Votto or Doggie?

[rjs4470]

Need to also remember the talent back in the 70's was much better than the watered down lineups that the MLB puts on the field nowadays. Back in the 70's the players also weren't treated like china dolls, if there was a game, you played, days off, you got to be kidding me.

 

Hitters like Perez in the 70's also didn't face situational relievers, and bullpens full of guys throwing in the mid 90's. I don't buy the argument that the league is watered down...quite the opposite, I think it's much deeper. The last guy on the bench nowadays has to be able to play and contribute, often in multiple positions as teams routinely carry extra pitchers now vs the way rosters were constructed in the 70's.

 

Tony Perez is one player from that era who has benefited from nostalgia. While he was a solid player, I think he is one of the most overrated players of that generation. He only hit over .300 twice as a full time player, only hit over 30 home runs twice and only hit more than 20 home runs once in his last 12 seasons. His only real plus stat was RBI, which could be considered as much a function of hitting behind some great hitters who were on base a lot (two hall of farmers, one of has more hits than anyone who ever played the game). At best he was maybe the 4th-5th best player on his team and never the guy that made the red go. He had 2 maybe 3 great, superior, all world seasons. Great guy, great clubhouse presence, and a guy everyone would have loved to have had on their team. But not a difference maker, or a guy who could carry his team. Take him off the Red's and his career numbers would have been much different. I'd take Votto all day, every day over Perez. And yes, I grew up in the 70's and 80's and got to see Perez play.

[Clyde]

Hitters like Perez in the 70's also didn't face situational relievers, and bullpens full of guys throwing in the mid 90's. I don't buy the argument that the league is watered down...quite the opposite, I think it's much deeper. The last guy on the bench nowadays has to be able to play and contribute, often in multiple positions as teams routinely carry extra pitchers now vs the way rosters were constructed in the 70's.

 

Tony Perez is one player from that era who has benefited from nostalgia. While he was a solid player, I think he is one of the most overrated players of that generation. He only hit over .300 twice as a full time player, only hit over 30 home runs twice and only hit more than 20 home runs once in his last 12 seasons. His only real plus stat was RBI, which could be considered as much a function of hitting behind some great hitters who were on base a lot (two hall of farmers, one of has more hits than anyone who ever played the game). At best he was maybe the 4th-5th best player on his team and never the guy that made the red go. He had 2 maybe 3 great, superior, all world seasons. Great guy, great clubhouse presence, and a guy everyone would have loved to have had on their team. But not a difference maker, or a guy who could carry his team. Take him off the Red's and his career numbers would have been much different. I'd take Votto all day, every day over Perez. And yes, I grew up in the 70's and 80's and got to see Perez play.

 

I loved Tony but I'm with you on everything you say above.

[Theoldguy]

Hitters like Perez in the 70's also didn't face situational relievers, and bullpens full of guys throwing in the mid 90's. I don't buy the argument that the league is watered down...quite the opposite, I think it's much deeper. The last guy on the bench nowadays has to be able to play and contribute, often in multiple positions as teams routinely carry extra pitchers now vs the way rosters were constructed in the 70's.

 

Tony Perez is one player from that era who has benefited from nostalgia. While he was a solid player, I think he is one of the most overrated players of that generation. He only hit over .300 twice as a full time player, only hit over 30 home runs twice and only hit more than 20 home runs once in his last 12 seasons. His only real plus stat was RBI, which could be considered as much a function of hitting behind some great hitters who were on base a lot (two hall of farmers, one of has more hits than anyone who ever played the game). At best he was maybe the 4th-5th best player on his team and never the guy that made the red go. He had 2 maybe 3 great, superior, all world seasons. Great guy, great clubhouse presence, and a guy everyone would have loved to have had on their team. But not a difference maker, or a guy who could carry his team. Take him off the Red's and his career numbers would have been much different. I'd take Votto all day, every day over Perez. And yes, I grew up in the 70's and 80's and got to see Perez play.

 

Remind me again what they called Sparky Anderson the MGR of the Big Red Machine! Wasn't it Captian Hook because he used his bullpen so fast?

 

Darn, I guess in Cooperstown it should be called the Hall of nostalgia or the Hall of solid players, instead of the Hall of Fame.

Perez, Tony | Baseball Hall of Fame

[Clyde]

Remind me again what they called Sparky Anderson the MGR of the Big Red Machine! Wasn't it Captian Hook because he used his bullpen so fast?

 

Darn, I guess in Cooperstown it should be called the Hall of nostalgia or the Hall of solid players, instead of the Hall of Fame.

Perez, Tony | Baseball Hall of Fame

 

The Reds main competition in the 70s were the Dodgers.

 

In 1976 the LAD had 4 starting pitchers throw for more than 200 innings with Tommy John being 4th at 207.

 

In 2016 in all of MLB there were 10 pitchers who threw for more than 207.

 

And even with Sparky's "Captain Hook" reputation the Reds had 2 pitchers with 200+ and the other 2 starters with 180.

[Voice of Reason]

Bottom line on Perez ... he is a great example to use in discussing sustained longevity vs short period greatness for the HOF.

[rjs4470]

Remind me again what they called Sparky Anderson the MGR of the Big Red Machine! Wasn't it Captian Hook because he used his bullpen so fast?

 

Darn, I guess in Cooperstown it should be called the Hall of nostalgia or the Hall of solid players, instead of the Hall of Fame.

Perez, Tony | Baseball Hall of Fame

 

Sparky was sort of a trendsetter, and was certainly an anomaly during that era. But Perez was playing for the Reds not against them, and how Sparky used his bullpen is completely irrelevant to my point. Situational relievers and closers were rare during this era, and relievers were usually starters that were no longer good enough to start. And starters often pitched past the point of effectiveness because teams typically carried only 10 or 11 pitchers vs 12 or 13 that they now carry. I'm not saying Perez wasn't any good. Heck, I'd say he was better than good. But his numbers, over the majority of his career weren't superior. And there were many guys in the league at that time that would have been just as successful had they been in TP's situation. And I do think that there are several guys in the HOF that don't belong there or got in out of nostalgia. Blyleven, Sutton, Rizzuto, Mazeroski are a few others besides Perez that come to mind.

 

Just because I don't think Perez is a HOF'er doesn't mean I don't think he was a great player, or that I didn't enjoy watching him play.

[Clyde]

The Reds main competition in the 70s were the Dodgers.

 

In 1976 the LAD had 4 starting pitchers throw for more than 200 innings with Tommy John being 4th at 207.

 

In 2016 in all of MLB there were 10 pitchers who threw for more than 207.

 

And even with Sparky's "Captain Hook" reputation the Reds had 2 pitchers with 200+ and the other 2 starters with 180.

 

61 pitchers threw for 200+ in 1976. 2 threw for 300+.

[rjs4470]

61 pitchers threw for 200+ in 1976. 2 threw for 300+.

 

Guys pitched every 4th day instead of every 5th, so guys regularly got an extra 7-10 (or more) starts per season. That's an 40-60 innings per year even if you only went 6 innings a game.

[Clyde]

Guys pitched every 4th day instead of every 5th, so guys regularly got an extra 7-10 (or more) starts per season. That's an 40-60 innings per year even if you only went 6 innings a game.

 

True. Relievers , though, didn't have as many appearances as they do today which supports the situational theory.

[rjs4470]

True. Relievers , though, didn't have as many appearances as they do today which supports the situational theory.

 

Yep. Pitchers often went deeper, and quite frankly, pitchers in the bullpen back then were mostly failed starters, so managers were more reluctant to go to the pen in many situations. There's no question pitching is much better as well as much deeper nowadays compared to when Perez played.

[dpeevh]

Let's just wait and see Joey numbers when he plays as many years as Tony did. O, and since baseball is more of a team game, just how many rings does Joey have and in this area who do you think is much more respected by the fans, as a leader and team player! Joey or Tony?

 

Question wasn't who was a better leader or had more rings. It is who is the better hitter. It isn't close.

[Theoldguy]

Question wasn't who was a better leader or had more rings. It is who is the better hitter. It isn't close.

 

The question was Who is the better hitter? Use "better hitter" however you define it.

 

I define it as someone who wins and will do anything to make the team better! Someone who keeps the clubhouse in order, a leader on and off the field, a player everybody loves to root for be it players or fans, a player who is in The Hall of Fame and who loves the game of baseball and playing the game. As Tony said, Baseball has been very, very good to me and I say, Tony, you have been very, very good for baseball in general and in Cincinnati in particular.

 

I still stand by my comment that if Voto were on the Big Red Machine instead of Perez, the Big Red Machine would have never done what they did, as without Tony that team wouldn't have had the heart and soul that he brought to it. Never underestimate the attitude of the clubhouse and what a player like Perez brought to it, during the long road trips and even longer seasons.

[dpeevh]

You just defined a leader, not a hitter. I'll grant you Tony was the better leader for sure. But hitting has nothing to do with reigning in egos, having fans love them, etc...

How do you know Votto doesn't love baseball? He obviously works at this craft. And he can't be in HOF cause he's still playing. 3 or 4 more years at present rate and he has a chance.

One last thing. Tony played with reds mostly pre FA. He had same teammates for years. If he had played in this era no way Cincy keeps those guys together. Votto had small window to win and they came close. Hopefully he has one more shot in next few years

[HammerTime]

Easy to be a leader on one of the best teams of all time.Winning has a funny way or making people into great "leaders".

[Voice of Reason]

There are 11 players in MLB who have played more than ten years with the same team.