I’m excited about the Phillies. Philly’s excited about the Phillies. We’re all excited about the Philies. That doesn’t excuse some of the dumb, breathlessly overreaching stuff I’ve heard/read lately. Exhibit A: On “Daily News Live,” the other day, somebody said that somebody who should know said Ryan Howard is “on a path to be the best player in Phillies history.”
Howard is a very, very good player. He’s been an everyday big leaguer for four years, and he’s averaged over 140 RBI/year. RBI is generally overrated, but what’s true generally is not always true for the outliers. I mean, stolen bases are more overrated than RBI, but if a guy stole 150 bases a year and got caught like three times, that would be a hell of an offensive weapon.
But I digress. The point is hard-core stat geeks tend to underrate Howard, and the media/public tends to overrate him. That’s all within the range of “understandable.” But anyone who thinks Ryan Howard is, or has a reasonable chance to be, as good a baseball player as Mike Schmidt, just doesn’t understand the sport.
In comparing Schmidt to Howard, the first thing you must understand is the difference in the eras they played in. To stick with RBI, a player who drove in 140 runs a year in Schmidt’s time (essentially 1974-87) would have led the league by 20 a year every year, and 25-30 many years. Howard didn’t even lead the league by himself this year (Prince Fielder tied him).
Adjusting for eras is simply standard procedure, and not that difficult in baseball, given the data available. In Schmidt’s era, roughly eight runs were scored per major league game. In Howard’s, roughly nine. Howard has averaged 49 home runs per 162 games. Schmidt hit over 40 in a season only twice, but led the league in homers eight times. See what I’m saying?
It’s not complicated. Runs (which are the product of a baseball player’s work) have an on-base function and a move-the-runners-home (essentially power) function. The on-base part is at least as important as the power part. I would argue that it’s slightly more important, since the most fundamental thing a hitter should do is not make out. In very brief, that’s the problem with the idea that Howard is one of the best offensive players in the game- he makes out too much.
Schmidt played 14 full seasons. In 13 of them, he finished in the top 10 in the NL in on-base percentage, slugging percentage and the two added together (OPS, which is the best shorthand number to measure offense), home runs and runs scored. In 12 of them, he finished in the top 10 in RBI. He led the NL in the above categories 26 times, and finished in the top five a combined 61 times. Sixty-one.
Howard finished 32nd in the league in OBP this year. In 2008, he finished 49th. He’s a wonderful player, but that’s too big a negative when we’re talking about the very best players in the sport.
And Schmidt won, and largely deserved, 10 Gold Gloves at a harder defensive position than the one Howard is average at. And Howard’s numbers against lefthanded pitching are so bad (.207/.298/.356 this year; .226/.310/.444 career) that he really ought to be a platoon player.
Also, Schmidt played until he was 39, so his numbers include a fairly full late-career decline phase. Howard turns 30 in a few weeks, and he is emphatically not the kind of player who ages well. His case vs. Schmidt is very, very unlikely to look better 10 years from now.
I know what somebody’s going to say: “OK Mr. Stat, let’s say there’s runners on base and a big game’s on the line. Who’d you rather have at the plate, Schmidt or Howard?”
OK, if there’s a righty on the mound, I take Howard, no question. If there’s a lefty on the mound I’d rather have Eric Bruntlett. And people act like these specific moments- late innings, high stakes, close game, ducks on pond - are not only the most important thing, but the only thing that matter. That’s ridiculous. They’re a relatively small part of the game.
Anytime you do a comparison like this you get blamed for player-hating, saying the guy stinks, etc. Howard doesn’t stink. He’s terrific. If he ages well he’ll be a hall of famer. But Schmidt was the clear-cut best player of his era, and one of the best 20 who ever lived. Amazing, how quickly people have forgotten that. Howard isn’t the best player on his own team. It’s not even close.
