PDA

View Full Version : Maggilo Ordonez - Most complete offensive player in history of A.L.


moochpuppy
02-18-2002, 01:17 PM
By one measurement, Magglio Ordonez had the most complete offensive season in the history of the American League last year. He became the first AL hitter to hit .300 with at least 30 homers, 100 RBI's, 40 doubles and 25 stolen bases.

Six National League players have done it:
Willie Mays
Ellis Burks
Larry Walker
Barry Bonds
Chipper Jones
Vladimir Guerrero

RichH55
02-18-2002, 01:19 PM
Mags is a helluva player, not kind of overshadowed in this town(Thomas and Sosa) and this time(ie Eric Karros putitng up years you can compare with some of the greats)

MattSharp
02-18-2002, 01:20 PM
Hmm, I don't know if those stats make the most complete player. I think Ks and BBs should come into play somehow, but that is very intersting to know.

My question is, Junior Griffey, ARod, and Jose Canseco never accomplished this feat?

MattSharp
02-18-2002, 01:22 PM
Wow I just check those three guys and none of them ever accomplished all of those things in one year...

RedPinStripes
02-18-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by MattSharp
Wow I just check those three guys and none of them ever accomplished all of those things in one year...

I know Canseco never hit .300 , but you sure A-Rod didn't do it?
Hit hits .300 almost every year and does it all .

Huisj
02-18-2002, 01:35 PM
Nope, Rodriguez has never done it.

He's only had 40 or more doubles twice, and one of those years he only had 15 SB, and the other year he only hit 23 homers. Those years were '96 and '97. Since then he hasn't hit either 40 doubles or 25 SB except for '98 when he had 46 SB.

Also, for whoever mentioned Griffey, he's never stolen 25 bases in a season, and he's only hit 40 doubles once (42 in '91)

kermittheefrog
02-18-2002, 01:39 PM
Maggs is definitely the only player to do that but I'd hardly call him the most complete offensive player in the history of the AL because of it. Not only did Maggs barely reach each of those totals except for RBI but what about a season like Arod's 40-40 year, he fit all the criteria except fell 5 doubles short. A guy with that much power is going to lose doubles for homers. I'd have to say Arod is the most "complete" offensive player in the history of the AL. I mean Arod's had 200 hits 3 times, has hit at least 40 homers 4 times in a row and in 2001 he had 52. He is in the neighborhood of 20 steals a year and once stole 46. I imagine if Arod wanted to work on his running game he could be the first 50-50 man. Arod also has a 100 walk season to his credit. In short, he's the man.

Nellie_Fox
02-18-2002, 02:24 PM
You guys lack historical perspective. Hitting forty or fifty homers is no big deal these days; it used to be a monumental feat. Take a look at the ERA titles back before they lowered the mound. You can't compare hitting numbers from today with the current superball and lower mound to the hitting numbers of the guys in the fifties and sixties. If a pitcher back then had an ERA that is considered good today, he would be looking at a trip to the bullpen or maybe the minors.

I'm not trying to say the players were better then (although I think they were more complete players then, but that's an argument for a different day) just that the hitters of today can't be fairly compared to the hitters of then.

kermittheefrog
02-18-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
You guys lack historical perspective. Hitting forty or fifty homers is no big deal these days; it used to be a monumental feat. Take a look at the ERA titles back before they lowered the mound. You can't compare hitting numbers from today with the current superball and lower mound to the hitting numbers of the guys in the fifties and sixties. If a pitcher back then had an ERA that is considered good today, he would be looking at a trip to the bullpen or maybe the minors.

I'm not trying to say the players were better then (although I think they were more complete players then, but that's an argument for a different day) just that the hitters of today can't be fairly compared to the hitters of then.

I think you're shortchanging the hitters of today. Offense in the late 20s and 30s was pretty high and a lot of guys put up big numbers. Baseball has changed a lot in the last 20-30 years I'd say. Scouting is so much better now thanks to modern communication and transportation and the minor leagues weren't always slaves to the majors whose only real purpose is to develop players. The depth of talent is greater now than ever before and it's tougher to dominate the sport. That's what makes Bonds' season so amazing, the superstars of yesteryear dominated the sport. With more teams, more players and more talent comign from more countries it's much tougher to dominate than ever before.

MattSharp
02-18-2002, 02:58 PM
I think you can compare players, its just all relative. I mean if you go back and look at some of Babe Ruth's numbers, on a couple occasions he had like double the number of home runs as the nex person. I mean imagine McGwire hitting like 120 HRs in his record setting year.

I think that as a whole, hitting stats and higher and pitching stats are higher, (in the case of ERA thats not good).

I mean even in the last 10 years that has changed. I mean now a days, an ERA below 4 for a starter is considered good. Greg Maddux strung 3 straight seasons of below 2.00 ERA, and now that would be un heard of. That was only 5 years ago.

Last season many peopel considered either Oakland or Yankees to have the best rotation. Neither of these teams had a starter with an ERA under 3.15.

In the mid '90s, the best rotations would have had much lower ERAs.

Times change and you have to consider things when talking about ANY stats.

Dadawg_77
02-18-2002, 03:35 PM
The biggest change from the 90's till now is smaller ball parks. Hitting homers is a lot easier now then it was just 5 years ago. How many homers would Bonds of had in playing home games at the Polo Grounds? One of the best thing about the new park is that it's not a bandbox like the newer park out today. Besides shorter fences, hitters are help by newer parks moving the seats closer to the action. The more you decrease foul territory greater the chance a hitter has. A foul ball pop out a few years ago is now something we can catch and write about on this board. Lowering the mound has increased the offence but not as much as smaller ballparks have.

But back to Mags, that is very good company to have as a ball player. Mays,arguably best ever, is the only old school player on that list. Not sure what that means, but something to point out.