More Fun Than The Dating Game?
Posted by Steve Lombardi on June 4, 2010
An interesting list via some tweaking of Play Index's Seasons Finder:
| Rk | Player | HR | G | From | To | Age | PA | R | H | 2B | 3B | RBI | BB | SO | SB | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reggie Jackson | 140 | 533 | 2631 | 1969 | 1987 | 23-41 | 10667 | 1456 | 2425 | 446 | 39 | 1622 | 1315 | 2380 | 213 | .264 | .359 | .495 | .854 |
| 2 | Ken Griffey | 135 | 630 | 2671 | 1989 | 2010 | 19-40 | 11304 | 1662 | 2781 | 524 | 38 | 1836 | 1312 | 1779 | 184 | .284 | .370 | .538 | .907 |
| 3 | George Brett | 135 | 317 | 2707 | 1973 | 1993 | 20-40 | 11624 | 1583 | 3154 | 665 | 137 | 1595 | 1096 | 908 | 201 | .305 | .369 | .487 | .857 |
.
And, it leads to this question - if you could pick and have one of these three big league careers, who would you rather be...Reggie, Griffey or Brett?
Brett doesn't have the homers of the other two. But, he played his whole career in one town and is a legend there. And, he's got those batting titles. Reggie doesn't have the homers of Griffey - but, he's got more October highlights on is resume.
Granted, all three are Hall of Famers. So, any pick is a good one here. But, what would be your pick, and why?
June 4th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Although Brett would run a close second, I would still pick Griffey to build around. His attitude adds to his stellar play, both in the field and behind the plate, to make him one of the half-dozen or so greatest sports figures the game has ever seen. And while Brett is nearly canonized in KC, Junior has his sainthood sealed in two cities -- Seattle and Cincinnati.
I want to repeat, though; Brett is a true Hall icon, and Jackson ain't exactly Joe Slobotnik either.
June 4th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Anyone else surprised that Reggie had more SB's than Griffey and Brett in fewer PA's?
June 4th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
If I'm Griffey do I get the $150 million in MLB salary alone that he earned during his career? Because that might tip the scales...
June 4th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Have to pick Reggie, simply because, although my career average and strikeouts is subpar, the 4 World Series Rings and October moments are just too big to resist.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Reggie has five rings. He was injured in 1972 and didn't play in the WS.
He earned the fifth ring, though. In second inning of the deciding game 5 of the ALCS that year, he walked, stole second, went to third on a sacrifice fly and then stole home(!). That tied the game at 1 and the A's ended up winning 2-1. How's that for small ball? He tore his hamstring on the play which is why he missed the series.
That ties together the ring count and the stolen bases with one anecdote.
June 4th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
that is tough, I'm not a Reggie fan but he was big in big games, I love Griff and wished he hadn't been injured the last 10 years (can anyone do projections for him for say 140 game seasons since 2000) and Brett was one of my favorite players and also a huge post season player as I recall, so I say: Brett, Jackson, Griffey.
1978 ALCS, 4 games:
Brett - 7 runs, 3 hrs, 3 ribbies, .389 .389 1.056
Reggie - 5 runs, 2 hrs, 6 ribbies, .462 .529 1.000
this is a fun little game, can we do it again?
June 4th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Why is Griffey so revered in Seattle, when he forced his way out of town? And in Cincinnati, where he was mostly hurt (probably because little things like stretching and working out were too much trouble)?
June 4th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I'd have to go with 1) Griffey 2) Brett and 3) Jackson based primarily on importance of defensive positions.
June 4th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Couldn't go wrong with any of them. I'm old enough to have seen all three play, although I missed the first five or six years of Jackson's career. I never thought I'd say this considering the amount of hype around Reggie when he played, but he was actually an underrated player. He began his career in the year of the pitcher and played his peak years throughout the 1970s, which was an offensively depressed time. He led the league in OPS+ four times, including a 189 mark in 1969, and averaged 151+ over a long period, 15 years. Griffey and Brett's peak years run 16 seasons, one more than Jackson's, although they both score slightly lower in the mid 140s for the peak years. His career OPS+ eclipses both Griffey's and Brett's, simply rating the dominance/impact factor for their respective times.
That all said, you might think I'm making a case for Jackson over the other two. I'm not. He comes in #3 out of the three based on other aspects of their games and their positions. As I mentioned at the start, somehow he became a towering figure in the game, but an underrated player.
I'd go with Griffey, although Brett is really close. Griffey's CF position and great defense nudge him past Brett.
Can I have all three to start a team?!
June 4th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I find it hard to believe Griffey "has his sainthood sealed" in Cincinnati. Unless being a colossal, overpaid flop gets you sports sainthood in that town. Look at his seasons in Cincinnati. Not one Hall of Fame calibre year and only three good seasons out of nine and a half. In fact, disaster is probably how best to describe the Cincinnati portion of his career. Not to say he won't be elected to the Hall, but you'd be hard pressed to find many "sure thing" Hall of Famers with as many mediocre years to their credit.
That said, I'd go 1) Brett, 2) Reggie and 3) Griffey given these choices. Brett was flat out the best clutch hitter I've seen in my lifetime. And, for the record, I'm a Yankee fan. Yes...I'm picking long-time rival Brett over a guy in the HOF with a Yankee hat and his signature moments in pinstripes.
June 4th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Reggie was a hot dog, Griffey was an icon, but Brett was a legend in his own right. Look at the way he played the game. You need look no further than his screaming, hollering tirade when his home run was overturned after the pine tar incident to see his heart and passion.
Consider this: there are only four players in the history of baseball with a .300 career average, 3000 hits and 300 home runs: Aaron, Mays, Musial and George Brett.
If George Brett had been a Yankee instead of a Royal, he would be a household name today.
June 4th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I would have to go with either Jackson or Brett. Both of them were pretty much out in front their whole careers. But Griffey had too many years when he was out of the spotlight. Hall of Fame? I don't even know if he's a lock.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I take George Brett. Reggie Jackson struck out a lot and hit for low average while Ken Griffey Jr. was rarely 100 percent healthy the last half of his career. Meanwhile, I think Brett could hit third in my lineup for 15 straight years.
Now if we're talking Griffey pre-2000, that's an entirely different story.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Also, the fact that Brett can play third influences my decision. Never underestimate the importance of an infielder who can hit-- it's much easier to find an outfielder who can do so.
June 4th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I read an article once, where the writer went to all baseball cities across the states and asked everyone that catered to baseball players, from bellhops to waitresses to bartenders to cab drivers to doorman to clubhouse attendants to airline stewardess' to you name it. And in virtually every city, it was Brett everyone said was the nicest, most gracious and most generous. He'd remember names, ask about children and tip big. Conversely, Reggie was named last on many lists.
And forget the homeruns, Brett has a higher OPS and almost 1500 less SOs.
June 4th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Ummm, Fordham'13, George Brett is a household name.
Dukeofflatbush, I once read an article that said George Brett was "nice" to the batboys, and would invite them over to his house reguarly for BBQs. That, of course, has zero relevance to the discussion of him as a ballplayer. And, sure, Reggie was a hotdog, which also has zero relevance to him as a ballplayer. He would say stupid things like, "I'm the straw the stirs the drink," he'd get blasted for it, and then he'd go hit three HRs in a World Series game to show that he actually was the straw that stirred the drink. I'll take Pete Rose, another hot dog player, on my team anytime. Jim Edmonds was known for hot dogging some of his catches, but I'd love to have him playing CF.
Brett had a higher OPS, but if you're going to use that stat, then you have to acknowledge that Reggie had a higher OPS+ than Brett (or Griffey). Strike outs? Sure, but they're just a way of making an out, like popping up, or even worse, hitting into a DP. (Brett hit into more DPs than Reggie did, btw.) No one even cares about batter strike outs anymore for that very reason. Even lead-off hitters today like Derek Jeter strike out about 100 times a year. Reggie has more HRs and RBIs than Brett. The RBI stat is B.S., but if you want to cherry pick your stats to support Brett, than Reggie supporters can do the same.
Yet, as I wrote above, I have it Griffey, Brett and Jackson in that order. Griffey's glove in CF and speed put him ahead of the other two. Brett was a butcher with the glove when he first came up, but developed into an acceptable third baseman, and in fairness to him, he was being compared against glovemen like Robinson, Nettles, Bell and Aurelio Rodriquez. Mike Schmidt was also an excellent fielder and better than Brett in that regard. Definately the golden age for defensive third basemen.
June 4th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Before we discount Griffey because of the injuries, remember that Kaline had a lot of trouble as well {among others}. And Junior -- even slowed as he was -- managed a LOT of big plays, even without considering the home run total.
As I said earlier, though -- all three of these players are among The All-Time Best.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
And one other thing about Reggie; love him or hate him, you have to admit that he was a fan magnet. In terms of P.R., Jackson was a veritable gold mine EVERYWHERE he played.
The Griffey-Brett-Jackson order is admittedly tentative; but as the saying goes, "I may not know art; but I know what I like".
June 4th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
DoubleDiamond, are you being serious about Griffey not being a lock for the HOF? If so, that's surprising, because I believe many people - myself included - would put Griffey atop the list of the best all-around players that they ever saw. Yes, the last half of his career unfortunately included far too many years plagued by injuries, but I think he still did more than enough to easily cement his place in Cooperstown on the first ballot.
And speaking of those injuries, JohnnyTwisto, I don't know if it's fair to blame them on not stretching or working out. Do you have any proof to back up that statement? Or is it just a player's own fault whenever they get injured? I guess Mickey Mantle's chronic injuries were his own fault, too. Anyone could've seen that drainage cover. He must've purposely ran into it.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
One final thought, and then I'll cool it. I have had to watch all three of these players at the start of their careers in person -- in fact, I watched Jackson even before THAT, when he was still belting them outta Sun Devil Stadium in the Sixties -- and none of them made me want to sue to get my ticket money back. Ever.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Ruling Reggie Jackson out on the "don't like the guy" factor. Maybe George Brett, though I'm honestly tempted by Griffey's unrivaled peak. Brett was a great third baseman - one of the all-timers - but his contemporary Mike Schmidt was superior. Griffey, though, was indisputably the best center fielder of his time (both ways), and a decade ain't exactly a short peak. From a personal accomplishments standpoint, I'd give the edge to Griffey based on that fact. However, Brett earns a lot of points for being the best hitter for a World Series champion, and he aged far more gracefully.
I think I'll take George Brett. I love Griffey and would rather build around a young Griffey than a young Brett, but I personally would be most satisfied with Brett's career arc - he had a pretty consistently excellent career and was still a solid player in his twilight years. Griffey's brilliant '90s would be great, but his '00s would leave me disappointed in myself.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
No, I don't have proof. I have heard that Griffey did not work very hard at keeping in shape and mostly skipped even pregame stretching. My recollection was that he had a lot of muscle pulls and strains while with the Reds, but on a brief web search, it appears his injuries were more random and varied than that. So perhaps they were merely bad luck, and had nothing to do with his preparation.
Obviously Mantle's injuries aren't his fault, but he's another guy notorious for not taking care of himself. Both were all-time greats, and yet both are all-time "what-ifs" as well.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
It seems a lot of people forget that Brett was a fragile player for much of his career as well. In retrospect, people remember the great seasons, and the great career totals, and forget all the time he was out. Eventually we (and especially those younger than us) won't just think of all the injuries when remembering Griffey, either.
June 4th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
The question was which player's career, not personality.
Gotta be Reggie and his rings.
June 5th, 2010 at 12:25 am
I'm going to have to agree, gotta be Reggie. 500 home runs, when that actually was a monumental feat, and how can you argue with 5 rings? Mr October!!
June 5th, 2010 at 2:17 am
RE #2 Jeff H:
I find it more bizarre that Gary Sheffield had about 70 more steals than Griffey in over 350 fewer Plate Appearances. In fact I compared the two of them through their 162 game average and was shocked to find this result.
Griffey:594 AB, .284/.370/.538/.907 OPS, 135 OPS+, 101 runs, 169 hits, 32 doubles, 38 hr, 111 rbi, 11 steals, 80 walks, 108 strikeouts
Sheffield:580 AB, .292/.393/.514/.907 OPS, 140 OPS+, 103 runs, 169 hits, 29 doubles, 32 hr, 105 rbi, 16 steals, 93 walks, 74 strikeouts
Again, I am not comparing defense or anything like that. Just their offensive production. It doesn't seem as if Griffey should be held that much above Sheffield at the plate.
June 5th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Reggie in a no-brainer. Reggie was the ultimate showman, and the ultimate clutch hitter. He came on strong when it really counted, whether it was during the regular season or in the playoffs. He hit monster homeruns worthy of reverence. If the question were, "who would you want on your fantasy team?" or "who was the best all-around player?" the answer might be different. But the question was "who would you rather be?" and if I'm gonna be a famous MLB ballplayer, I'm going for the glory!
June 5th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Reggie Jackson because he was the straw that stirs the drink. October accomplishments is enough for me.
June 5th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Are you guys sure these players are all HOF worthy?
There may be half of 1 in the bunch (half of Griffey)
June 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Checking out their numbers in a neutralized environment has me chanting Reg-gie
Reggie
21 Seasons 2878 12058 10341 1794 2903 520 55 630 1967 257 1539 *2649* .281 .377 .524 .902
Griffey
22 Seasons 2791 11697 10171 1646 2848 536 39 639 1807 188 1339 1850 .280 .365 .529 .894
Brett
21 Seasons 2756 11933 10634 1693 3303 697 144 328 1705 216 1143 920 .311 .375 .496 .871
June 5th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Defintely not Griffey because his career was such a struggle in the Cincy years.
Either Brett or Reggie. Reggie had the huge moments, five rings, but plenty of drama.
Brett stayed in one place, was loved, and had one ring.
Reggie is my choice.
June 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Too easy (even without the money). I'd be Griffey. Because he never had to play in Kansas City or for the Yankees.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
DoubleDiamond: are you kidding (re: comment #12)? The Kid was a HoFer on his Seattle years alone, and you don't get "negative points" for playing through injury-plagued years into your twilight.
As to rings, put Griffey or Brett in the Bronx and they easily eclipse Reggie's five. Baseball is still a TEAM game, and you don't get to the World Series because you're a superstar (just ask guys like Ernie Banks...) If we're going with Reggie based on his five rings, let's add Lonnie Smith to the mix.
My order would be Griffey, Jackson, Brett.
True, Junior's career plunged after his golden Seattle years, but during that apex, he was arguably the greatest player of all time - at least in the top 5 or 10. He had it all, on base, power, speed, and was one of the greatest defenders in a defensive-plus position.
I'll go with Reggie over Brett based on on-field perfarmance (but as a "real life" owner, I'd rather take Brett's personality any day). I don't give Brett much (if any) "extra credit" for being an infielder instead of an outfielder, because 3B is historically a position from which one expects offensive produuction, and George's defensive was okay, but not stellar. (I'd take Mike Schmidt's career over Brett's as well.) I don't mean to sound like I'm knocking Brett - I love the guy. But on my fantasy league team, he ranks just behind the other two.
June 7th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
First, let me say that I am a native Seattllite, so I realize that I am biased. I pick Jr. Brett was a pure hitter, like Ichiro. Get on base, a single does the job. Hit a four-bagger when it is called for. Jackson has the hype. Suppose he didn't spend time with the Yankees? He still would have good career stats, but the Yankees always have a good starting line-up, and if Reggie hadn't done it, another player would have been Mr. October. King George would have made sure of that! Let's not forget Bucky Dent and players like that that got them there in the first place. Now, the Man! Let's face it, MLB. Jr. put Seattle on the ML map. Nearly single-handedly, he turned the Mariners from an expansion team to a contender. Did Reggie or Brett do that? Then, there's the chemical enhancement issue. Look at Bonds and his stats, first half of career compared to second half. Couple that with his dropping out of the scene as soon as he broke the record, on paper only (in my humble estimation). Lots of questions!
I would like to add more thing. I saw my hero, Hank Aaron, on one of those sports memoribilia TV shows and he came right and said that he thought Jr. would be the one who would break his record. This was years before the race was on. As far as I'm concerned, there are three different lifetime HR champs. Ruth, during the post-dead ball era, Aaron, during the second half century, and Griffey Jr. during the 90's and beyond.
June 8th, 2010 at 1:30 am
Easy answer here, for about 7 seasons we talked about him as not the best player in the game, but maybe the best EVER in the game. And that was not Jackson or Brett(who was one of my favorite players, but I never compared him to Mays) and I don't think anyone ever seriously thought Reggie was even the best player in the league. JRs career was cut short but not the memory of his skills....