Billy Hamilton Released

[jojo]

I strongly disagree with this take.

First. Hamilton produced 10 fWAR over five seasons as a Red, 2 fWAR a season, which is league average overall. He was a solid, league average CF for five seasons. If the Reds could get that production from every prospect, they would be competitive every season.

Second, even if you think Hamilton was a problem, he wasn’t even close to being one of the top problems for the Reds over the last five season. All of the top problems involved pitching. The Reds refusal to add major league level pitchers is precisely what was wrong with the Reds over the last five seasons, and why they were so difficult to watch.

Third, even if you think Hamilton was a major problem that kept the Reds from winning, the Reds purposely tanked during most of Hamilton’s seasons as a Red. They were not going to win even if Mike Trout was their CF. The Reds were trying to lose.

Fourth, knowing the Reds were going to be in last place every season, having Hamilton provide Gold Glove, flashy defense and explosive, havoc bringing speed on the base paths, was one of the few things these last few seasons that made the Reds watchable. He was a fan favorite, and for good reason.

I think Billy Hamilton was one of the few bright spots for a Reds fans these past few seasons. I am glad he was the Reds CF all those seasons.

Billy had two acceptable years as a starter for the Reds. Everything about his time as a Red screamed he was a role player that they Reds FO couldn't push out of the starting lineup simply because they weren't creative enough. Literally from 2013-2018 there were 29 qualified center fielders who were more productive based upon WAR than Billy. KC is a dumpster fire at the moment and it barely took them a little over half a season to push Billy off their stinking 25 man roster and that's an organization that is gagas over speed and defense.

So yes, that Billy was a 5 year starter for the Reds says a ton about the deficiencies with the Reds.

[757690]

You may be right. If I ran a team I wouldn't want to give Hamilton 150 games as a starter with his lack of offensive production. He's been a below 1 WAR player 5 of his 7 seasons. A good team will always have a better option than to play Hamilton. If you don't mind losing a bunch of games by all means play him.

The Baltimore Orioles from 1969-1979 won 100+ games four time, 90+ games 10:times, went to the World Series 4 times and won it twice.

During that time period, they had Gold Glove winners Paul Blair in CF and Mark Belanger at SS. Blair produced a career .694 OPS, Belanger produced a career .580 OPS.

Defense matters much more than our eyes tell us.

[Ironman92]

The Baltimore Orioles from 1969-1979 won 100+ games four time, 90+ games 10:times, went to the World Series 4 times and won it twice.

During that time period, they had Gold Glove winners Paul Blair in CF and Mark Belanger at SS. Blair produced a career .694 OPS, Belanger produced a career .580 OPS.

Defense matters much more than our eyes tell us.

How was their pitching?

[757690]

How was their pitching?

Good pitching and good defense are kinda intertwined.

But the argument that a team can’t win with a hitter like Hamilton as a starter is proven incorrect many times throughout history.

[AandW]

Kudos to the Royals for recognizing failure and being decisive to rid themselves of a useless player. They benched billy a few weeks ago, and now have officially parted ways

It only took the Reds 5 years to realize the same thing. I think Bob issued a few edicts to keep 'The GameChanger' - lol - in the lineup for nearly 700 games.

[kaldaniels]

Just because in the past teams have won with poor players on their roster does not mean that it is ok to be satisfied with poor players on the current day roster.

I keep seeing this argument brought up with Billy and even Barnhart.

[CaiGuy]

BH the Royal ≠ BH the Red

Yes, the Royals are really so much smarter than the Reds that they threw $5million+ at Billy Hamilton only to cut him after he puts up a +46! OPS+.

[757690]

Just because in the past teams have won with poor players on their roster does not mean that it is ok to be satisfied with poor players on the current day roster.

I keep seeing this argument brought up with Billy and even Barnhart.

Mark Belanger and Paul Blair were not poor players. They provided poor offensive production, but were positive contributors overall. That’s the point.

[REDREAD]

The funny thing is it took the Royals less than a year to discover that Hamilton isn't a major league caliber player. The Reds gave him 2,736 PAs. Imagine the extra runs they could have scored with just an average hitter.

The flaw in this thinking is.. The Reds were not going to get an average hitter for CF.
They had no one in the farm system to replace Billy and they were not motivated to spend money or trade assets to get one.

Billy was a role player when he was here. He was an inexpensive starter and a position where talent was scarce. You could use the same logic for Robert Stephenson.. "why is he still on the roster, why are they giving him so many innings? Why not get an average pitcher to replace him?" Well Robert S is inexpensive and there's some hope (even if it's slim) that he will get better. That's important for a small market team.

And like someone else said.. In Billy's first year, the Reds were trying to contend, but had a hole in CF and no money.. Makes sense to try the rookie there.. The other seasons, the Reds were tanking, so it really didn't matter (Sadly).

[Plus Plus]

The Baltimore Orioles from 1969-1979 won 100+ games four time, 90+ games 10:times, went to the World Series 4 times and won it twice.

During that time period, they had Gold Glove winners Paul Blair in CF and Mark Belanger at SS. Blair produced a career .694 OPS, Belanger produced a career .580 OPS.

Defense matters much more than our eyes tell us.

So all that Billy Hamilton needs to be a core starting player is a time machine.

[Ren Deagle]

The Baltimore Orioles from 1969-1979 won 100+ games four time, 90+ games 10:times, went to the World Series 4 times and won it twice.

During that time period, they had Gold Glove winners Paul Blair in CF and Mark Belanger at SS. Blair produced a career .694 OPS, Belanger produced a career .580 OPS.

Defense matters much more than our eyes tell us.

I agree that defense matters. But lets not lump Paul Blair in with Billy Hamilton. In 1969, Blair had his best season. He hit 26 HR, with 74 RBIs and 178 hits. He had a slash line of .285/.327/.477 with an OPS of .804. Hamilton has only hit 21 homers for his whole career.
For all the talk about how Hamilton's glove and speed mattered, the Reds lost regularly when Hamilton played here. Its not Billy's fault that they did, but he did little to change that.

[bucksfan2]

One of the reasons I think WAR is a relatively stupid stat. If you put a team on the field with a Billy Hamilton at every position, you'd have the greatest defensive team in baseball history to lose 140 games in a season.
Defense is not an equally important part of the game, nor is baserunning. A stat that shows a players value based purely on those two things is inherently faulty. I know how much some people on this board hate that opinion, but I'll die on that hill.

This is a fascinating opinion. If you put 8 Billy Hamilton's on the field, what would the end result look like? I venture to guess that it would be a terrible thing to watch. But I do wonder if you put a bunch of seriously flawed players on the field with similar BH WAR figures it may not be so bad. I think you actually could build a really good team with 4 all defense no hit guys and 4 all hit and no defense guys. You know, you have C, SS, 2B, and CF as great defenders, and then the corner guys as poor defenders but mashers.

I think WAR is an interesting and flawed stat. I also think that BHam is such an outlier in the WAR framework, that its difficult to find comparable players. I do think he could be an asset in a short series, actually if you ride one of his few hot streaks, he could win you a series.

[Griffey012]

Mark Belanger and Paul Blair were not poor players. They provided poor offensive production, but were positive contributors overall. That’s the point.

You have to consider the era. Paul Blair carried an average wRC+ of 100 from 1965 to 1976 (comparable to something like a current day Kevin Kierrmaier), and that included his last two putrid years of a 60 and 55 wRC+. Belanger on the other hand was a total dud at the plate, even in that era he averaged a measly 75 wRC+ (still better than Billy's 69 wRC+ with the Reds), but his defense was out of this world, as in best all time defensive SS good based on fangraphs DEF values. Billy didn't provide close to that level of value with the glove.

[westofyou]

The Baltimore Orioles from 1969-1979 won 100+ games four time, 90+ games 10:times, went to the World Series 4 times and won it twice.

During that time period, they had Gold Glove winners Paul Blair in CF and Mark Belanger at SS. Blair produced a career .694 OPS, Belanger produced a career .580 OPS.

Defense matters much more than our eyes tell us.

Most teams AL had that SS / CF like that in that era, hitting dingers and taking walks helped the O's as much as chain smoking Belanger did.

OPS                           YEAR        OPS   
1    Tim Johnson              1973       .502   Brewers
2    Ed Brinkman              1972       .538   Tigers
3    Rick Auerbach            1972       .546   Brewers
4    Leo Cardenas             1972       .555   Angels
5    Freddie Patek            1972       .556   Royals
6    Jackie Hernandez         1969       .560   Royals
7    Mark Belanger            1970       .562   Orioles
8    Mark Belanger            1973       .564   Orioles
9    Ed Brinkman              1971       .568   Tigers
10   Gene Michael             1971       .576   Yankees
11   Frank Duffy              1974       .582   Indians
12   Luis Aparicio            1971       .587   Red Sox
13   Roberto Pena             1970       .589   A's/Brewers
14   Larry Brown              1969       .598   Indians
15   Mark Belanger            1974       .598   Orioles
16   Bert Campaneris          1972       .603   A's
17   Bert Campaneris          1969       .608   A's
18   Ed Brinkman              1973       .609   Tigers
19   Bert Campaneris          1971       .611   A's
20   Ed Brinkman              1974       .613   Tigers
21   Dave Chalk               1974       .620   Angels
22   Freddie Patek            1974       .622   Royals
23   Bert Campaneris          1973       .626   A's
24   Ed Brinkman              1970       .631   Senators
25   Freddie Patek            1973       .632   Royals



OPS                           YEAR        OPS   
1    Paul Blair               1972       .626   Orioles
2    Dave May                 1972       .646   Brewers
3    Vic Harris               1973       .659   Rangers
4    Mickey Stanley           1969       .665   Tigers
5    Vada Pinson              1971       .672   Indians
6    Del Unser                1971       .679   Senators
7    Mickey Stanley           1973       .681   Tigers
8    Steve Brye               1974       .683   Twins
9    Ted Uhlaender            1969       .684   Twins
10   Bill North               1974       .684   A's
11   Jose Cardenal            1969       .687   Indians
12   Ken Berry                1970       .701   White Sox
13   Mickey Stanley           1970       .701   Tigers
14   Jay Johnstone            1969       .702   Angels
15   Paul Blair               1971       .703   Orioles
16   Rick Miller              1973       .711   Red Sox
17   Ted Uhlaender            1970       .712   Indians
18   Bill North               1973       .725   A's
19   Paul Blair               1974       .730   Orioles
20   Tommy Harper             1972       .730   Red Sox
21   Del Unser                1969       .731   Senators
22   Cesar Tovar              1974       .731   Rangers
23   Mickey Rivers            1974       .734   Angels
24   Wayne Comer              1969       .735   Pilots
25   Paul Blair               1973       .736   Orioles

[757690]

You have to consider the era. Paul Blair carried an average wRC+ of 100 from 1965 to 1976 (comparable to something like a current day Kevin Kierrmaier), and that included his last two putrid years of a 60 and 55 wRC+. Belanger on the other hand was a total dud at the plate, even in that era he averaged a measly 75 wRC+ (still better than Billy's 69 wRC+ with the Reds), but his defense was out of this world, as in best all time defensive SS good based on fangraphs DEF values. Billy didn't provide close to that level of value with the glove.

Thanks for the info. First, I think Billy easily provided the level of value Belanger did when you factor in defense and base running, plus, we didn't have UZR or DRS back in the seventies, so who knows how much value Belanger actually provided.
Second, I picked the seventies Orioles because I'm old and it was an easy memory for me to bring up. If I did any research, I am certain I could find plenty of winning teams through out every era that carried no hit, all glove and base running guys on the team. The Red Sox just last year carried a catching staff that put up a combined .547 OPS.