Ken Phelps, etc: A theory on Low BA, High BB, High HR guys

[Outta Leftfield]

A while ago, Bill James used to name his Ken Phelps all stars. These were player who had low BA's, but high walk totals and high HR. Back in the 70's, GMs used to dismiss these players and they would languish for years in the minors. James argued that they were useful because the walks gave them high OBP, the HR gave them high SLG. Thus they had high OPS--and were valuable hitters despite hitting .250 or below, being slow and usually poor defensively. James's OPS stat caught on and is a major tool in the 80's game. And Ken Phelps and his ilk accordingly command fairly high prices in the 80's game as well.

But others have, I think, shared my experience that it's hard to get guys like Phelps to perform satisfactorily in the 80s game--they may hit homers and draw walks, but their BA's are more like .170 or .180 than like .240 or .250. And a .170 hitter will kill you even with lots of walks and HR because he's making so many outs. Instead of an .800+ OPS, he might be more like .620. If the guy hit .230 he might still be valuable, but nobody can hit .170 and not hurt the offense.

I have a theory about this that I'd like to check with the more math-oriented. I mentioned the theory on another thread and Jablowmi urged to to explain it further. Anyway, my theory grows from the fact that if you look at one of Ken Phelps's cards, what you see is a ton of HR and walks, and maybe a double point some where, but only a couple of points with singles. What I think happens is that the strato card designers essentially say--"this is a walk and HR guy. He's going to have to get most of his singles off the pitchers' cards." And that would work under most circumstances--but the pitchers in the 80's game have fewer singles on their cards (a lot fewer) than normal pitchers, since this is the cream of the pitching crop. This might take 20 points off the BA of a high BA hitter, on average, but their overall performance can sustain that. OTOH, it's catastrophic for a Ken Phelps, who is relying almost completely on the pitcher's card for his singles and BA.

Anyway, I've had experiences with Phelps hitting .136 (admittedly in 66 AB), Ron Kittle hitting .180, HoJo hitting .190 (in longer trials), etc. Even Whitaker has done this to me in his .250 BA, high homer year. So, what it may mean is that we can [b:131efd85c4]expect [/b:131efd85c4]these guys to significantly underperform in BA against typical 80's game pitching. They're hurt by the good pitching more because they have fewer hits on their own cards.

Anyway, what do you think? Have others shared my experience with the Ken Phelps types. I know Sykes likes Tettleton and he's basically of this player-type. What are Tettleton's BA's like over the long haul? Have I just had a few bad experiences or does this explanation generally hold water? Anyway, as I now look for players I'm tending to look not only for high OBP but also for decent BA--the OBP shouldn't be mostly walks.

[Sykes25]

I will chime in with solid figures tomorrow or Sunday. I have raw data from my many 80's teams with most playing at the Murph.

[honestiago1]

What is the effect of BP singles on this theory? I had Hojo for about 40-50 games, in Wrigley, and he just ripped everybody. I also recall one year in a face-to-face seeing Steve Balboni (a low walk, low HR hitter) in the Kingdome, and he just went ape. 'Course it was his .250 (or whatever it is) card from Royal, moved to the hitter' s paradise.

I would think a low-avg, high HR/Walk probably needs the high singles park, as well, to be fully effective. My main problem right now is the opposite: I have George Hendrick in the Astrodome, and he can't seem to get untracked.

[Outta Leftfield]

I'm not sure about BP effects. Most of my experiences have been in Yankee, Riverfront or Dodger, which have BP singles of 7, 8 & 9. That's one reason a report from Sykes would be helpful (thanks Sykes!). He's got a lot of data on performance in Murphy, which has 0 singles. I'm looking forward to his input.

I should probably add that the HoJo was in an unusual season--the first one on his card. Usually he favors RHP but in this year he hits lefties better and his card vs RHP is almost barren of singles. He hit a lot of HR vs RHP and drew walks but his BA vs RHP was .195. His performance against LHP was so good that I didn't want to drop him, but most of his AB are against righties. I ended up platooning R. Bush vs RHP and since Bush hit about .850 OPS, that worked out great over the last 50 games of the season.

My experience with Kittle was that he hammered HR in great profusion but hit about .170 in 360 AB.

My experiences are limited but I wondering if others have noticed this pattern? The very limited use of Phelps himself in the league might suggest that it's common phenomenon, since he's the pattern for all the other players. Still, Gorman Thomas seems widely used. I wonder if he differs in some way from the rest of the group. Certainly his outstanding defense makes a difference.

[YountFan]

[quote:c947e9eae0]Still, Gorman Thomas seems widely used. I wonder if he differs in some way from the rest of the group.[/quote:c947e9eae0]

1. Thomas is one of the premier defenders at a demanding position.
2. Thomas' card is more balanced than Phelps
3. Thomas doubles more that Phelps
4. Thomas played in County Stad. whereas Phelps played in the Kingdome
5. Thomas has a bad-ass fu-man-chu

[Outta Leftfield]

YF,

This all makes sense to me. Stormin' Gorman has defense, home park and doubles working for him--and the doubles actually contribute to BA since they have to be on his card. I notice him hitting .230 (which is acceptable, given his other positives) rather than .175, which isn't acceptable in a Phelps-type player. It's interesting that the Phelps types rarely play good defense. I always found it hard to believe that Gorman was a good CF because he just didn't look the part.

[quote:29f9e349e2]5. Thomas has a bad-(expletive) fu-man-chu[/quote:29f9e349e2]

[url]
This shows why we need a seventies version with the mystery card. We've got to get Al Hrabosky, the Mad Hungarian, into the game.[/url]

[YountFan]

[quote:2397e85bea] I always found it hard to believe that Gorman was a good CF because he just didn't look the part. [/quote:2397e85bea]

He was a linebacker in CF and some slender girly-man. He was good because he was willing to give up his body to get to the ball, had pretty good speed and a great jump. But, I was always glad when he'd get up after slamming into the wall it making one of those horizontal diving catches. The man should have spent more time on the DL but he was just too tough.

[Outta Leftfield]

[quote:1bfdcd4316]But, I was always glad when he'd get up after slamming into the wall it making one of those horizontal diving catches. The man should have spent more time on the DL but he was just too tough. [/quote:1bfdcd4316]

It's a good thing he didn't play in Wrigley. :D [/url]

[nycalderon]

outa -

I think you are correct that generally low BA hitters take a bigger performance hit than other players in the 80's. I have thought the same as you that the game designers are counting on those guys getting almost all their non-HRs and BBs from the pitchers card. Although logic would dictate that all hitters would suffer the same performance drop it is clearly not the case.

[Jablowmi]

Thanks for posting this, Outta. Pretty interesting. I went to the cards/numbers and decided to compare Phelps ($4.30) to Al Oliver ($3.84), another bad-field, good hit LH, although one with a high BA.

Leaving out their worst years, here is the data against RHP only:

Phelps (4R)

hit ob tb hr bphr
1984 10.9 41.9 37.6 8.5 8
1986 10.3 46.3 29.8 5.3 8
1987 10.8 44.8 27.4 5.0 7
1988 13.5 45.5 37.8 7.0 8

Oliver (2R)

hit ob tb hr bphr
1980 38.2 41.2 58.6 3.3 5
1981 36.3 37.3 54.9 1.8 0
1982 35.4 42.4 54.2 3.6 5
1983 39.1 40.1 51.0 1 1

As you can see, Oliver, who's 4 cards are all .300+, have many more hit chances on them than Phelps' 4, which are all between .241 and .267. Not surprising. The "10s" for Phelps are extraordinarily low and compare to a number of $1M and less players. On base chances are similar, but Oliver's total base chances are much greater, even though he hit many less HRs (many more singles and nearly twice as many doubles per AB in the 4 years than Phelps).

In Phelps' best year (1988), hehad 13 2B, 0 3B and 24 HR in 297 AB. Thus, 37 of his 78 hits were for extra bases, leaving only 41 singles. In Oliver's best year ('80, against RHP, anyway), he had 43 2B, 3 3B and 19 HR in 656 AB - 65 extra base hits. However, he also had 144 singles.

I don't know what the point of this comparison is, although it does raise a question as to which player would you like to have more in, say, the Kingdome? In KC, I think it is clear that you would want Oliver. However, I think the Oliver card is a better card for any park (particularly b/c he can hit against LHP) and does not clog up the bases like Phelps.