Who were the best Oriole clutch hitters?

[RHall31]

I guess. But 10th in the MVP voting isn't completely meaningless. I guess I need to file this away under the heading of Clueless Writers Being Even More Clueless Before Bill James. I mean that was the same year Mark Belanger outpointed Bert Blyleven, when Belanger had a .564 OPS and Blyleven led the league in ERA+ while throwing 325 innings(!!!!!!!). But it just feels bizarre to have a full-time DH with a .732 OPS lapping Bobby Grich and Yaz and Nolan Ryan and Frank Robinson in the MVP voting.

It was back then. Nobody, and I mean nobody talked or cared about who finished 10th in the MVP voting. Most publications didn't even list the vote getters that far down, or at least not until the Sunday paper came out.

No internet, no message boards, just the evening news, newspapers and a few periodicals. We weren't swamped with OPS, WHIPs,WARS and every other stat imaginable back then. You watched/listened to the game or read

about it the next day and that was that.

[Old#5fan]

It was back then. Nobody, and I mean nobody talked or cared about who finished 10th in the MVP voting. Most publications didn't even list the vote getters that far down, or at least not until the Sunday paper came out.

No internet, no message boards, just the evening news, newspapers and a few periodicals. We weren't swamped with OPS, WHIPs,WARS and every other stat imaginable back then. You watched/listened to the game or read

about it the next day and that was that.

And it was a million times better back then :clap3: without all this stupid over-analysis of everything which borders on the absurdly nonsensical when people try to use this crap to predict what will happen with human beings (baseball players.) They aren't friggin robots!

[Old#5fan]

Early on in his career Brooks got the reputation as a clutch hitter. Radio and television commentators would talk about it. He really solidified the reputation during his MVP year of 1964. He carried that reputation throughout his career.

I always wanted Frank up in a clutch situation, he was so dangerous. I am not sure he was any more dangerous in the clutch than normal, but if it was a really big situation Frank would be my choice.

From 69-71, the most dangerous and clutch Oriole in my mind was Boog. He also had very good years in 64 and 66.

Eddie was great throughout his career, and when clutch hitting stats are compared, he is without comparison.

If I had to choose, Frank and Eddie would be at the top, Brooks and Boog close behind, but overall, it wouldn't matter much, I would be feeling really good with any of those guys coming up.

I agree, way way WAY better than anyone on the Orioles roster now coming up with the game on the line. Those indeed were the good ole days of clutch hitting that has vanished on the Orioles like the Woolly Mammoth into extinction.

[The Wedge]

Your post is money

I'm sorry, you're too old to use that phrase. You were beyond the age of being hip, cool, whathaveyou and speaking for the whippersnappers, we'd rather you didn't try to use slang that originated after 1985.

Age discrimination! It's the new internet fad! And it's FUN!

[Mike B]

I agree, way way WAY better than anyone on the Orioles roster now coming up with the game on the line. Those indeed were the good ole days of clutch hitting that has vanished on the Orioles like the Woolly Mammoth into extinction.

O5F, it is a different game both on the player side and fan side. The game is different for the fans because it has become stat crazy. We come form an era where the fan used his or her eyes to decide who was good. For better or worse today people look to WAR and OPS and other stats, to decide who can play.

As for players, the game is drastically different, back in the 70's, the starters stayed in until they got killed or won, there were very few LOOGY type guys and the 9 men pitching staff included 5 BP guys but they all pitched multiple innings. The point is hitters had the advantage of taking on a tired starter or a reliever who went 2 to 3 innings a couple time a week.

I think we will see some of these young guys develop into clutch hitters but time will tell.

A friend has a T Shirt that says the older I get the better I was. I think that may be true also with some of our memories about past favorites. The greatest players of every era have their success and failures, we just remember their achievements a little longer.

Heck, 30 years from now, posters will be on this board saying boy, Ty Wigginton and Aubrey Huff were clutch.

[Mike B]

It should be pointed out that people who use stats to form their arguments are also quite capable of using their eyes to form opinions based on what they see on the field. As much as some people want to make it one, it isn't an either/or situation (not necessarily accusing you of this because I truly don't know where you stand).

I was not knocking people on use of stats. I am learning more about them myself and play a number of fantasy leagues, which obviously are stats driven. I just think players are evaluated by fans differently today. I do think fans are more educated today. Years ago the Sun or the News American printed the averages, HR, RBI, SB on Sunday. Today all aspects of the game are readily available.

I think we have the best of all worlds right now but some are guilty of not seeing the whole effect a player has on the game.

[joldey]

Being only 22 years old... I never had the privilege of watching Frank or even Eddie in his prime. However, the first name that came to mind was Eric Davis...

In 1997

"late and close": 30 PAs .385/.467/.538 (1.005 OPS)

In 1998

Two outs, RISP: 57 PAs .306/.404/.571 (975 OPS)

"late and close": 70 PAs .371/.414/.806 (1.221 OPS)

...can you say CLUTCH

BTW... for all you OPS buffs, Eric Davis' .970 OPS in 1998 is the 4th highest OPS (min. 450 PA's) in the last 40 years and 8th highest in the Orioles 57 year history in Baltimore.

1.) 1961 Jim Gentile 1.069

2.) 1966 Frank Robinson 1.047

3.) 1996 Brady Anderson 1.034

4.) 1964 Boog Powell 1.005

5.) 1993 Chris Hoiles 1.001

6.) 2004 Melvin Mora .981

7.) 1967 Frank Robinson .979

8.) 1998 Eric Davis .970

...one of the most underrated offensive seasons in Orioles history.

[Tony-OH]

Joltin' Joe Orsulak.. Conversation over...

Seriously though, like 1970, I was in the stands or watching on TV many a times as the crowd chanted "Eddie, Eddie, Eddie" and he seem to come through just about every time. Now if he just would be nicer to kids standing on chairs he'd be gold around here!

[Frobby]

And it was a million times better back then :clap3: without all this stupid over-analysis of everything which borders on the absurdly nonsensical when people try to use this crap to predict what will happen with human beings (baseball players.) They aren't friggin robots!

Here's an idea: if you don't like all the analysis, don't bother reading it. Leave it to the people who enjoy it. Pretend there isn't an interweb. In fact, pretend there isn't a cable channel that covers the Orioles 162 games a year. Just go listen to games on the radio and tune in to maybe 20 games a year on TV. And then tell us if you think you enjoy baseball more than you do now. If you do, great, you don't have to come to this website anymore.

[SrMeowMeow]

Harold Baines. Harold Baines. Harold Baines. I was 9 when Eddie was traded and didn't get to see Frobby, so I have to go with '88 to '10 and no one did it better than Harold.

Oh man. I just this minute figured out what Frobby means.

[Old#5fan]

"Eddie Murray was probably the greatest clutch hitter I've ever seen."

The guy who said that is dead now. I'm guessing he was older than you are now when he passed. No, he wasn't a whippersnapper. Yes, I'm sure he knew all about Frank's injuries. Is he a goober who only looked at stats and said the hell with reality of injuries and stuff? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing even this person didn't know it all (and would have said so); but I can guarantee he was there, and I can guarantee that he knew jack (or Frank and Eddie in his case).

The guy who said that? Elrod Hendricks (page 175, Oriole Magic).

Not good enough? How about these:

"Eddie Murray was probably the greatest all-time hitter in a clutch situation that will ever play the game." Rich Dauer

"Eddie Murray was the best clutch hitter I ever played with." Ken Singleton

"If my life depended on a run being driven in, Eddie Murray would be the only guy I would want up at the plate. He was the best clutch hitter I've ever seen." Mike Boddicker

---------------------

Eddie Murray was without a doubt the best clutch hitter I ever saw. I know he came through many, many times when I was up the stands yelling "Eddie, Eddie, Eddie." Including, if memory serves, four grand slams.

Unfortunately I only remember seeing Frank's last three seasons in Baltimore, but I can remember him coming through in the clutch many times. Just as I can remember Brooksie coming through many times.

Having said all of that, I'm not going to make any definitive statements about how Eddie was better in the clutch than Frank or Brooks. That's an argument none of us can win so why bother taking it to the level of it being a name calling contest?

Nice post and if not for the 79 WS I might agree. Sorry, I can't overlook that.

[Old#5fan]

O5F, it is a different game both on the player side and fan side. The game is different for the fans because it has become stat crazy. We come form an era where the fan used his or her eyes to decide who was good. For better or worse today people look to WAR and OPS and other stats, to decide who can play.

As for players, the game is drastically different, back in the 70's, the starters stayed in until they got killed or won, there were very few LOOGY type guys and the 9 men pitching staff included 5 BP guys but they all pitched multiple innings. The point is hitters had the advantage of taking on a tired starter or a reliever who went 2 to 3 innings a couple time a week.

I think we will see some of these young guys develop into clutch hitters but time will tell.

A friend has a T Shirt that says the older I get the better I was. I think that may be true also with some of our memories about past favorites. The greatest players of every era have their success and failures, we just remember their achievements a little longer.

Heck, 30 years from now, posters will be on this board saying boy, Ty Wigginton and Aubrey Huff were clutch.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read here. Indeed the game has changed and IMO not for the better in most aspects although OPACY is a hell of a better place to play than old Memorial Stadium I liked the results much better at the old park.

[DrungoHazewood]

Here's an idea: if you don't like all the analysis, don't bother reading it. Leave it to the people who enjoy it. Pretend there isn't an interweb. In fact, pretend there isn't a cable channel that covers the Orioles 162 games a year. Just go listen to games on the radio and tune in to maybe 20 games a year on TV. And then tell us if you think you enjoy baseball more than you do now. If you do, great, you don't have to come to this website anymore.

If he takes you up on this I'll petition Tony to give you a trillion rep points.

[RHall31]

This is one of the best posts I have ever read here. Indeed the game has changed and IMO not for the better in most aspects although OPACY is a hell of a better place to play than old Memorial Stadium I liked the results much better at the old park.

Yeah. I'd probably wouldn't mind all the stats if the O's played like they did

in the 60-70s, since they'd be at the top of most charts.

[RShack]

I guess. But 10th in the MVP voting isn't completely meaningless. I guess I need to file this away under the heading of Clueless Writers Being Even More Clueless Before Bill James. I mean that was the same year Mark Belanger outpointed Bert Blyleven, when Belanger had a .564 OPS and Blyleven led the league in ERA+ while throwing 325 innings(!!!!!!!). But it just feels bizarre to have a full-time DH with a .732 OPS lapping Bobby Grich and Yaz and Nolan Ryan and Frank Robinson in the MVP voting.

And just for some backward-looking perspective, some relevant 1973 WAR totals:

Belanger: 2.8

Blyleven: 9.2

Grich: 7.3

Robinson: 4.7

Ryan: 7.9

Yaz: 5.0

Tommy Davis: 0.7

Munson: 6.6

Reggie Jackson (real MVP): 8.1

Palmer (runner up): 6.1

Amos Otis: 4.1

Sal Bando: 7.3

Rod Carew: 6.9

I didn't look up everyone in the top 20, but they just really whiffed on Davis. Brooks Robinson, who didn't get a single vote and didn't deserve one, was worth two wins more than Davis. Paul Blair was nearly four wins better. Grich six-and-a-half. Davis was barely in the top 10 Orioles in 1973.

So, you just looked at some box scores and worked out those WAR numbers on the back of an envelope, did you?

Or did you just look up a bunch of of prefab numbers on the internet?

Look, it's one thing to say that we have a lot more slicing and dicing of numbers now. It's something else to say people were idiots because they didn't used to have them in the past. Nobody had access to a ton of numbers then. Nobody got to see all the games on TV either. So, what was a sportswriter supposed to go by when it came to MVP voting? He was gonna go by the numbers he had, which is just what you would've done if it was you. And what they had was AVG, RBI, H, R, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, SB, and that's about it. Not only did nobody have computers, most people didn't even have calculators either. So, people didn't do computation based on those numbers, they just stared at them. Of the numbers they stared at, the main way people judged bat productivity was by the Triple Crown numbers: AVG, HR, and RBI. You may not like it, but you know it's true anyway.

Of those, in '73 Davis led the club's fulltime players in 2 out of 3. The team leader in HR was Earl Williams, and he hit .237. So, exactly who do you think they were supposed to vote for? Any team that won it's division for the 4th time in 5 years is gonna have some hitter getting MVP votes. Maybe not a lot, but some. They just are, that's all. And that year the O's won the division without any fulltime player hitting worth a damn. Which means somebody was gonna get some MVP votes that look goofy in retrospect. It might as well have been Davis. Going by the numbers everybody looked at then, it's not like he didn't deserve it any more than anybody else didn't. Plus, it's not like he got a lot of votes. He got just a few. He didn't finish in the top-3, which is all that got reported back then. When it came to MVP votes, what he got was just pocket change. So, all in all, this is much ado about not much. It's much more of a comment about the state of available information than it is about sportswriters being stupid.