Random question about Pearce & Reynolds

[HowAboutThat]

So Mark Reynolds retired with a Journeymans career and 30 million in the bank. Steve Pearce retired with kind of a Journeymans career, and 29 million in the bank, they both played for a long time, and for a lot of teams, one of the comments on the Pearce retirement article was that he was overcompensated.

Well, duh. Every baseball player is wildly overcompensated, But that’s a different and tired debate.

 The question is, which one of them would you rather have at his peak?

(I think Pearce is a far better player but he had 91 homers and Reynolds had 298.)

And a supplemental question, looking at career earnings. Guys who made 30 million over 10 years. Who is the best?

Edited April 17, 2020 by Philip
Addendum

[oriole]

Id rather have Pearce than Reynolds even with the home runs. While Pearce was no gold glover he could at least hold his own at multiple positions. Reynolds was a black hole in the infield and if he wasn’t hitting the ball out of the park or walking he was basically an automatic out. Not my favorite type of player to watch. 

[DrungoHazewood]

The answer depends on the conditions of your hypothetical situation. 

- Are we allowed to pick up a 26-year-old version of each player and use them knowing what we know today?

- How do you define peak?  Pearce never had consecutive seasons where he got 200 PAs and was an above-average hitter.  Reynolds only had one season of 2+ wins, but that's tied up in the fact that he was often an abysmal fielder.

Pearce was never a regular.  At his best he was a platoon player.  And he was hurt a lot.  Reynolds played regularly for years, but usually wasn't any good (in part) because he couldn't field.

Pearce's 2014 season was the best either of them had, but that's due in no small part to a completely out-of-character +17 season with the glove.

Anyway... I think I'd take Reynolds' best 2-3 consecutive year peak and use him as a DH/1B.  I could get 2-4 wins a year out of that, I think.  But I'd also consider a Steve Pearce do-over career where he has better luck with injuries and ends up as a pretty good regular from, say, 26-34.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

I think, I would have to go with Reynolds peak year in 2009 with the Diamondbacks. Played in 155 games with 44 home runs, batted .260 and an OPS+ of 127, but I would have to hide him at 1B/DH. 

Even in Pearce's outstanding 2014 season he only played in 102 games with 383 plate appearances (both career highs). His 157 OPS+ was outstanding and rivaled Eddie Murray during his peak, but he never played enough to be considered a full time player. 

[Moose Milligan]

It would depend on the shape of the rest of the roster.  It would depend on where the holes are and what the roster could benefit from.

There's a lot to be said for Pearce's versatility but I think I'd go with Reynolds as a 1B/DH type.  He had massive power that wouldn't necessarily transform a lineup but you could stick him anywhere 4-6 and he'd have to be accounted for.  

It's not an easy decision though.  I'd probably be just as happy with Pearce.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The answer depends on the conditions of your hypothetical situation. 

- Are we allowed to pick up a 26-year-old version of each player and use them knowing what we know today?

- How do you define peak?  Pearce never had consecutive seasons where he got 200 PAs and was an above-average hitter.  Reynolds only had one season of 2+ wins, but that's tied up in the fact that he was often an abysmal fielder.

Pearce was never a regular.  At his best he was a platoon player.  And he was hurt a lot.  Reynolds played regularly for years, but usually wasn't any good (in part) because he couldn't field.

Pearce's 2014 season was the best either of them had, but that's due in no small part to a completely out-of-character +17 season with the glove.

Anyway... I think I'd take Reynolds' best 2-3 consecutive year peak and use him as a DH/1B.  I could get 2-4 wins a year out of that, I think.  But I'd also consider a Steve Pearce do-over career where he has better luck with injuries and ends up as a pretty good regular from, say, 26-34.

Your question about specifics was exactly right, I was not specific because there’s so many different variables. What made me ask the question was that they both ended their career as a journeyman, with about $30 million in career earnings. Reynolds had 298 career homeruns, Pearce had a World Series MVP.

Come to think of it, David Freese also had a World Series MVP, was also a career journeyman and lousy fielder, and also retired with tons of money in the bank.

As you so effectively illustrate, it’s not completely cut and dried. I’d rather have Pearce, because I don’t like strikeouts and I don’t especially care about homeruns, but it’s not a slam dunk choice.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Philip
Clarification

[Redskins Rick]

Strange things happen in the playoffs. Pearce is a nice guy and a decent body to have had on the 25 man roster. I doubt anybody expected him to be hot during the WS and end up with MVP.

Much like Dempsey did back in 83.

Reynolds was better at 1B, than 3B, where he had a brick for a glove and 2 left hands.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

As you so effectively illustrate, it’s not completely cut and dried. I’d rather have Pearce, because I don’t like strikeouts and I don’t especially care about homeruns, but it’s not a slam dunk choice.

My favorite kind of player, in the abstract, is someone like George Brett or Stan Musial who might hit .365 with 45 doubles, 16 triples, 19 homers, and strike out 40 times.  But that player is at least temporarily extinct.  I'd also take someone like Ichiro who infrequently struck out and could hit well over .300.  But the last Ichiro before Ichiro was probably Rod Carew or maybe Tony Gwynn, and they haven't been common since well before I was born.

We've gotten to where baseball is because home runs are the most effective way to score runs, and for almost all of history strikeouts are positively correlated with power.  It's only recently that (in general) high strikeout players aren't a lot more effective than contact hitters.

Take a random year... 1955.  The top 10 in batting strikeouts includes Larry Doby, Eddie Mathews, Mickey Mantle, Gil Hodges, Duke Snider, and Wally Post, who were all among the best hitters in the league.  Look at the trailers in strikeouts and you have mostly guys with .680-720 OPSes like Dick Groat and Johnny Temple.  There were exceptions, of course, like Yogi.  But eventually baseball caught on to that.

[HowAboutThat]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

My favorite kind of player, in the abstract, is someone like George Brett or Stan Musial who might hit .365 with 45 doubles, 16 triples, 19 homers, and strike out 40 times.  But that player is at least temporarily extinct.  I'd also take someone like Ichiro who infrequently struck out and could hit well over .300.  But the last Ichiro before Ichiro was probably Rod Carew or maybe Tony Gwynn, and they haven't been common since well before I was born.

I hated George Brett, because he was given so much credit for being a good defender, when Buddy Bell was worlds better.

I agree, I love the high average guy. I would much rather see 40 doubles than 20 home runs, And I would much rather see a crafty eye hit a single. Ichiro had 262 hits one season, but in 18 MLB seasons, he only had 118 career home runs. He was amazing.

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

And a supplemental question, looking at career earnings. Guys who made 30 million over 10 years. Who is the best?

You’d have to specify the era, since there has been so much salary inflation over the years.   Reggie Jackson was the highest paid player in baseball at one point, and he made under $10 mm in his career.    Eddie Murray signed the biggest contract in baseball history at a later point and he made $30.3 mm in his career.     A $30 mm benchmark is probably only useful if you are limiting this to guys who retired in 2010 or later.    

I don’t have time to research this right now, but Ronnie Belliard retired in 2010 with 20.8 rWAR over 13 years and yet only made $15.5 mm in his career.   Lots of guys retired in 2010 with lower rWAR  than him who made more than $30 mm.    
 

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Philip said:

I hated George Brett, because he was given so much credit for being a good defender, when Buddy Bell was worlds better.

Bell: 6 Gold Gloves

Brett: 1 Gold Glove

I don’t think anyone was under any illusions that Brett was as good as Bell defensively.   

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

I hated George Brett, because he was given so much credit for being a good defender, when Buddy Bell was worlds better.

I agree, I love the high average guy. I would much rather see 40 doubles than 20 home runs, And I would much rather see a crafty eye hit a single. Ichiro had 262 hits one season, but in 18 MLB seasons, he only had 118 career home runs. He was amazing.

The Bell vs Brett thing seems kind of odd, but I guess we all have our idiosyncrasies.  I don't recall Brett being praised all the much for his defense, he was just a wonderful hitter with that perfect Charlie Lau stance and swing.  He had a season in my lifetime where he hit .312 with 22 homers in 600+ PAs and he struck out 24 times.  That reads like a typo.  Since 2010 Victor Martinez is the only guy to have 20 or more homers and less than 50 strikeouts in 600+ PAs.

[HowAboutThat]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The Bell vs Brett thing seems kind of odd, but I guess we all have our idiosyncrasies.  I don't recall Brett being praised all the much for his defense, he was just a wonderful hitter with that perfect Charlie Lau stance and swing.  He had a season in my lifetime where he hit .312 with 22 homers in 600+ PAs and he struck out 24 times.  That reads like a typo.  Since 2010 Victor Martinez is the only guy to have 20 or more homers and less than 50 strikeouts in 600+ PAs.

The thing about Brett and Bell, was everybody said oh Brett is the best third baseman in the game when what they really meant was he was an excellent hitter. Buddy Bell was better, and one of the best third baseman in the game. His defensive WAR is fifth or sixth all time. He was one of my favorite players back when I was a kid and a Ranger fan, and everybody was going ape over George Brett because George Brett could hit.

Yes I’m sure it seems a little bit odd for me to be mentioning it, especially on an Orioles site, But it always rankled me that Bell never got his due.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Philip
Clarification

[DrungoHazewood]

Buddy Bell is the same player as Scott Rolen.  Arguably better than 30-40% of the guys in Cooperstown, within a few runs of each other in bb-ref defensive metrics, both around 65-70 WAR.  Both had barely more HOF support from the BBWAA than Floyd Rayford.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

The thing about Brett and Beall, was everybody said oh Brad is the best third baseman in the game win what they really meant was he was an excellent hitter. Buddy Bell was the best third baseman in the game. His defensive WAR is fifth or sixth all time. He was one of my favorite players back when I was a kid and a Ranger fan, and everybody was going ape over George Brett because George Brett could hit.

To be fair, Brett is among the top five third basemen of all time.  When they said Brett was great they probably meant he was no slouch with the glove and he'd sometimes hit .330 with power and never struck out.  He had batting lines that looked like they came out of the 1920s.  And it probably didn't hurt that he looked like a movie star.  I had a teacher who said he was her favorite player, despite being related to Johnny Bench, and it was probably that she had a crush on him.

While Buddy Bell is more like 15th, and all mixed up with all the other pretty-good-hit-great-glove 3B of the 1970s and 80s.  Unless you were a fan of one of them who could keep Graig Nettles, Sal Bando, Buddy Bell, Toby Harrah and Ken Boyer straight?  In my mind I think that Bell and Harrah are the same person.