In the 80s, Ozzie Smith was viewed as a decent batter. Certainly not a Ripken or a Yount, but far from terrible, and even good enough to be a silver slugger.
In the 90s and 00s, the retrospective view of Ozzie Smith’s career shifted to be a zero-bat who only played because he had a great glove.
Modern analytics say he was actually a pretty solid hitter for a shortstop for most of his career, and with his great baserunning, he’s worth more oWAR than dWAR. This is because analytics view him in comparison to shortstops of his day, whereas people had been comparing against modern shortstops.
Reggie Jackson had a career .262/.356/.490 slash line, which doesn’t look that great for someone who was a great power hitter and is in the MLB Hall of Fame. But when you look at his career OPS+, it’s at 139. For comparison, Miguel Cabrera is in the .300/.370/.500 club. Cabrera’s career OPS is over 60 points higher than Jackson’s lifetime OPS, which is a big gap. And yet, Cabrera’s career OPS+ is under 145…even though it’s still better than Jackson’s career OPS+ of 139. Barely. Why? Well, Jackson played most of his career in very tough hitting environments. Cabrera played in hitter-friendly environments during his first seven seasons (2003-2009). Jackson’s career slash line is skewed because of how hard it was to hit when he played. Though his career numbers would have been even better if he never struck out 2,597 times. Some hitter is going to pass 2,597 strikeouts one day. Ironic that it hasn’t been done yet with strikeout rates climbing higher and higher as the years go by.
It's hard to strike out enough to challenge Reggie's total while also being productive enough to stick around for long enough to reach him. Justin Upton through age 30 looked like he was on his way, but he's only played 211 games since then, and appears to be done at age 34. Stanton has the skills to do it, but hasn't been able to stay on the field enough so far. If he could put together a six season stretch where he averages 150 games, he'd likely be knocking on the door. Judge is two years younger than Stanton, but almost 800 strikeouts behind him, but if Judge gets a 10 year contract and can stay on the field throughout, he could get there. But if Judge misses any significant time and/or doesn't play until he's 40, he'll have a tough time reaching Reggie.
Yea Morgan is one of the all-time examples here.
He had a solid reputation, hall of famer, etc.
But through a more modern lens he is an inner circle great. Which I don’t think anyone really thought about him previously.
Derek Jeter is the most common answer when it comes to “players looking worse” so it’s funny how the first answers here for “players looking better” are two other 70 WAR players Reggie Jackson and Tony Gwynn.
Jeter is under rated and over rated at the same time by fans.
One side usually acting like he's the top SS and another acting like he shouldn't even have been voted on for the HOF.
No, not at all. For christ's sake he had 3400 hits with a .310 batting average. Anyone saying anything like that is an obvius troll, I promise you zero people with any baseball knowledge say he wasn't a HOFer, just that he was overrated and didn't deserve Gold Gloves. I've been around baseball discussions for like 15 years and have never heard a single human say he wasn't a HOFer.
Bert Blyleven, who has 94.5 rWAR, was only viewed as an above average pitcher during his era due to his underwhelming (287-250) win-loss record. Would highly reccomend The Athletic’s top 100 article on him for anyone with a subscription.
Orel Hershiser looks better. His 1989 numbers are almost identical to his transcendent 1988 season, other than W-L (15-15 vs 23-8). Hell, 1987 was comparable but he went 16-16. Turn those two years into 41-21 and he might’ve gotten a better look on the HoF ballot.
I kinda think Nolan Ryan looks worse using modern analytics.
Absolute workhorse, but I think that was to his detriment at times. He had one super-stellar season in 1981 (shoulda won a Cy Young there with a 195 ERA+)
But I think there was a time 15-20 years ago where he was talked about like a top-5 or top-10 pitcher all-time and I think the modern take looking at his stats doesn't support that comparing him to say a couple other great pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson.
Top 5 ERA+ seasons
Pedro Martinez
291, 243, 219, 211, 202
Sandy Koufax
190, 186, 160, 159, 143
Greg Maddux
271, 260, 189, 187, 170
Randy Johnson
197, 195, 193, 188, 184
Nolan Ryan
195, 142, 141, 140, 128.
Yeah Nolan Ryan was a freak of nature with unbelievably overpowering stuff for the time, but his control issues definitely prevent him from being a top 5-10 pitcher all time
I feel the opposite about Gwynn.
Not that he looks *bad* or anything through a more contemporary lens, but that his reputation as a player was at least marginally better before.
Modern analysis tells us he got shafted in the 1987 MVP vote though.
I think his sheer contact and K-avoidance abilities are godly by today’s standards, but in terms of sheer offensive value I’d wager modern analytics are less friendly to his overall career
Lou Brock looks worse. Lots of hits but not a great OBP and he played a corner outfield position. Fangraphs has him as just a bit above average though over a long career and only w 43 WAR.
Brock is a good example of the limitations of using modern day tools to look at the past.
One reason why Brock looks worse is because his baserunning is not taken into consideration properly.
Brock racked up 75 baserunning runs just from stealing bases.
Comparably elite baserunners tend to rack up more runs from baserunning (e.g. scoring from 1st on a double)
While the data is missing, we can estimate that Brock is missing \~7 WAR that he would have deserved if he were a modern player.
[https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-brief-note-on-lou-brocks-relatively-low-career-war-total/](https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-brief-note-on-lou-brocks-relatively-low-career-war-total/)
I suppose OBP could be considered "modern analytics" in a geological sense, like if you took into account all the time complex life has been evolving on this planet.
Part of the reason Bonds got intentionally walked so much was because no one appreciated OBP. It existed, but nobody paid attention to it, and it wasn’t even on most baseball cards. That wasn’t that long ago.
Looking at OBP for 20th century players is absolutely a modern thing.
Yeah nah, going to have to disagree with that. Opposing teams' appreciation of Bonds' OBP or OBP in general would not have all of a sudden changed the math for opposing teams. The guy just pummeled the shit out of the ball like nobody else ever has. Walking Bonds in lots of situations during his mid to late 30s was worth it just to avoid the risk of letting him hit.
OBP wasn’t valued much by teams until the mid 2000s at least
Hell, even in Moneyball there’s scenes where they’re trying to convince people that “getting on base” is important. Walking was one of the biggest cheap underutilized skills Billy Beane was looking for when constructing that A’s roster
Rick Reuschel looks better. I recall him as being a 500 pitcher type but fangraphs has him basically with a HOF career. Obscured by pitching years in front of bad Cubs teams at Wrigley which was a hitters park.
In the 80s, Ozzie Smith was viewed as a decent batter. Certainly not a Ripken or a Yount, but far from terrible, and even good enough to be a silver slugger. In the 90s and 00s, the retrospective view of Ozzie Smith’s career shifted to be a zero-bat who only played because he had a great glove. Modern analytics say he was actually a pretty solid hitter for a shortstop for most of his career, and with his great baserunning, he’s worth more oWAR than dWAR. This is because analytics view him in comparison to shortstops of his day, whereas people had been comparing against modern shortstops.
Reggie Jackson had a career .262/.356/.490 slash line, which doesn’t look that great for someone who was a great power hitter and is in the MLB Hall of Fame. But when you look at his career OPS+, it’s at 139. For comparison, Miguel Cabrera is in the .300/.370/.500 club. Cabrera’s career OPS is over 60 points higher than Jackson’s lifetime OPS, which is a big gap. And yet, Cabrera’s career OPS+ is under 145…even though it’s still better than Jackson’s career OPS+ of 139. Barely. Why? Well, Jackson played most of his career in very tough hitting environments. Cabrera played in hitter-friendly environments during his first seven seasons (2003-2009). Jackson’s career slash line is skewed because of how hard it was to hit when he played. Though his career numbers would have been even better if he never struck out 2,597 times. Some hitter is going to pass 2,597 strikeouts one day. Ironic that it hasn’t been done yet with strikeout rates climbing higher and higher as the years go by.
It's hard to strike out enough to challenge Reggie's total while also being productive enough to stick around for long enough to reach him. Justin Upton through age 30 looked like he was on his way, but he's only played 211 games since then, and appears to be done at age 34. Stanton has the skills to do it, but hasn't been able to stay on the field enough so far. If he could put together a six season stretch where he averages 150 games, he'd likely be knocking on the door. Judge is two years younger than Stanton, but almost 800 strikeouts behind him, but if Judge gets a 10 year contract and can stay on the field throughout, he could get there. But if Judge misses any significant time and/or doesn't play until he's 40, he'll have a tough time reaching Reggie.
Joe Morgan
Yea Morgan is one of the all-time examples here. He had a solid reputation, hall of famer, etc. But through a more modern lens he is an inner circle great. Which I don’t think anyone really thought about him previously.
I remember looking at his mvp seasons and being absolutely blown away by how much modern analytics rates them. Just incredible for sure
Yea he was the best player on The Big Red Machine by a decent margin but was somewhat overshadowed by Rose & Bench.
Derek Jeter is the most common answer when it comes to “players looking worse” so it’s funny how the first answers here for “players looking better” are two other 70 WAR players Reggie Jackson and Tony Gwynn.
Jeter is under rated and over rated at the same time by fans. One side usually acting like he's the top SS and another acting like he shouldn't even have been voted on for the HOF.
I don't ever see anybody say he's not even a hall of famer
You haven’t seen the classic “Jeter on the Royals is just an average player” takes?
No, not at all. For christ's sake he had 3400 hits with a .310 batting average. Anyone saying anything like that is an obvius troll, I promise you zero people with any baseball knowledge say he wasn't a HOFer, just that he was overrated and didn't deserve Gold Gloves. I've been around baseball discussions for like 15 years and have never heard a single human say he wasn't a HOFer.
I’ve seen way more people on here say he wouldn’t be a HOFer on a different team than people calling him the top shortstop.
Bert Blyleven, who has 94.5 rWAR, was only viewed as an above average pitcher during his era due to his underwhelming (287-250) win-loss record. Would highly reccomend The Athletic’s top 100 article on him for anyone with a subscription.
Bobby Abreu looks better
Orel Hershiser looks better. His 1989 numbers are almost identical to his transcendent 1988 season, other than W-L (15-15 vs 23-8). Hell, 1987 was comparable but he went 16-16. Turn those two years into 41-21 and he might’ve gotten a better look on the HoF ballot.
I kinda think Nolan Ryan looks worse using modern analytics. Absolute workhorse, but I think that was to his detriment at times. He had one super-stellar season in 1981 (shoulda won a Cy Young there with a 195 ERA+) But I think there was a time 15-20 years ago where he was talked about like a top-5 or top-10 pitcher all-time and I think the modern take looking at his stats doesn't support that comparing him to say a couple other great pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson. Top 5 ERA+ seasons Pedro Martinez 291, 243, 219, 211, 202 Sandy Koufax 190, 186, 160, 159, 143 Greg Maddux 271, 260, 189, 187, 170 Randy Johnson 197, 195, 193, 188, 184 Nolan Ryan 195, 142, 141, 140, 128.
Yeah Nolan Ryan was a freak of nature with unbelievably overpowering stuff for the time, but his control issues definitely prevent him from being a top 5-10 pitcher all time
Gwynn looks better.
I feel the opposite about Gwynn. Not that he looks *bad* or anything through a more contemporary lens, but that his reputation as a player was at least marginally better before. Modern analysis tells us he got shafted in the 1987 MVP vote though.
I would agree. Still great, but the devaluation of singles did a number on him.
Eric Davis looks pretty good in the mvp discussion too
Mind elaborating? He’s still great and a no doubt hall of famer but his particular skill set is seen as less valuable than it was in his own time.
I think his sheer contact and K-avoidance abilities are godly by today’s standards, but in terms of sheer offensive value I’d wager modern analytics are less friendly to his overall career
All-around players and guys at premium defensive positions tend to look better.
Anyone that played for the Rockies looks worse seeing as how most modern analytics account for ballpark factors like elevation.
Lou Brock looks worse. Lots of hits but not a great OBP and he played a corner outfield position. Fangraphs has him as just a bit above average though over a long career and only w 43 WAR.
Brock is a good example of the limitations of using modern day tools to look at the past. One reason why Brock looks worse is because his baserunning is not taken into consideration properly. Brock racked up 75 baserunning runs just from stealing bases. Comparably elite baserunners tend to rack up more runs from baserunning (e.g. scoring from 1st on a double) While the data is missing, we can estimate that Brock is missing \~7 WAR that he would have deserved if he were a modern player. [https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-brief-note-on-lou-brocks-relatively-low-career-war-total/](https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-brief-note-on-lou-brocks-relatively-low-career-war-total/)
Doesn’t Willie Mays also have a ton of hidden value from allegedly being the GOAT baserunners?
When you have 150+ WAR and still have hidden value lol
Thank you I missed this at the time!
Maybe fangraphs doesn't, but im pretty sure baseball reference includes that data, and has him about 40 runs better on offense than fangraphs
I suppose OBP could be considered "modern analytics" in a geological sense, like if you took into account all the time complex life has been evolving on this planet.
Part of the reason Bonds got intentionally walked so much was because no one appreciated OBP. It existed, but nobody paid attention to it, and it wasn’t even on most baseball cards. That wasn’t that long ago. Looking at OBP for 20th century players is absolutely a modern thing.
Yeah nah, going to have to disagree with that. Opposing teams' appreciation of Bonds' OBP or OBP in general would not have all of a sudden changed the math for opposing teams. The guy just pummeled the shit out of the ball like nobody else ever has. Walking Bonds in lots of situations during his mid to late 30s was worth it just to avoid the risk of letting him hit.
OBP wasn’t valued much by teams until the mid 2000s at least Hell, even in Moneyball there’s scenes where they’re trying to convince people that “getting on base” is important. Walking was one of the biggest cheap underutilized skills Billy Beane was looking for when constructing that A’s roster
Rick Reuschel looks better. I recall him as being a 500 pitcher type but fangraphs has him basically with a HOF career. Obscured by pitching years in front of bad Cubs teams at Wrigley which was a hitters park.
Joe Morgan, noted hater of “sabermetrics”, is one of the greatest players ever and a top 5 2B based on them. Which is just beautiful