Posted by schwarze on 2/12/2021 3:27:00 PM (view original):
dorkster, I have nothing against Buckner (didn't root for or against Boston in the W.S. vs Mets) - and I know back then, batting average was the end-all, be-all. But I have to take exception to your comment that he could "rake at the plate".
Bucker never walked (career .321 OBP), never had big power numbers (career .408 SLG). He never had a single season over .360 OBP or .500 SLG. In a later era, I'm not even sure teams would play a guy at 1B that produced those feeble offensive numbers. His career OPS+ is exactly 100, making him an average hitter... playing a position that typically requires much better offensive numbers.
Funny thing is that Garvey had very similar stats (didn't walk, never over .500 SLG) but was just a bit better across the board than Bucker. Of course, at that time, most people didn't know any better. Like I said, guys who hit .300 (or close to it) were considered stars.
When I use "rake," it seems like I use it differently than use. I just meant that he hit ropes. You're right, no walks, low power . . .he was the type of guy who could hit the ball where it was pitched. Or, at least, that's my memory, as no one was keeping track of that kind of thing back then. I doubt that we would see a "shift" on him . . .not to imply that the fielders wouldn't be positioned on him, as everyone has a chart as to where to position, even varying with pitch counts.
I wonder if for some hitters with low OBP, if they said, "Oh, back then, we weren't expected to walk. I could have drawn walks, but that's not what we were supposed to do." My hunch is that some of them could have had a much better OBP, others, just like now, not.
Both Garvey and Buckner were slugs . . .Garvey from Day One, Billy Buck due to injuries. Buckner had decent speed early on, but starting falling apart early on, yet kept on playing and hitting for average.