, and the fact that he was never part of the Sox coaching staff.  But his plaque is in the Sox Hall of Fame, and if there was a reunion of the 1986 Red Sox, I'm guessing his name would be greeted with a lot more cheers than boos these days.  As noted above, he'll never be liked or loved, but that's the bed that Boggs made.  And his perceived value gets hurt for one of the oldest reasons in baseball:  Chicks dig the long ball.  
 
Dwight Evans was under appreciated for many years, but that seems to be changing as more folks start looking at his offensive stats and realize that they were better than originally thought. And I doubt the WAR calculations do justice to his defense in Fenway's vast right field.  Reggie Smith is an interesting option as well; he was one of the most "under-the-radar" players in MLB, not just with the Sox.  
 
To quibble for the sake of quibbling:  I'm not a fan of using bWAR as a sole judge of value.  Valentin over Lynn doesn't sound right when you look at their respective offensive output.  And I'm not convinced that Boggs should be automatically considered a better hitter or more valuable player than Manny.  
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
Can someone explain to me why Varitek is running away with the overvalued? Genuinely curious (and too ignorant about Fisk or Vaughn to have an opinion on the question).
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,909
San Andreas Fault
tomdeplonty said:
Can someone explain to me why Varitek is running away with the overvalued? Genuinely curious (and too ignorant about Fisk or Vaughn to have an opinion on the question).
Ha. I looked for him in the undervalued list. His legendary game preparation for pitchers is the type of thing that isn't really measurable in any factor contributing to WAR, for example. Still, Pedro, Schilling, Beckett, and every other Sox pitcher I've ever heard completely praise the hell out of him. At the HOF ceremony, every time Pedro mentioned valued teammates, he mentioned Tek first. Maybe his last few years in which he was not able to hit, or throw much, is doing him in with the younger crowd.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I think Valentin should be a slam-dunk for most undervalued. And that's pretty much why I also chose Mo for overvalued (though frankly I think that's a pretty puzzling list of nominees, and much better ones could easily be found--starting with Manny, who belongs more on this list than the first one). I bet 9/10ths of Sox fans who followed the team in the 90s, if you asked who was the better player, Mo or Valentin, would answer Mo. And they'd be wrong.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
Al Zarilla said:
Maybe his last few years in which he was not able to hit, or throw much, is doing him in with the younger crowd.
 
He really couldn't hit or throw. Or move, it seemed. But that was the last few years of a long career.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Jim Rice has his number retired and Wade Boggs doesn't? Boggs isn't a saint, he's kind of a weirdo and probably drinks too much, but he's essentially harmless. He was a great player. I'm almost certain Lou Gorman didn't want him in 1992 and the Yankees did, and that's why he went there. Luis Tiant did the same thing, and if he's ever elected to the Hall of Fame his number will be retired before the Hall's director is off the phone with Luis.
 
Rice is an extremely marginal, if not flat out undeserving, Hall of Famer and isn't a very nice guy by many, many accounts. He's not evil, but neither is Boggs. I get it, the Red Sox weren't going to pass up retiring his number when the writers decided to give the finger to Barry Bonds and co. by electing Rice, but retire Boggs' number already. 
 
tomdeplonty said:
Can someone explain to me why Varitek is running away with the overvalued? Genuinely curious (and too ignorant about Fisk or Vaughn to have an opinion on the question).
 15 years and 24.9 WAR gets you the captaincy (complete with cringe-worthy C) and endless adulation from the media? For real? Now that he's retired I can appreciate his major contribution to two World Series teams, but I couldn't stand the talk around him when both the Red Sox and he refused to accept that he couldn't hit anymore and needed to go.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I voted for Nomar but I guess I'm not clear on how we're looking at under-appreciating.  Is it under-appreciated at the time of his playing or under-appreciated at the current moment, or under-appreciated over the course of his post-Red Sox career?
 
I get the feeling that because Nomar was traded during 2004, he's left a lot of Red Sox fans' radar screens.  Maybe not here but generally speaking.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Boggs not only didn't win a title in Boston, but he jumped ship and then won one with Yankees at a time when there was no 2004 to cool the fiery hatred we had for them and everything they stood for. That goes a long way toward explaining the tepid feelings toward Boggs, despite how great he was.
I'll push back a bit at the phrase "jumped ship". Boggs was coming off a major down year and IIRC, the Sox didn't make much of an attempt. This wasn't Ellsbury or Clemens where people were let down when he left. The Sox simply made a decision not to try and bring him back. Which is their right, I'm not being critical of them. But I don't understand what else Boggs was supposed to do. Go to the second bidder to honor a rivalry that was never really hot when he was here? Maybe he should have been sad when they won the World Series?
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
brs3 said:
Is Wade Boggs under-appreciated or disliked? Seems even the haters will agree that it had more to do with not liking the guy than recognizing that he was a great player.
 
(snip)
 
lexrageorge said:
It would be an interesting poll question to ask Sox fans to list the team's top 5 hitters of all time, and to see how often Boggs' name comes up.  
(snip)
 
I think the second quote answers the first. IMO, it's not quite a chicken-egg thing, but it's close.   Boggs existed at the end of the Globe-coverage understanding of the Sox (and baseball).  Our resident ahead-of-their-timer-Jamesian-types excluded, of course.  I think he pushed all the wrong popular buttons and none of the right ones for that time.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Savin Hillbilly said:
I think Valentin should be a slam-dunk for most undervalued. And that's pretty much why I also chose Mo for overvalued (though frankly I think that's a pretty puzzling list of nominees, and much better ones could easily be found--starting with Manny, who belongs more on this list than the first one). I bet 9/10ths of Sox fans who followed the team in the 90s, if you asked who was the better player, Mo or Valentin, would answer Mo. And they'd be wrong.
 
I thought I'd throw a few obvious names up there and see what stuck.   I didn't want to go too deep into Sox history, as the questions turn on the current perception of the fan-base.  There's always going to be a "fading" of older players as younger fans come in.  The iconic franchise players - Yaz, Williams, one learns about.  On the other hand, the Valentin's (excellent players in their day, not tied to iconic moments) get overlooked.  Reggie Smith, for example, is just before my Sox-awareness time.  But he's kind of a black hole to me in Sox lore, despite his statistical excellence.   Val probably fills that spot for guys in their 20s.  
 
We could break it down per era, or statistical value v. perceived value.  I just thought I'd get the conversation going.  
 
If you'd like names added, or different poll questions propounded, just let me know. 
 
***
 
I didn't put Nomar on the list originally because he was basically the first superstar Sox after the 91-96s deadish era.  (95 excepted.) Mo and Val were there, but Nomar set the world afire as a 24 year old in 98.  It's sort of hard to overhype what he was.  
 
Plus, I think he's actually slightly forgotten now.  Not playing in the 2004 series sealed his fate as "one of those guys in the 90s, prior to the WS win."  Does anyone think of him as an internal part of that 2004 team?  I remember being crushed when he was traded.  I was going through a lot of changes in my life at the time, and it just seemed to be one more surreal moment - "surly Nomar, traded for scrubs."
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I voted for Nomar but I guess I'm not clear on how we're looking at under-appreciating.  Is it under-appreciated at the time of his playing or under-appreciated at the current moment, or under-appreciated over the course of his post-Red Sox career?
 
I get the feeling that because Nomar was traded during 2004, he's left a lot of Red Sox fans' radar screens.  Maybe not here but generally speaking.
 
I had meant "under appreciated at the current moment."  Although, post-career ups and downs might apply to any of these guys.  Basically, which excellent players fall off the radar screen, and which not-so-excellent-players stick?  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
I think that you should probably take Mo Vaughn off that list. As much credit as Dan Duquette and Theo Epstein get for the "new" Red Sox, some of those huzzahs should go to Mo Vaughn. When Mo came up, the perception of Boston was that it was a hugely racist city ("Goin' up South to Boston, eh?") and that black players never got a fair shake in the city. I was just a suburban kid during that time (I was a college freshman when Mo made his debut) so A. I can't talk too much about whether that was true or not but B. the perception bothered me. Vaughn was the first real black superstar that came out and said, "Boston isn't a bad place to play at all. If you do well, people will love you." And I think that his words meant something. 
 
I'm not sure if it was a direct cause-and-effect (what Mo said went) but after Mo, more and more minorities started to star for the Red Sox and that leftover stigma of the Winter Haven Country Club dissipated. I don't even think it's really an issue any more (for the fans).
 
(snip)
 
While I agree with you, I'll leave him on.  He did get that bogus MVP, and he's fun to discuss.  While Mo was a very important figure in Boston, especially vis a vis racism, I think Duquette also deserves a lot of credit for integrating the Sox more than in previous years.  
 

JoePoulson

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Feb 28, 2006
2,755
Orlando, FL
I'll be 41 in September, so I grew up with the 80's Sox.  Wade Boggs was my "active player" hero growing up (Ted always was, and always will be, my fave Sox), and I *loved* watching him hit.  The dude had an incredible eye, and it was must-see TV for me for 10 years.  When he left in 1993, I was naturally devastated, but I also understood it was business (it still sucked SO BAD that he went to NY, but at least they weren't that good either, right?).  As is tradition, he was rejuvenated once he put on the pinstripes and eventually rode that horse.  And then he signs with TAMPA (yes, his home town, and yes they were beyond terrible, but F them), and the whole hat "controversy" and kissing home plate after hitting a homer for #3,000.  Of course the whole deal with Margo, and his general cheesiness just add to the bad taste in our mouths I suppose.  
 
There's no denying his brilliance on the field.  I, too, think the Sox should retire his number.  As little as that kind of stuff matters to me, it seems silly that they've retired the number of all other Sox HoF'ers, but not Boggs.  His is definitely a strange and fascinating case, but kind of par for the course that is the Red Sox franchise.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Rovin Romine said:
 
I had meant "under appreciated at the current moment."  Although, post-career ups and downs might apply to any of these guys.  Basically, which excellent players fall off the radar screen, and which not-so-excellent-players stick?  
 
This is why I voted Nomar. From 1997 through 2000, he was arguably the best position player I ever saw play for the Sox. His defense was still good, and he was just incredible at the plate. Like someone else said because he wasn't part of the 2004 title people kind of wrote him off, but at the peak of his powers there wasn't a better all around player I have ever seen play for the Sox.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
While they're not franchise level players, I wonder if I should do something in the future, poll-wise, with JD Drew, Bellhorn, Matt Clement, Carl Everett.  I think these are part of  that cluster of guys who have strange memes permanently attached to them.  Fairly/unfairly hated?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Rovin Romine said:
While they're not franchise level players, I wonder if I should do something in the future, poll-wise, with JD Drew, Bellhorn, Matt Clement, Carl Everett.  I think these are part of  that cluster of guys who have strange memes permanently attached to them.  Fairly/unfairly hated?
I'll never understand the hatred for JD Drew.  
 
Bellhorn was infuriating to me at times as a player, but he was a key part of 2004.  His 2005 was an abject disaster, but that is easily forgiven in my book. 
 
Clement was never the same after getting hit by a line drive, a key fact that his haters conveniently ignore. 
 
Carl Everett, OTOH, deserves every bit of hate from the haters.  
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
moondog80 said:
I'll push back a bit at the phrase "jumped ship". Boggs was coming off a major down year and IIRC, the Sox didn't make much of an attempt. This wasn't Ellsbury or Clemens where people were let down when he left. The Sox simply made a decision not to try and bring him back. Which is their right, I'm not being critical of them. But I don't understand what else Boggs was supposed to do. Go to the second bidder to honor a rivalry that was never really hot when he was here? Maybe he should have been sad when they won the World Series?
 
In addition, this wasn't like Clemens who forced his way out of Toronto to ride the coattails of a current Yankee dynasty.  In 1992 (Boggs' last year with the Red Sox), the Yankees were 76-86 and hadn't won a championship since 1978.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Players who can hit and hit for power, but choose to walk a lot, are always under appreciated.  Boggs was referred to as the "best average hitter in baseball," by a sports radio host (who will remain unnamed.)  But that was the knock on Boggs, that he'd be up with the tying runs on 1st and 2nd, and take a walk.  Even Ted Williams endured the same bad rap.  And, in 1987, when Boggs hit 24 homeruns (and had a league leading OPS over 1.000) people noted that he could have hit a lot more home runs and been more valuable, but he "selfishly" wanted to protect his batting average.
 
Of course, Boggs could be his own worst enemy.  He balked at batting leadoff and had that annoying habit of referring to himself in the third person. ("Wade Boggs is just going to continue to do what Wade Boggs does best.")  And then there was the "Year of Margo," and the chants from opposing fans in every ballpark.. "MAR-go, MAR-go."
 
It's amazing that he made it to 3000 hits, given how old he was when he made his MLB debut.  Similiar, in a way, to David Ortiz reaching 500 homers, after having hit only 58 by the time he reached age 27.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
Evans never got his due from the outside and even amongst Red Sox fans, but his utter excellence in RF and underappreciated bat, coupled with fantastic longevity, made him incredibly valuable for the Red Sox.  For an understanding of just HOW good Evans was, his career fWAR of 64.3 is 4th in team history for position players in the live ball era, behind only Williams, Yaz and Boggs, and only Clemens tops him among pitchers.  In that context, Evans is a guy who has an argument to have his number up on the RF facade.
 
On the flip side, I love Varitek, and his value as a receiver is probably under-appreciated through historical statistics, but his status as Captain probably has inflated his value more than any other player in recent memory.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
jscola85 said:
Evans never got his due from the outside and even amongst Red Sox fans, but his utter excellence in RF and underappreciated bat, coupled with fantastic longevity, made him incredibly valuable for the Red Sox.  For an understanding of just HOW good Evans was, his career fWAR of 64.3 is 4th in team history for position players in the live ball era, behind only Williams, Yaz and Boggs, and only Clemens tops him among pitchers.  In that context, Evans is a guy who has an argument to have his number up on the RF facade.
 
On the flip side, I love Varitek, and his value as a receiver is probably under-appreciated through historical statistics, but his status as Captain probably has inflated his value more than any other player in recent memory.
 
In the early '80s, Bill James' "Baseball Abstracts" became the hot, new thing, having gone national.  Dwight Evans was his #1 binky in which James would show how Evans was a superior offensive force to Jim Ed Rice by then.  (And then there was his defense.)  So to say he 'never got his due,' is an over-statement.  He never got his due from the old timers who only looked at the back of a baseball card for their statistics.   Evans was never a serious candidate for the HOF, because he never had that one GREAT 3 year stretch like Rice did in 1977-1979.  Evans should have won the MVP in 1981, but even then, to his misfortune, his greatest year was during the strike-interrupted year.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
WenZink said:
Players who can hit and hit for power, but choose to walk a lot, are always under appreciated.  Boggs was referred to as the "best average hitter in baseball," by a sports radio host (who will remain unnamed.)  But that was the knock on Boggs, that he'd be up with the tying runs on 1st and 2nd, and take a walk.  Even Ted Williams endured the same bad rap.  And, in 1987, when Boggs hit 24 homeruns (and had a league leading OPS over 1.000) people noted that he could have hit a lot more home runs and been more valuable, but he "selfishly" wanted to protect his batting average.
 
Of course, Boggs could be his own worst enemy.  He balked at batting leadoff and had that annoying habit of referring to himself in the third person. ("Wade Boggs is just going to continue to do what Wade Boggs does best.")  And then there was the "Year of Margo," and the chants from opposing fans in every ballpark.. "MAR-go, MAR-go."
 
It's amazing that he made it to 3000 hits, given how old he was when he made his MLB debut.  Similiar, in a way, to David Ortiz reaching 500 homers, after having hit only 58 by the time he reached age 27.
 
One of the biggest reasons he balked at hitting leadoff is because he was constantly criticized for his low RBI totals (in the press and in contract negotiations).  Can't really rack up the RBIs when you're put in a position to be a table-setter.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
One of the biggest reasons he balked at hitting leadoff is because he was constantly criticized for his low RBI totals (in the press and in contract negotiations).  Can't really rack up the RBIs when you're put in a position to be a table-setter.
But as another third person-talker (and the greatest lead off hitter of all time) might say, "Rickey never had no problem batting leadoff and Rickey never had no problem getting his money."
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,231
I never felt like Boston fans underappreciated Evans, particularly after he started really hitting in 1981.  People always loved his defense and his arm, and once he started hitting for power, what wasn't there to like?  Maybe he didn't get the national attention he deserved and maybe he was always overshadowed by Rice, but its not like he toiled in obscurity among the Red Sox fandom of the day. 
 
As much as I hate him now, I felt that Clemens was underappreciated for much of his stay in Boston.  He rubbed people the wrong way with his arrogance (there was some stupid thing he said once about having to carry his suitcase that the media always harped on), never quite matched his 1986 season again (even when winning more Cy Young Awards), came up short in the playoffs more than once.  Much as Boggs was a tremendous player who seldom got his due in that era, or like Manny in the 2000s, Clemens was a player where many preferred to focus on his perceived shortcomings rather than enjoy his incredible talents.
 
Bob Stanley was tremendously underappreciated.  He looked too fat to be a professional athlete, so nobody wanted to take him seriously, but he was the best pitcher on the team for several years before Clemens came along.
 
I'd have to put Jerry Remy on the list of most overvalued players.  He was an okay second baseman who basically hit some singles.  He routinely combined a sub.350 on base percentage with a sub .350 slugging percentage. His OPS+ was above 90 in only one season in Boston (and that year only 100).  Yet he was popular with the fans and, for some reason, was the first "major" potential free agency departee for whom the brain trust decided to open up the bank, after years of letting much better players like Fisk and Lynn leave over money.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Boggs was Mr. OBP before OBP was cool.

His signature moment was working a walk against the Braves to keep a rally alive in the WS. (For NYY.)

His other signature moment was on a NY police horse after said WS, which was aping one of Roger's 1986 Kodak moments.

His other other signature moment was the Barbara Walters interview in which he self-diagnosed as a sex addict on national TV (when that meant something), leading Oil Can Boyd to ask why Boyd had to see a psychiatrist when Boggs was a sex addict.

Fun times, those 1980's. Thanks for the walk down memory lane!
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
WenZink said:
 
In the early '80s, Bill James' "Baseball Abstracts" became the hot, new thing, having gone national.  Dwight Evans was his #1 binky in which James would show how Evans was a superior offensive force to Jim Ed Rice by then.  (And then there was his defense.)  So to say he 'never got his due,' is an over-statement.  He never got his due from the old timers who only looked at the back of a baseball card for their statistics.   Evans was never a serious candidate for the HOF, because he never had that one GREAT 3 year stretch like Rice did in 1977-1979.  Evans should have won the MVP in 1981, but even then, to his misfortune, his greatest year was during the strike-interrupted year.
 
Bill James' popularity may have had something of a national presence through his annual Abstracts, but the average baseball fan in Boston and really anywhere in America probably had no idea who he was in the 80s, or dismissed his work as nerdish gibberish.  Hell, he didn't really get much attention until the Moneyball started getting press and James was hired by the Red Sox.  So sure, there was a small, hardcore contingent who followed James who greatly respected Evans but I don't think fans truly appreciated his two-way excellence the way they would have if he started his career in the early 2000's instead of the early 70s.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
jscola85 said:
 
Bill James' popularity may have had something of a national presence through his annual Abstracts, but the average baseball fan in Boston and really anywhere in America probably had no idea who he was in the 80s, or dismissed his work as nerdish gibberish.  Hell, he didn't really get much attention until the Moneyball started getting press and James was hired by the Red Sox.  So sure, there was a small, hardcore contingent who followed James who greatly respected Evans but I don't think fans truly appreciated his two-way excellence the way they would have if he started his career in the early 2000's instead of the early 70s.
 
I can't find sales figures, but by the early 80s, James' "Abstracts" was pretty popular.. especially in baseball towns like Boston.  Gammons, Ryan and other writers were tuned into James, as well, and his stuff was well publicized by the new generation of the BBWA.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
jscola85 said:
 
Bill James' popularity may have had something of a national presence through his annual Abstracts, but the average baseball fan in Boston and really anywhere in America probably had no idea who he was in the 80s, or dismissed his work as nerdish gibberish.  Hell, he didn't really get much attention until the Moneyball started getting press and James was hired by the Red Sox.  So sure, there was a small, hardcore contingent who followed James who greatly respected Evans but I don't think fans truly appreciated his two-way excellence the way they would have if he started his career in the early 2000's instead of the early 70s.
 
Evans also had a bit of a late peak. He was a good RF in his early-mid 20s, but he was a guy hitting 15-20 HR a year and hitting 260-280. Totally a good player, but not the kind of stats at the time that would get you superstar attention - especially with Rice, Lynn and Yaz still hanging around. Then Evans really upped his game and was consistently very good/excellent for the better part of his 30s. I think people just got it stuck in their heads that he was a pretty good OF, not at good as Rice/Lynn, and that opinion just sort of stuck. Then there's the thing where guys who do everything well but don't have one big standout skill tended to be underrated. 
 
Boggs was probably underappreciated at the time, but he's in the HoF - I think he's getting his due. Evans on the other hand was probably a better player than Rice. 
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
WenZink said:
 
I can't find sales figures, but by the early 80s, James' "Abstracts" was pretty popular.. especially in baseball towns like Boston.  Gammons, Ryan and other writers were tuned into James, as well, and his stuff was well publicized by the new generation of the BBWA.
 
I don't know - the Abstracts were still self-published in the early 80's. You had to be in the know to send away for them. No one was talking about him on tv or the national press. I think his influence is sort of like the Velvet Underground - he had some fans, but a huge percentage of them either were or became important baseball writers. 
 
Even today I'd guess less than half of baseball fans (probably more Boston fans since I think he still works for the team) even know who he is, and even then I bet only a fraction of them could list one of Bill James important ideas. The importance of OBP, one of James' most important concepts, wasn't talked about outside of a small handful of writers (who certainly never harped on it the way we do now) much until the internet came along. 
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Savin Hillbilly said:
I think Valentin should be a slam-dunk for most undervalued. And that's pretty much why I also chose Mo for overvalued (though frankly I think that's a pretty puzzling list of nominees, and much better ones could easily be found--starting with Manny, who belongs more on this list than the first one). I bet 9/10ths of Sox fans who followed the team in the 90s, if you asked who was the better player, Mo or Valentin, would answer Mo. And they'd be wrong.
 
Valentin was better than Vaughn?  Explain, because I watched those teams, and even just took a spin back through the stats to see if I was remembering something wrong, and I absolutely think Mo was better.
 
As to the thread topic...Boggs is criminally underappreciated, probably because all the younger fans never saw him play and never watched baseball prior to the power explosion of the 90's.  He was a totally unique and incredible hitter to watch.  If they had put more consistent power behind him in the lineup in the 80's his numbers would have been (even more) mindblowing.  I used to love reading from old timey writers about how he could have hit 25 home runs a year but he was selfish and wanted to hit singles.  Like, what a jerk, getting on base almost 50% of the time!
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
WenZink said:
But as another third person-talker (and the greatest lead off hitter of all time) might say, "Rickey never had no problem batting leadoff and Rickey never had no problem getting his money."
 
Rickey got paid for and was expected to rack up the stolen bases.  Boggs wasn't ever going to steal 10 bases in a season, let alone 100 (he totaled 24 for his career).
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
alwyn96 said:
 
I don't know - the Abstracts were still self-published in the early 80's. You had to be in the know to send away for them. No one was talking about him on tv or the national press. I think his influence is sort of like the Velvet Underground - he had some fans, but a huge percentage of them either were or became important baseball writers. 
 
Even today I'd guess less than half of baseball fans (probably more Boston fans since I think he still works for the team) even know who he is, and even then I bet only a fraction of them could list one of Bill James important ideas. The importance of OBP, one of James' most important concepts, wasn't talked about outside of a small handful of writers (who certainly never harped on it the way we do now) much until the internet came along. 
 
I believe the 1982 Abstract was the first published and distributed by a main stream publisher.  I have it, and it's just in time to rave about Evan's fantastic 1981 season.  And, again, even before 1982, the new generation of baseball writers were extolling his virtues based on his self-published editions from 1977-1981.  Believe me, there were advanced baseball metrics BEFORE the internet.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
Al Michaels leads off an inning in Game 5 of the 1986 ALCS (the Hendu game) raving about Boggs' OBP. Michaels is a smart guy and a great sportscaster, so he may well have been reading some of Bill James's Abstracts, and that minute or so of accolade would have been seen by millions.
 
Captaincoop said:
 
Valentin was better than Vaughn?  Explain, because I watched those teams, and even just took a spin back through the stats to see if I was remembering something wrong, and I absolutely think Mo was better.
 
As to the thread topic...Boggs is criminally underappreciated, probably because all the younger fans never saw him play and never watched baseball prior to the power explosion of the 90's.  He was a totally unique and incredible hitter to watch.  If they had put more consistent power behind him in the lineup in the 80's his numbers would have been (even more) mindblowing.  I used to love reading from old timey writers about how he could have hit 25 home runs a year but he was selfish and wanted to hit singles.  Like, what a jerk, getting on base almost 50% of the time!
 
In 1995, Valentin hit 298/399/533 with 27 home runs while playing shortstop, and playing it well. That's a heck of a year - he led AL position players in WAR. Vaughn wasn't even in the top 10. Even if you take WAR with a grain of salt, Vaughn's AVG/OBP/SLG isn't dramatically better than Valentin's and Valentin was a good defensive SS (great, if you believe WAR) while Vaughn, even at 250 rather than 300 or whatever he was playing at by the end of his career, was a pretty bad first baseman. It seems pretty reasonable to believe the team's MVP that year was John Valentin and not Mo Vaughn. 1995 was the best year of Valentin's career though. But throughout his career, Valentin was a good for SS to just good hitter and a good defensive shortstop, and while he wasn't Nomar, A-Rod, or Jeter, he was a fine player.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Captaincoop said:
 
Valentin was better than Vaughn?  Explain, because I watched those teams, and even just took a spin back through the stats to see if I was remembering something wrong, and I absolutely think Mo was better.
 
I'll start with the most obvious way of putting it, though I know that'll get me in trouble....Vaughn: 28.3 rWAR in 1346 games/5756 PA with the Sox. Valentin: 32.2 rWAR in 961 games/4161 PA with the Sox.
 
Putting it in less geeky terms: Yes, Vaughn was certainly the better hitter of the two, but that difference is offset by (a) the difference between a good defensive shortstop and a poor defensive first baseman, and (b) the difference between a good baserunner and an atrocious one.
 
Probably the question hinges somewhat on your memory of Valentin's defense. I think the way Val was shifted to make room for the touted rookie Nomar has clouded people's memories of his glove. Before injuries slowed him down, I remember him as a fine defensive SS--not elite, but well above average, with solid range, great agility around the bag, soft hands and a good arm. An above-average defensive shortstop with a .292/.377/.486 slash line is a pretty insanely valuable player. That was Valentin in his first four years with the Sox.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
Valentin was a good player, and you can probably argue that he had a single year better than Vaughn.  I still don't see how you can argue he was a better player than Vaughn overall.  Mo was an offensive force for most of his time in Boston, hitting 35-40 home runs with a ~.400 OBP.  Just taking a quick look at the numbers, he was in the top ten in OPS+ 5 times in his Boston career.
 
Valentin was a solid hitter with doubles power during the most offensive era in baseball history.  I liked him, he was a very good player, but IMHO calling him better than Vaughn is revisionist history.
 
I'm not a WAR scholar, so maybe I'm just missing the boat, but I cannot imagine how defense can make up for an offensive difference as significant as this one.  When one guy is getting on-base 42% of the time and hitting 35 home runs, and the other is getting on-base 37% of the time and hitting 15 home runs, I'll take the former and find somewhere to play him.
 
edit:  sorry for the thread hijack...I'll let this one go
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
WenZink said:
 
I believe the 1982 Abstract was the first published and distributed by a main stream publisher.  I have it, and it's just in time to rave about Evan's fantastic 1981 season.  And, again, even before 1982, the new generation of baseball writers were extolling his virtues based on his self-published editions from 1977-1981.  Believe me, there were advanced baseball metrics BEFORE the internet.
 
Well duh. Hell, Earnshaw Cook was getting national attention in the 1960s (for better or worse). Branch Rickey knew all about the importance of outs. Davey Johnson was programming in FORTRAN in the 1970s. Earl Weaver was using "advanced" metrics before James even started writing. The Hidden Game of Baseball came out in the 1980s. None of that was even remotely mainstream (ie, the majority of fans knew about advanced metrics and thought they were important) until long after James, though. 
 
I guess there's no real objective measure as to whether something has been accepted by the mainstream, but a lot of the columns talking about advanced stats and Bill James types up until the late 1990s were generally of the "mother's basement" variety. You still saw them up until a few years ago. Most tv broadcasts didn't show a player's OBP until maybe 10 years ago. Some still don't. There were certainly guys who got it in every era, but that was far from the norm. I think the dearth of guys who "got it" is a big reason why Evans was off the HoF ballot after three years. If Bill James was wildly popular among baseball writers at the time, I gotta think Evans would have done better in the balloting than that. If most people thought OBP was so important in the 1980s I'm not sure we'd be having this discussion about Boggs being so underappreciated. And I mean, Juan Gonzalez as the 1996 MVP? The media was still very much a triple crown stats place, and the media had a huge amount of influence about what most people thought.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
I was a pre-teen for much of Vaughn's career, but wasn't Vaughn viewed as a pretty big defensive liability?  Vaughn was as a revelation at the plate, but you pretty much have to be that if you're going to be a subpar defender at the easiest position on the diamond.  Valentin was a very, very good defender at a premium defensive position, and then moved off that spot in his prime because of Nomar and still played great at 2nd and 3rd - had Valentin stayed at short, his value in 97/98/99 would've been even higher, as he was still fully capable of playing plus defense at short.  
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
alwyn96 said:
 
Well duh. Hell, Earnshaw Cook was getting national attention in the 1960s. Earl Weaver was using "advanced" metrics before James even started writing. Davey Johnson was programming in FORTRAN in the 1970s. Branch Rickey knew all about the importance of outs. None of that was even remotely mainstream until long after James, though. 
 
Wrong again.  While advanced metrics were not the norm in the 1980s, stating that they were not "even remotely mainstream," is just a severe overstatement.  Palmer and Thorn published "The Hidden Game of Baseball" in 1984.  Progressive people in organized baseball were well aware of what Earl Weaver had done with his 3 x 5 cards -- as you mentioned.  The biggest obstacle in the 1980s, was that most managers and GMs were,naturally,  from the old school, but that didn't mean that there weren't plenty of writers and fans crtiticizing them for their decisions.  Walk Totals were added to the baseball stats in the sports sections, as was OBP.  Rotisserie leagues(pre-internet precursor to fantasy leagues) began in the mid-80s, and they were definitely sabernetric and many sports writers participated.  I can personally testify to that.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
It's too bad that some people's tastes are influenced by a bunch of paunchy, middle-aged cynics who won't understand why "players today won't play the damn game like it was meant to be played".
 
Or the whole "beat up his wife" thing.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
WenZink said:
 
Wrong again.  While advanced metrics were not the norm in the 1980s, stating that they were not "even remotely mainstream," is just a severe overstatement.  Palmer and Thorn published "The Hidden Game of Baseball" in 1984.  Progressive people in organized baseball were well aware of what Earl Weaver had done with his 3 x 5 cards -- as you mentioned.  The biggest obstacle in the 1980s, was that most managers and GMs were,naturally,  from the old school, but that didn't mean that there weren't plenty of writers and fans crtiticizing them for their decisions.  Walk Totals were added to the baseball stats in the sports sections, as was OBP.  Rotisserie leagues(pre-internet precursor to fantasy leagues) began in the mid-80s, and they were definitely sabernetric and many sports writers participated.  I can personally testify to that.
 
You can see my wildly edited post as to why you're "wrong." (I edited before I saw your response! I swear!)
 
We're just having a friendly discussion here dude. No need to get all internet tough guy. I think it's actually just an interesting discussion that I don't have a big personal stake in. Not sure why you seem to.
 
Like I said, there were guys in every era who "got it." And like you said - most managers and GMs were old school. Most writers were old school. I think there's ample, ample evidence that progressives were not the majority of powerful baseball people (and fans) until after the 1980s. I'm not even sure we disagree about all that much, other than what our own nebulous definitions of "mainstream" are. But that's enough to make an internet argument, I guess.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I put Boggs as most under-rated.  OBP & OPS were so under-appreciated at the time.  If Boggs played today, I bet he would have won 2-3 MVPs and/or finished top-5 in all those years he was spectacular ('85-'89).  He was awesome.  I mean he had 4 straight years where he led the league with OBP of 0.450 or better.  That is bonkers.  And, this was not during a hitters era by any stretch.
 
Valentin had the one spectacular year and was pretty unremarkable apart from that.
 
I had Varitek as most overrated.  He was basically right around league average offensively as a catcher.  He had the defensive reputation, which mostly stemmed from pitch-calling.  I have my doubts that a catcher's pitch-calling adds significant real value.  Recently we've learned that the big defensive value (positive or negative) for a catcher is pitch framing & I have no idea whether he was good, bad or average at it, but haven't seen anything anecdotal or quantitative to suggest anything there.  His throwing arm was solid for half his career and useless the other half.  To me that sounds like he was a very servicable & relatively durable everyday league-average catcher for about 10 years.  That's not bad, pretty good actually.  But he got incredibly lucky being lionized basically for just being on those championship teams (don't recall much clutch-hitting from him in those playoffs btw).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
ALiveH said:
Valentin had the one spectacular year and was pretty unremarkable apart from that.
 
This is revisionism. 1995 was a peak year, yes, but it was not out of context at all. In the three years before 1995 he had a 115 OPS+, and in the three years following he had a 109 OPS+. In 1997, while splitting his time between two new positions, he "unremarkably" led the AL in doubles while putting up a .306/.372/.499 slash line. Between 1993 and 1998, his average rWAR for the years besides 1995 was 4.4. After 1998, the injuries caught up with him and the bottom fell out, but before that, he was a consistently excellent player for a pretty good stretch.
 
Like I said, a slam-dunk for most underappreciated.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think the fact that we are sitting here wondering if Boggs was great is a testament to how truly undervalued he still is.  I think part of it is that he was putting up post-strike number in a pre-strike world, and many of us, if not most, cut our teeth looking at post-strike numbers.
 
Just for fun, using a simple ratio of BoggsOBP/lgOBP, here is what his 6 year peak would have looked like if it had been 1995-2001 instead of 1983-1989
 
.467, .437, .468, .478, .480, .513, .441.
 
Now, this is not perfect, but if I go ahead and do a statistical comparison (say, by calculating his number of standard deviations about the norm and using that number instead, it would look even more ridiculous).  
 
The guy was amazing.  How people who claim to understand advanced stats can look back at his career and not come to that conclusion immediately just looking at his triple slash numbers is beyond me.  But, if you are stuck on more modern normalized stats, here are his wOBA's:
 
.416, .373, .415, .414, .443, .427
 
That's Mike Trout territory.
 
That said, Savin has a point.  John Valentin was bar none my favorite player and my favorite way to tell if someone could even have an intelligent conversation about baseball.  I was also at his unassisted TP game and his 3 HR game.  I loved that fucking guy.  But people tend to remember the broken down knees paid too much version (though his overpay even adjusted for inflation was mild compared to the sinkholes on the Sox the past few years)
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
Interesting question - thanks for posting! I answered "both" to both. I probably would have put a check mark next to Bob Stanley if it was an option for under, and you could make a case for other guys with shorter stays here, but I had Bruce Hurst in mind. Great and consistent pitcher who caused no headaches, the anti-Rog in the rotation.
 
A lot of guys have been "over" through the years, but I think Rick Burleson (and Remy, noted above) deserve some discussion here. Trot Nixon would have been a real consideration if he was in the poll...
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Also, I love Dewey, but he is the binky of so many people that there is no way you can really put him on an underrated list.  Maybe you can say "underrated in his time" or something like that, but in 2015?  I don't see it.