Видео

Thank you, one of my favorites! I've been waiting to break it out for a video, but figured this was a good one to start with since it'll be a lot of Dodger fans watching

@@brutusonbaseball Jesus Montero was a top catching prospect in the Yankees organization, hitting .328 with 4 homers in 18 games with the Yankees in 2011. But then they traded him to the Mariners that offseason, and he was never the same. No word on whether Jesus held a grudge. Interestingly the only player in the history of the Yankees with that name. (Unless you want to count Ivan DeJesus, who played 7 games there in 1986.)

I am quite shocked he's the only one in the team's history. He was supposed to be quite the prospect, perhaps he still holds a grudge...

@@brutusonbaseball Not quite as shocking as the fact the Jesus Colome, who had 341 relief appearances from 2001-2010, mostly with (ironically) the Devil Rays, holds the all-time "Jesus Saves" record. Only six.

That is hilarious...and really MUST become a thing with some relief pitcher in the future

Thank you my friend, appreciate you watching!

@@torreselmonte1 agreed!

Which guy is that?

@brutusonbaseball I know he has some poor postseason statistics but to me he's a dodger when his career is over and that is kenley Jansen. Also agreed that Vin Scully what's one of the greatest commentators in the history of dodgers who was not mention. But it's okay, mistakes happen. Overall you did a really good job on the dodgers history in baseball

@ceciljustice7283 i figured that's who you were talking about. It's tough to analyze relievers, and there's quite a few like Kimbrel, Jansen and Chapman. Tough to evaluate them before they're done, but they will all be in the conversation when the time comes

Great team and a lot of fun to watch. I'm a huge fan of Reggie Smith in particular

Great points as always, I could see the same arguments you made about the Dodgers being pioneers for including other cultures in the game, but it wasn't clear enough to me while making the script to emphasize it as a theme. Thanks for pointing it out! I also haven't been talking about announcers at all in these team histories, so I can blame my previous templates for leaving out perhaps the best of all time. Popes and Jesus don't really jive all that well either...just sayin'.

And I totally agree, Dodger white is another level of white

@@helmetsnhashmarks amazing, glad to hear you enjoyed it!

Very cool, thanks for tracking! I think I missed a whole lot this year...will be going through it next weekend after the award announcements!

@mikeroya i know right? What else is their research department really for?

That sounds like a pretty crazy card! This kind of question has been one of the most common on this video...and unfortunately it's not likely to be worth much. Cards that have the wrong or missing front/back are typically considered flawed cards rather than error cards. Flawed cards are a mistake during the printing process itself rather than a specific error version that is later corrected and has a specific second version. Flawed cards just don't have as much of a market as error cards do

Interesting thought here. I don't typically agree with folks that dismiss analytics as useless, otherwise why would the teams and MLB themselves have all embraced it by now. But this is different, and I agree with you that the rise of analytics has drastically changed the game to one of probabilities, velocities and launch angles, which has produced the three true outcomes era where the game is not as interesting as it used to be. I do hope that MLB figures out ways to bring back parts of the old game

@@brutusonbaseball I could go on a rant about everything with the modern game but I won't. What I will say is just go back and watch several games from the 70's and 80's and draw your own conclusions as to which product is better and more entertaining. BTW before someone comes with the typical "OK Boomer" remark my parents are barely old enough to fit that category much less myself.

Those two guys are pretty close at first glance in traditional stats, but I just don't see Vida Blue getting the same level of support as Tiant. Tiant had a lot more of his value spread out over his career than Blue, who instead had some stellar seasons at his peak but not as much value outside of those. Although their wins, ERA and WHIP are close, their actual value is incredibly far apart with Tiant having 35/65 for WAA/WAR, while Blue had 15/45. Huge difference there, and whether you like WAA/WAR or not, the voters are paying a lot more attention to it when evaluating players. I'd have to dig a lot more into the calculations to find out why their WAA/WAR numbers are so different, but at first glance you notice that Tiant had better strikeout and walk rates compared to Blue. The difference in wild pitches is also pretty crazy with Blue having 103 in his career against only 27 for Tiant. Tiant's ERA+ is slightly better, and their FIPs are very close, so it would be interesting to see what exactly makes up the huge difference in WAA/WAR numbers!

Thanks Dave, and couldn't agree more. I see either one or two getting in, with Allen and one of the NeL guys being the most likely.

At the very least they should be enshrined in the Nickname Hall of Fame!

I really like this perspective. For a sport full of traditionalists that don't like change, it's important to accept that there have been advances (and therefore pioneers) in every generation of the game. Tommy John would certainly be one of these.

​@@brutusonbaseballYeah, I read a book where the author essentially made this point in arguing for three players, John being one of them. The other two were Curt Flood (who essentially sacrificed his career to eventually bring about free agency), and Lefty O'Doul (for his role in popularizing the game in Japan, as well as his insane minor league success.) Speaking of Japan, I'm still going to die on the hill that Sadaharu Oh should be enshrined. Without Oh, there is no Ichiro or Ohtani.

I can totally get behind John and Flood for this exact reason. O'Doul is an interesting case because there hasn't been a lot of recognition by the Hall (that I'm aware of) for growing the game outside North America (refer to Sadaharu Oh). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is sounds very MLBish to ignore the importance of growing the game overseas!

@brutusonbaseball Closest thing I can think of is the fact that Al Spalding's plaque mentions the world tour he promoted, but that's hardly the reason he's in the Hall of Fame.

He sure did a lot for early baseball, but agree that his international tours are often overlooked

First off, I want to say thanks for watching and participating. That's the main thing that makes this channel fun for me. This is always a tough one though, because you're right...I didn't really watch Garvey play much. Especially in his "day". And I'm sure you're right, at the time you watched him he probably saved a lot of runs by picking some bad throws. But I also hesitate to go off of memory and perception alone when the data is available too. Total Zone Rating shows Garvey at +25 runs before age 29 with the Dodgers, and -25 runs after 30 with the Dodgers and Padres. Some really bad years toward the end. That means he was a decent fielder that had some plays like you mentioned early in his career, but cancelled that out with some pretty poor fieldwork in the second half. Hernandez was +117 for his career on the other hand, including some pretty great years after he was 30. I appreciate you said you'd take Hernandez too, he was one of the best at 1B, but my point is that Garvey could give you the memorable plays he had AND not really be a great defensive player over the course of his career. Both can be true...and when you have a first baseman that isn't great with the glove over his career and only compiled a 117 OPS+ (compared to Hernandez's 128), that's just not a Hall of Famer to me.

@@brutusonbaseball Garvey had good hands, what he got to, he caught. When he retired, he was the all time leader in fielding percentage, and had a year where he didn't commit a single error. His problem was lack of range, which is reflected in the numbers you cite. But there really is an interesting discussion here about the ability to pick low throws and how sabermetrics reflects that, because that's not really a range thing.

Great points, that makes sense why he might be remembered for saving a lot of runs, but still gets pretty dinged in the defensive analytics. I like using analytics to support arguments, but defensive stats still are a work in progress

@@big8dog887 I agree. I must admit, being an older fan I had to look up Total Zone Rating. Seems like it can be used to help but definitely not an end all be all stat. In fact, pre-mid 80's seems like a bit of guess work involved. Back in the day (hey get off my lawn, LOL) it was believed, and I believe rightfully so, that Perez, Cepeda and Garvey were all pretty close and should all be in the Hall. Well, 2 of the 3 are and Garvey sits on the outside looking in. What depresses me the most is a lot of times when newer sabermetrics is used and hurts a player, it's left at that. When it helps, say like with Thurman Munson, then other reasons are used to keep them out of the Hall. This is mainly a Big Hall vs Small hall argument. Some of these players were not "hall of very good" as some people say, they were elite players that people came to see. Ok, done ranting, and just hope everyone keeps enjoying the greatest game in the world.

@@mikethesportshistorycollec1947 I remember that era, too, and I have to agree that Garvey was considered the equal of Perez and Cepeda, and of the three, he was probably considered the most likely to make it, mostly due to his celebrity status. What happened was right around the time Garvey became eligible, Total Baseball replaced the Baseball Encyclopedia as the "official" record book. TB introduced a stat called Total Player Rating, kind of a precursor to WAR, except the baseline was league average, so it was actually closer to WAA. Anyway, Garvey's TPR was a negative number, so among many voters, his reputation went from pretty good to criminally overrated, and his candidacy was doomed. But to demonstrate just how flawed TPR was, it also said that Glenn Hubbard was a better player than Pete Rose, literally the only thing that has ever said that. I actually think Garvey was a hair overrated while he was playing, but since the numbers people got hold of him, now I think he's underrated. That said, there are still many players I'd put in first.

You are definitely right there...Parker was abysmal from 29 to 33 only to bounce back with a short resurgence in his mid-30s. Murphy on the other hand just fell off a cliff after 33 and Andruw Jones fell off even sooner after the age of 30. I think that explanation could be put toward Parker's off-field habits, but I wasn't there so it's a bit of speculation. I do struggle with this sometimes, I like to have my Hall of Famers have good peaks but also have some longevity. I've always been on the fence for all three of these guys, and I could take them or leave them out and I wouldn't raise a huge fuss. Andruw was a WAY better defensive player (which is why his WAR is much higher as his offensive value was not as good as the other two), so I guess I would take him first followed by Murphy then Parker. I do prefer guys that just have their bodies break down rather than guys that decline early because of a lack of effort or poor choices.

I can totally see that perspective, depending on how big you think the Hall should be. The Classic Era has been picked pretty clean by now.

Good questions, it depends on which cards you think you have. If you have some of the older vintage ones, then they have a big market and you can find all sorts of resources to help you there. If you're talking more of the junk wax stuff, it really comes down to 3rd party grading as they just won't get much in return unless they are in great condition. If you think you have some really good examples, then consider sending them for grading. If they're not in great condition, then they likely won't fetch a lot in return.

92 MVP was catcher Pat Borders, and 93 MVP was Paul Molitor

@dianeolson-salmon8907 yay! Glad you agree!

Glad to hear you mostly agree! I didn't consider the Puckett thing when making this, but I totally get your point

Thanks for catching that, it's funny how things can still fall through the cracks even though I know better! The RUclips editing is not very robust, but I've tried my best to snip that little error.

This has been one of the most common questions for this video. The easiest explanation is that there is a big difference between an error card (a card that has a specific error and then a version that corrected that error), and a flawed card from the manufacturer. Cards printed with the wrong back (or no front/back) are printing errors that are somewhat common, but there's no consistency to them. They don't carry a lot of value unless you can find a collector for that specific player (David Robinson isn't too shabby...), or if it's a really key card. I'm not a basketball guy, so can't help you there.

that's a really great test, shows a lot of patience to go through that process...would also make a fantastic video! It really is crazy sometimes how varied the grades can be for the same card, and it shows just how subjective the process still is. Good for you for holding out if you don't believe in it, I know a lot of vintage collectors feel the same way. It really does seem like you've either bought into the grading process, or you've steered clear. I'm pretty deep into grading, but I'm not sure that's how I'll always feel about it. Time will tell!

@@brutusonbaseball I actually did a video and never posted it. Because i mentioned names and i dont want to open up a can of worms using names of grading co's in a video and end up dealin with BS. But i know there are other folks that have done this EXACT thing i did with very very similar results. I own some graded cards. But i wont get any of my cards graded. I just may buy one from time to time if its a card i really like. Like back in Jan i got a 1960 Maris SGC 5.5. Was a good deal and was legit. But other than that.... i have not gotten a graded card since hahah.

@@ctcards2636 makes sense, sounds like a great way to collect

That's a good point, which is why it's down further on my list. Kind of a tie breaker between two good series. Like even last night for example, having the Dodgers win in New York is great for them, but really muted the celebration and experience in a lot of ways

That's amazing, really happy to hear about your experience and that these videos have helped! Have you picked a team yet?

Great choice, sneak peak...that one will make my next video of the top 5!

@@brutusonbaseball and you know exactly why I made my #1choice. 😆

I think I can guess

@@brutusonbaseball 😊

Absolutely, what an amazing finish! This video might become obsolete if this series keeps going like this!

This is the kind of path I was initially looking at, but after just a few minutes I stepped back and just had that gut feeling that it was all wrong. Some of the best World Series, 1960 for example, had some complete blowouts but that just doesn't tell the full story either. 1972 and 1973 on the other hand were incredibly close in terms of run differential...but at the same time when I was reading through them they just didn't seem to have the memorable moments or drama that a really great series has. I guess my gut just prefers a couple highly dramatic back-and-forth games, especially if Game 7, even if there some blowouts mixed in.

Wow, thanks so much for watching and letting me know how impactful these videos have been for you! Definitely inspires me to keep making content. I know exactly what you mean too...MLB has dealt with so much history on operating with monopolies, but they never seem to learn from things. They held down free agency for so long, and then with card collecting they were told to give licenses to Fleer and Donruss, and that's what led to a couple decades of huge growth and innovation. Now they're back at it again by reducing to only Fanatics. Fanatics wants to 10x the hobby, but I think the only real way to do that is to have competition. I'm not a fan.

Oliver was a great player, but definitely someone I would put on the list of players just on the outside of the Hall. He hit well, especially for average, and drove in runs, but what likely hurts him most for consideration is this: for someone that was a corner outfield/1B type without great defense, he needed to hit for more power. With how voters are evaluating players today, 219 career HRs and a .795 OPS just aren't going to cut it for the Hall if you're a corner player that gets dinged so much for poor defense.

@@brutusonbaseball thanks

My pleasure!

Interesting list...thanks for adding to the discussion! So many different opinions on this topic. Just a few thoughts back: The first two guys I didn't even consider for this video because I was only looking at eligible players that could be put on the ballot. Lots of great things were said about Hal Chase from that era, but he seems to have been lost in the shuffle since that era has been picked fairly clean. Magee gets some occasional love, but much the same. I would much prefer Keith Hernandez getting in over Madlock, they were essentially the same player on offense, but Hernandez has 11 Gold Gloves and is often mentioned in the conversation about best defensive 1B all time as well...not sure how someone could support Hal Chase but not Hernandez for the same reason. Lots of folks don't like WAR, but the defense is a big reason why these two are so far apart in WAR values. I would support Munson given his early end, especially given his value to that team and the recent support for Joe Mauer and Buster Posey coming up. Mattingly wouldn't be on this ballot though since he didn't play at all in this era.

Not a whole lot, about the same as the grading fee in a Mint 9. That could be partly because not many collectors look for this set either

Thanks for the support! I know it's a lot to take in, but if it's not too much be sure to check out my series on understanding statistics in baseball!

That's amazing my friend! So good to hear that these videos are able to reach some new fans, that's exactly why I made them. Where are you in Europe? I'd love to be able to reach more people around the world, so be sure to share with anyone wanting to learn about baseball!

81 Donruss (I dont know why) is one of my fav sets from Donruss ;-) I love the errors. 81,84,85,87 and 89 are my fav 80s Donruss sets id say.

Lots of QA errors in that 81 set! I think 84 would be my favorite though...

Yes, good examples, unfortunately

Good one too, I can't believe something like that got through the process, especially with a star player! I can just imagine someone yelling across a loud printing room... "This guy's name is Craig Nettles, right?" "Yeah, that's Graig Nettles!" "OK, Craig Nettles. Got it. "

Sorry...not much I can do about that!

Great to hear, thanks for watching and letting me know!

I agree with you, although I wouldn't put Whitaker quite on Jeter's level. Too much of Whitaker's WAR is in defense and accumulating over time, while Jeter is dinged quite a lot but bad defense. All that said, the issue with this is that Whitaker wouldn't be on the Classic ballot at all since the majority of his career was after 1980. He'll be on next year's Contemporary Era ballot (maybe) which I've gone through here: ruclips.net/video/bUX5j2Jylhg/видео.htmlfeature=shared

Indeed but we have to also factor in that he and Joe Morgan's performance stats are similar. Plus, how can Trammell be inducted without Whitaker???? In some respects I think Lou was such an exemplary fieldier that made things look so easy he was confused with being a slacker. He never dove for a ball in his life because of his extraordinary range, and howitzer arm.

Totally agree with much of this. He and Trammell provided similar value to those Tiger teams, with the edge to Trammel for the Hall of Fame only because of his position. Whitaker should have gone in with him. That's why I definitely have him on my Contemporary Era list

You mean in the same 90 Topps set? A partial misfire of the black ink?

@@brutusonbaseball yup, the line goes around the whole name box, except where his foot is

​@U.C.W interesting, I have not seen that one yet but will look out for it!

They were a fun team to watch back then, and the cause of their own destruction!

@@brutusonbaseball (Andy W) they were definitely 'Rock N Roll'