PDA

View Full Version : Who is the biggest postseason under performer?!?!



thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 03:17 PM
Only 1 name per post, any team any player...


Jeff Bagwell

33 games 106 AB 2 HR 13 RBi 19 BB 25 SO .226 BA .354 OBP .321 SLG


who else?

FutureRedsGM
02-02-2007, 03:18 PM
I am WAY too lazy to look up stats, but some Yankee fan somewhere is screaming A-ROD!!!

Strikes Out Looking
02-02-2007, 03:22 PM
Barry Bonds--especially 1990.

pedro
02-02-2007, 03:22 PM
Greg Maddux has had a hard time in the post season.

savafan
02-02-2007, 03:24 PM
I am WAY too lazy to look up stats, but some Yankee fan somewhere is screaming A-ROD!!!

Well, I was right here screaming A-ROD!!! :p:

thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 03:25 PM
Barry Bonds--especially 1990.

look at barry bonds' world series perfomance in 2002 though. .471 BA with 4HR in 17 AB plus 13 RBIs... pretty much as dominant as ole Shoeless Joe in 1919

savafan
02-02-2007, 03:46 PM
look at barry bonds' world series perfomance in 2002 though. .471 BA with 4HR in 17 AB plus 13 RBIs... pretty much as dominant as ole Shoeless Joe in 1919

HAHAHA...The first mention of Barry Bonds and Shoeless Joe together in the same sentence...

Something I'm sure we'll see for many years to come.

cumberlandreds
02-02-2007, 03:47 PM
Without looking it up I think Ted Williams underperformed in his few chances in post season.
Bonds made up a lot ground with his 2002 World Series performance but if not for that he would be at the top of my list.

westofyou
02-02-2007, 03:51 PM
Not the worst, by any stretch but Rose was a different player in the NL Playoffs.

Pete Rose in NL Championship games
.381/.430/.534 - 118 at bats

Pete in World Series
.269/.356/.369 - 130 At Bats

westofyou
02-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Roy Campanella in WS games

.237/.310/.386

RedsBaron
02-02-2007, 03:57 PM
look at barry bonds' world series perfomance in 2002 though. .471 BA with 4HR in 17 AB plus 13 RBIs... pretty much as dominant as ole Shoeless Joe in 1919

Through 1997, Barry Bonds alone was 16 for 80 in the post-season, a .200 average, with 1 HR and 5 RBI. Since then, beginning with the 2000 postseason, the combination of Victor Conte and his Creature, Barry Bonds, did step it up somewhat, and the total postseason stats are now 37 for 151 at bats, a .245 average, with 9 HRs and 24 RBI.

Cyclone792
02-02-2007, 03:59 PM
Reggie Jackson in LCS games: .227/.298/.380 in 181 plate appearances.

Apparently Mr. October preferred to vacation instead of perform during the LCS.

RedsBaron
02-02-2007, 04:01 PM
Not the worst, by any stretch but Rose was a different player in the NL Playoffs.

Pete Rose in NL Championship games
.381/.430/.534 - 118 at bats

Pete in World Series
.269/.356/.369 - 130 At Bats

Pete has said that he always had trouble hitting a pitcher the first time he faced him. In the NLCS he was facing pitchers he was famaliar with, and he played great; in the World Series, the pitchers were usually new to him.
I once read an article written back in the late 1970s or so that compared Rose's performance early on in the World Series to the later games in the Series; Pete hit something like .200 in games 1, 2 and 3, and was a .400+ hitter in games 5, 6 and 7.

forfreelin04
02-02-2007, 04:06 PM
Its hard to peg a player in general, though there have been some dandys listed. How about the Atlanta Braves on the whole? Literally dominating the NL for well over a decade but only compiling one World Series! Dare I say the 90's Buffalo Bills of baseball?

Ravenlord
02-02-2007, 04:10 PM
i think all players before the Wild Card format should be removed from consideration. and even then, it needs to only be guys who are there consistantly, which pretty much removes everyone who's not a Yankees, Cardinals, Red Sox, or Braves player.

by that restriction i choose Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez (thout A-Rod doesn't really have enough ABs to be relavent, and Manny is still good, but not up to his career norms).

dabvu2498
02-02-2007, 04:11 PM
Its hard to peg a player in general, though there have been some dandys listed. How about the Atlanta Braves on the whole? Literally dominating the NL for well over a decade but only compiling one World Series! Dare I say the 90's Buffalo Bills of baseball?

But they did win one. The Bills still have the big donut hole.

edabbs44
02-02-2007, 04:13 PM
McGwire in postseason: .217/.320/.349

129 total ABs.

The 1988 WS: .059/.200/.235

Ravenlord
02-02-2007, 04:13 PM
Its hard to peg a player in general, though there have been some dandys listed. How about the Atlanta Braves on the whole? Literally dominating the NL for well over a decade but only compiling one World Series! Dare I say the 90's Buffalo Bills of baseball?

while a good general comparison, i have trouble comparing Football and Baseball postseasons. i don't think the Braves neccessarily choked, but just had ill-luck. they dfinetly deserve more than one WS (and i hate them), but i don't think it's really choking. part of the reason being that while a Braves overall postseason record may suck, they each showed up en mass at one of the NLDS, NLCS, or WS.

as a side note, will the Braves stop being the Braves to anyone else once on of John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, or Andruw Jones leaves?

forfreelin04
02-02-2007, 04:15 PM
But they did win one. The Bills still have the big donut hole.

Very true, somewhere Scott Norwood is crying. Poor Guy

RedsBaron
02-02-2007, 04:19 PM
Pete has said that he always had trouble hitting a pitcher the first time he faced him. In the NLCS he was facing pitchers he was famaliar with, and he played great; in the World Series, the pitchers were usually new to him.
I once read an article written back in the late 1970s or so that compared Rose's performance early on in the World Series to the later games in the Series; Pete hit something like .200 in games 1, 2 and 3, and was a .400+ hitter in games 5, 6 and 7.

I just looked up Rose's post-season stats on Baseball-Reference.com. Pete knew what he was talking about. Admittedly, this is a small sample size, but check out his performance in six World Series.
In game ones, he was 1 for 20, a .050 average.
In game twos, he was 3 for 23, a .130 average.
In game threes, he was 6 for 22, a .273 average.
In game fours, he was 8 for 24, a .333 avearge.
In game fives, he was 8 for 20, a .400 avearge.
In game sixes, he was 5 for 12, a .417 average.
In game sevens, he was 4 for 9, a .444 average.

dabvu2498
02-02-2007, 04:20 PM
as a side note, will the Braves stop being the Braves to anyone else once on of John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, or Andruw Jones leaves?

Only when Cox, Mazzone and Schuerholz are gone, yes.

jojo
02-02-2007, 04:21 PM
Barry Bonds--especially 1990.


Bonds' career post season numbers (9 series): .245/.433/.503 including a line of .471/.700/1.294 in his world series appearance (really could there be a more *pressure* situation?). I'm thinking you can say alot of things about him, but choker isn't one of them...

forfreelin04
02-02-2007, 04:26 PM
while a good general comparison, i have trouble comparing Football and Baseball postseasons. i don't think the Braves neccessarily choked, but just had ill-luck. they dfinetly deserve more than one WS (and i hate them), but i don't think it's really choking. part of the reason being that while a Braves overall postseason record may suck, they each showed up en mass at one of the NLDS, NLCS, or WS.

as a side note, will the Braves stop being the Braves to anyone else once on of John Smoltz, Chipper Jones, or Andruw Jones leaves?

Agreed, but the Bills were always there too and lost. Of course, the Bills found a way to be thorougly embarassed.

The Braves will always be the Braves until these players are gone I'd imagine. Chipper is the only name I can think of that is somehow worse then the name Larry. Bad Choice and I can say that because my fathers name is Larry.

By the way, talk about a WS meltdown. Andruw Jones batted 77 cents in the 1999 WS. Actually, the whole team batted poorly except for one fellow. None other then Bret Boone who batted .538 with 4 doubles and 3 RBIs. I didn't even remember that he played for the Braves.

forfreelin04
02-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Only when Cox, Mazzone and Schuerholz are gone, yes.

I thought Mazzone was gone, is he back?

thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 04:31 PM
I thought Mazzone was gone, is he back?

mazzone is in baltimore.

Ravenlord
02-02-2007, 04:31 PM
I thought Mazzone was gone, is he back?

nope. still in Baltimore. but i believe dabvu is referring to when all theree are gone.

thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 04:38 PM
How about we switch to clutch?

CHRIS SABO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1990 world series... enough said :)

dabvu2498
02-02-2007, 04:57 PM
nope. still in Baltimore. but i believe dabvu is referring to when all theree are gone.

Yeah. I didn't say it very well. (Imagine that.)

edabbs44
02-02-2007, 05:36 PM
How about we switch to clutch?

CHRIS SABO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1990 world series... enough said :)

Gimme Hatcher.

RedFanAlways1966
02-02-2007, 05:38 PM
Dave Winfield (2001 Hall-of-Fame)

Career: .283/.353/.475 (465 HR, 11003 AB)

W.S.: .136/.255/.159 (0 HR, 44 AB)
L.C.S: .216/.326/.432 (2 HR, 37 AB)
Postseason: .208/.304/.337 (2 HR, 101 AB)

curedsfan
02-02-2007, 05:45 PM
Reggie Sanders. Check out this line -

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG
64 221 24 43 8 0 7 25 26 79 .195 .283 .326

I just remember losing my mind watching him in the 95 series vs ATL.

westofyou
02-02-2007, 06:04 PM
Babe Ruth World Series

.326/.467/.744

Dave Bancroft World Series

.172/.220/.183

Hap
02-02-2007, 07:58 PM
Barry Bonds--especially 1990.

And in 1992, when he could have and should have thrown out Sid Bream by a mile.

MLB.com description is

The game came down to the injury-riddled legs of Bream vs. the Gold Glove arm of left fielder Barry Bonds.

Bonds fired home to catcher Mike "Spanky" Lavalliere, who grabbed it and applied the tag. Not in time. Bream slid in safely, sending the Braves back to the World Series.

Bonds did not ever have a gold glove arm. He was an outstanding left fielder, however, he was not blessed with a great arm or even a good arm.

He did not "fire" home, he "lobbed" home. The throw was offline, to the right of the plate. LaValliere had to go get it and then come back and try to swipe the tag.

thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 08:00 PM
And in 1992, when he could have and should have thrown out Sid Bream by a mile.

MLB.com description is

The game came down to the injury-riddled legs of Bream vs. the Gold Glove arm of left fielder Barry Bonds.

Bonds fired home to catcher Mike "Spanky" Lavalliere, who grabbed it and applied the tag. Not in time. Bream slid in safely, sending the Braves back to the World Series.

Bonds did not ever have a gold glove arm. He was an outstanding left fielder, however, he was not blessed with a great arm or even a good arm.

He did not "fire" home, he "lobbed" home. The throw was offline, to the right of the plate. LaValliere had to go get it and then come back and try to swipe the tag.



funny thing about this he was signaled to play shallow for the play and disregarded his coach. I believe it was leyland but i'm not sure. A certain sign of things to come IMO

RedsBaron
02-02-2007, 08:51 PM
Small sample size can be unfair to some players' reputations for "clutch" performance in the postseason. For example, Ted Williams was criticized by the Boston press for "choking" in the 1946 World Series, when he only hit .200, going 5 for 25. Stan Musial only hit .222 in that same Series, but Musial escaped the harsh criticism Williams received because his Cardinals won the Series. 1946 was Ted's only postseason opportunity, whereas Stan had three other World Series. Although Musial's overall World Series numbers were nothing great, going 22 for 86 for a .256 mark with a .347 OBP and .395 slugging percentage, Stan's Redbirds won 3 of 4 Series, so his "clutch" reputation wasn't hurt.
Had Gil Hodges not been popular with the press, he could have been labeled a "choker" after his 1952 World Series when he went 0 for 21; at that point Hodges in three World Series had gone 4 for 39 for an overall .103 average. However, Hodges got additional chances, playing in 4 more Series after 1952; in the 1953, '55, '56 and '59 Series he went 31 for 92 for a .337 average with 4 HRs and 16 RBI.
Reds fans recall Tony Perez as being a great clutch hitter, but I wonder if Tony would still have that reputation if 1970 had been his only World Series, as the "Big Dog" was a dog, going 1 for 18, a .056 average, with 0 RBI.

redsupport
02-02-2007, 08:57 PM
Darrell Chaney, I always expected him to smash a homer against Oakland in 72 based on his Herculean abilities

edabbs44
02-02-2007, 09:09 PM
Small sample size can be unfair to some players' reputations for "clutch" performance in the postseason. For example, Ted Williams was criticized by the Boston press for "choking" in the 1946 World Series, when he only hit .200, going 5 for 25. Stan Musial only hit .222 in that same Series, but Musial escaped the harsh criticism Williams received because his Cardinals won the Series. 1946 was Ted's only postseason opportunity, whereas Stan had three other World Series. Although Musial's overall World Series numbers were nothing great, going 22 for 86 for a .256 mark with a .347 OBP and .395 slugging percentage, Stan's Redbirds won 3 of 4 Series, so his "clutch" reputation wasn't hurt.
Had Gil Hodges not been popular with the press, he could have been labeled a "choker" after his 1952 World Series when he went 0 for 21; at that point Hodges in three World Series had gone 4 for 39 for an overall .103 average. However, Hodges got additional chances, playing in 4 more Series after 1952; in the 1953, '55, '56 and '59 Series he went 31 for 92 for a .337 average with 4 HRs and 16 RBI.
Reds fans recall Tony Perez as being a great clutch hitter, but I wonder if Tony would still have that reputation if 1970 had been his only World Series, as the "Big Dog" was a dog, going 1 for 18, a .056 average, with 0 RBI.

Small sample sizes are what the postseason is all about.

thatcoolguy_22
02-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Small sample sizes are what the postseason is all about.

i concur doctor.

vaticanplum
02-02-2007, 09:39 PM
I am WAY too lazy to look up stats, but some Yankee fan somewhere is screaming A-ROD!!!

It's a huge fallacy that A-Rod is not a postseason performer, one that has been much exaggerated by the media.

A-Rod's postseason line: 132 AB/37 H/19 R/6 HR/16 RBI/15 BB/32 SO/4 SB/.280 BA/.362 OBP/.485 SLG

His Yankee postseasons have not been as good as Seattle, yes. But I don't think it's made as big a difference as people think; his Yankees teammates haven't helped him these last few years and he couldn't have saved those games himself. Losing is a team effort too.

texasdave
02-03-2007, 11:27 AM
Sadly, I think Vada Pinson may win this debate. In the '61 WS poor Vada went 2 for 22. One single, one double, no walks, no runs scored and none batted in. That works out to a line of .091/.091/.136. It adds up to an underwhelming OPS of .227. Strangely enough Pinson only struck out once in those 22 ABs.

Chip R
02-03-2007, 05:10 PM
It's a huge fallacy that A-Rod is not a postseason performer, one that has been much exaggerated by the media.

A-Rod's postseason line: 132 AB/37 H/19 R/6 HR/16 RBI/15 BB/32 SO/4 SB/.280 BA/.362 OBP/.485 SLG

His Yankee postseasons have not been as good as Seattle, yes. But I don't think it's made as big a difference as people think; his Yankees teammates haven't helped him these last few years and he couldn't have saved those games himself. Losing is a team effort too.


Those certainly aren't bad stats. But looking at those stats and comparing them to his regular season stats shows he doesn't put up the numbers like he does during the regular season. And that's a reason he gets that rap. It would be very difficult to put up as good or better stats during the playoffs as you would during the regular season. It's a smaller sample size and you are playing teams that are either not quite as good as your team or they are as good or better than your team. You're not facing scrubs anymore. One of the reasons Jeter gets hero status - besides the fact that he has been on world championship teams - is that his post-season numbers are very close to his regular season numbers. So you don't see a dropoff there or the dropoff is not significant enough to matter. Whereas with A-Rod, you have a more significant dropoff.

vaticanplum
02-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Those certainly aren't bad stats. But looking at those stats and comparing them to his regular season stats shows he doesn't put up the numbers like he does during the regular season. And that's a reason he gets that rap. It would be very difficult to put up as good or better stats during the playoffs as you would during the regular season. It's a smaller sample size and you are playing teams that are either not quite as good as your team or they are as good or better than your team. You're not facing scrubs anymore. One of the reasons Jeter gets hero status - besides the fact that he has been on world championship teams - is that his post-season numbers are very close to his regular season numbers. So you don't see a dropoff there or the dropoff is not significant enough to matter. Whereas with A-Rod, you have a more significant dropoff.

I think the popular perception of A-Rod, though, has nothing to do with just a dropoff. I really believe that people think that he's batted .100 every postseason, and that's simply not true. People don't believe that he's just worse than usual. People believe that he fully chokes every single time.

Chip R
02-03-2007, 07:22 PM
I think the popular perception of A-Rod, though, has nothing to do with just a dropoff. I really believe that people think that he's batted .100 every postseason, and that's simply not true. People don't believe that he's just worse than usual. People believe that he fully chokes every single time.


And that's the media for you. Especially the New York media. The opposite is just as true. Again, Jeter is a good example. You would think, listening and reading the media, he hits 1.000, drives in the winning run every game and makes a miraculous play in the field every time. And we know that isn't the case either. But that's the double edged sword that playing in New York is. A-Rod didn't go to NY for the money. He could have stayed in TEX and made just as much and been as popular. He wanted to win championships but has not won the big ring yet. He had a tough season last year and people were saying they wouldn't trade David Wright for him straight up. Now David Wright is a great player but that statement was just plain silly. But, again, it's an example of the media making more of someone's good season and someone's bad season just because they play in New York.