Johnny Logan

Johnny Logan is the first in a new series that I will publish on this blog. Since my blog’s main purpose is to honor baseball’s forgotten greats and educate average baseball fans in baseball’s history, I have decided to write a few articles on certain players who don’t really have a case for Cooperstown, but nonetheless deserve to be remembered. 

Johnny Logan was a shortstop in the Major Leagues from 1951 through 1963. On March 23, 1926, Logan was born to a Croatian mother and an influential Russian father in New York. As a child he acquired his famous nickname: “Yatcha”, a moniker that he’d keep throughout his Big League career. He was drafted into the military almost immediately after his high school graduation early in 1945, stayed in service for 18 months, and received an honorable discharge in 1946. While he was in the military, he played baseball (as many soldiers did) and signed with the Boston Braves organization in 1947. After four seasons in the minors, he earned his call up to the big club in April 1951. Logan quickly established himself as a premier shortstop in the National League, thrice topping NL shortstops in fielding percentage and four times leading in assists. He also made a living as a hitter, consistently hitting 10 or 15 home runs per season and leading the league with 37 doubles in 1955. Twice he played in all the Braves’ 154 games, in 1954 and 1955. He also helped the Braves to two World Series, taking home the Championship in 1957. As a result of his always stellar play, Logan received MVP votes in six consecutive seasons and was named an all-star four times. 

In 1955, a young lefthanded pitcher debuted for the Brooklyn Dodgers, and Logan was the first batter he ever faced. A few of you reading may have heard of him - his name was Sandy Koufax. Logan hit a single in that plate appearance, and was one of the few hitters to find success against Koufax in his career (nine hits including a home run). 

Logan had a relatively late start in baseball (he made his MLB debut at 25) and wasn’t an everyday player until he was 27. His last big season was 1959, when he hit .291 with 13 homers at the age of 33. In 1960, however, his average slid to .245 and he went into a decline. He played parts of three seasons with the Pirates, who tried him out at third base as well as shortstop (their regular shortstop at that time was Dick Groat) and often used him as a pinch hitter. Logan played his last MLB game in September 1963. He wasn’t finished, however, as he went to Japan and played 96 games for the Nankai Hawks in 1964, who won the Japan Series that year. 

In retirement, Logan helped found the Milwaukee Braves Historical Association. Other than that, he lived a relatively quiet life back home in Milwaukee. He died on August 9, 2013.

WHY I THINK JUAN GONZALEZ SHOULD BE IN COOPERSTOWN

WHY I THINK JUAN GONZALEZ SHOULD BE IN COOPERSTOWN 

By- Damien 

Almost all of the big power hitters of the 1990’s and early 2000’s are written off as potential cheaters, and Gonzalez is no exception. A lot of people dismiss this entire era (a terrible mistake no matter what happened) as “the steroid era”, an era which can be devoid of Hall of Famers. In my opinion, in order to rightly educate baseball fans and properly honor the game’s best players, each era should be represented fairly evenly (although, however, I have no tolerance for cheaters in the context of the Hall of Fame). But what about Gonzalez? Was he playing under the influence of illegal drugs? I think that there is good reason to doubt it. For one thing, Gonzalez’s career path is fairly normal for a Hall of Fame outfielder, with outstanding production for a while with a gradual decline at the end. He wasn’t a 30-homer man who suddenly hit 70 homers in his age 34 season. Gonzalez was far more consistent. Additionally, no evidence has really been related that Gonzalez may have been juiced. As far as I know, the only allegation against Gonzalez was a random accusation, which he denied. In the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty”, I feel comfortable including Gonzalez here. 

Juan Gonzalez was one of the best power hitters who ever lived. While his 434 homers suggest a very good career, his power numbers are best illustrated by his 6.62 home run percentage (the 15th highest of all time) and .561 career slugging percentage (18th). He had five seasons with 40 or more homers and eight with over 100 RBI’s. For every 162 games he played, Gonzalez averaged 42 home runs, 135 RBI’s, and 102 runs scored. Juan Gonzalez started his career with the Texas Rangers in 1989, hitting 9-for-60 at the age of 19. He had four homers in 25 games in 1990 and was a full time regular at the age of 21, hitting .264 with 27 homers and 102 RBI’s in 1991. Just entering his peak, Gonzalez led the Majors in homers in each of the next two seasons before being interrupted by the strike. In 1996, Gonzalez came back to hit .314 with 47 homers and 144 RBI’s, capturing the league MVP Award. In addition to his slugging, Gonzalez provided average defense at all three outfield positions, and occasionally took his turn at DH. He was a decent outfielder, known for his strong arm. After another strong offensive season in 1997, he repeated as the MVP in 1998 with a .318 mark and 157 RBI’s, including a record 101 ribbies in the first half. He reached his high water mark in batting in 1999 with a .326 mark and backed it up with 39 longballs. After the season, Gonzalez was traded to the Tigers, and didn’t produce at his usual pace (.289, 22 homers in 115 games). The Tigers made a deadly mistake in letting him go, as he had one of his biggest seasons with the Cleveland Indians in 2001 (.325-35-140). Gonzalez then spent a couple years back in Texas, producing one last big season in 2003 (70 RBI’s in 82 games). He hit .276 in limited action in ‘04 and played one game for the Indians in ‘05 before a season ending injury. The Cardinals invited Gonzalez to spring training in 2008, and Gonzalez performed well in those games, but didn’t make the regular season team. That marked the end of his MLB career, although he has taken part in Puerto Rican ball and the World Baseball Classic. 

Juan Gonzalez was a great power hitter, a two time MVP, and an adequate fielder. I think that one should look through Hall of Fame candidates from the 1990’s with caution, but Gonzalez would be a good choice for future induction. 

LIFETIME STATISTICS 

Games career: 1,689 season high: 155 in 1992 

At Bats career: 6,556 season high: 606 in 1998 

Hits career: 1,936 season high: 193 in 1998 

Doubles career: 388 season high: 50 in 1998 led AL: 50 in 1998 

Triples career: 25 season high: 4 in 1994 

Home Runs career: 434 season high: 47 in 1996 led AL: 43 in 1992, 46 in 1993 

Runs career: 1,061 season high: 114 in 1999 

Runs Batted In career: 1,404 season high: 157 in 1998 led AL: 157 in 1998 

Stolen Bases career: 26 season high: 6 in 1994 

Walks career: 457 season high: 51 in 1999 

Strikeouts career: 1,273 season high: 143 in 1992 

Batting Average career: .295 season high: .326 in 1999 

On Base Percentage career: .343 season high: .378 in 1999 

Slugging Percentage career: .561 season high: .643 in 1996 led AL: .632 in 1993 

Total Bases career: 3,676 season high: 382 in 1998 

Sacrifice Hits career: 2 season high: 2 in 1989 

Fielding Percentage career: .983 season high: .991 in 1994 

Double Plays career: 19 season high: 3 in 1999 and 2001 

Putouts career: 2,595 season high: 379 in 1992 

Assists career: 91 season high: 10 in 2001 and 2003 

DID YOU KNOW? 

-nicknamed “Juan Gone” and “Igor” 

-was a three time all-star (1993, 1998, and 2001) and a six time Silver Slugger 

-also finished fourth in the AL MVP Award voting in 1993, fifth in 2001, ninth in 1997, 13th in 1999, and 16th in 1992 

-won the Home Run Derby in 1993 

-won two career AL Player of the Month awards and five Player of the Week awards 

-slashed .290/.333/.742 with eight homers and 15 RBI’s in 15 career postseason games 

-hit a record five homers in the 1996 ALDS, a four game series 

-had the most RBI’s in the Majors from 1991 through 2001 (1,263) 

-three times had as many RBI as games played in a season (144 - 134 in 1996, 157 - 154 in 1998, 140 - 140 in 2001), and had 514 RBI’s in 511 games from 1995 through 1998 

-set the MLB record for RBI’s in the month of April (35) in 1998  

-had two 21-game hitting streaks in 1996 and a 15-game streak in 2001 

-had three career three homer games

-hit five home runs in three games in early 2003 

-hit his 300th career home run in his 1,096th game, the fewest in AL history 

-led the MLB with 16 sacrifice flies in 2001 

-topped the AL with an 8.58 home run percentage in 1993 

-ranks 48th in career home runs 

-also played 24 games as a pinch hitter and one as a pinch runner

My Problems With OPS+

    Much like the WAR statistic, OPS+ (adjusted OPS) tries unsuccessfully to become an end-all statistic (which undermines the very purpose of statistics in the first place). The average person cannot identify or compute a player's adjusted OPS, and most people who use it seem to trust it blindly, not fully understanding it or recognizing its flaws. I was never really a fan of the statistic, but I have mentioned it a few times on this blog to speak the readers' language. However, there are at least two major flaws with OPS+, which I will relate below. (By the way, the first objection can also be made with ERA+, another advanced statistic that I also do not entirely trust.) 

    In the never ending wonder about how the quality of play in MLB has changed over time, different people come up with different hypotheses. In the context of the Hall of Fame, I very strongly opine that the Hall should look for the best players from each era, eliminating the universal ignorance of the quality of play and taking statistical fluctuations into account. That said, OPS+ seems like the answer. However, the answers to these kinds of questions never come that easily. For example, Babe Ruth had a record 206 career OPS+, a supposedly huge number. However, remember that when Ruth played pitchers used to bat for themselves, making the league as a whole much less of a threat to compete with Ruth's mark. If another slugger of Ruth's calibre comes along in a few years, when pitchers never bat for themselves thanks to the universal DH, his OPS+ would be far lower than Ruth's. 

    The second objection is the relevance of OPS as a statistic in the first place. ON BASE PERCENTAGE AND SLUGGING PERCENTAGE HAVE NO RELATION, AND DO NOT BELONG TOGETHER! I cannot emphasize this point enough. A bases empty single helps a player's OPS way more than a bases loaded walk: (one time on base + one total base / one at bat) vs. (one time on base / one plate appearance). All in all, OPS is a very overrated statistic, and OPS+ was a very impractical idea to begin with. 

    I will likely include this post in my book as a disclaimer as to why I will not be using these statistics when everybody else does. 

I've Been Thinking

    A lot of writers (including myself at times), when evaluating a Hall of Fame candidate, look at a player's late start almost as a point in his favor. They'll right stuff like, "Hoyt Wilhelm was one of the greatest relief pitchers of all time. He pitched 1,070 games, won 143 of them, captured two ERA Titles, and had 228 career saves. And all after his 29th birthday." Now this is all true, but then you'll hear the author explain why this makes him better than Mariano Rivera, and keep referring to his late start, and giving him credit for his age 21-28 seasons. (In this particular example, that doesn't quite cut it because Rivera probably had two or three good years left in him when he quit, but I'm making a different point here.) The writer says, "If he had debuted younger, he certainly would have 175 wins and 3,000 innings, and a shot at 300 saves." However, the bottom line is that he never actually recorded those additional figures. The New York Giants had to make do with other players when Wilhelm wasn't with them. Again, this wasn't the best example (Wilhelm actually fought in WWII, including the Battle of the Bulge, so he probably would have made it to the Majors earlier), but it illustrates my point. If a player is trapped in the minors until he's 30 and finally gets his call up at an advanced age, whose problem is that? If the player produces counting statistics that rival some of the greats after their age 30 seasons, would that alone make him one of the greats? No. It's something to think about. 

Player Value vs. Greatness

    The value of a player's work that contributes to the success of his team is not the same of his actual ability, and is not always consistent. Let's jump right into an easy to grasp example. 

    Over the past decade, Mike Trout has unquestionably been the best hitter in baseball. He is always mentioned among the greatest nowadays, and has dominated pitchers for his entire career. What is my point in saying this? Trout has proven himself, and it is obvious that he is a great hitter. If he were to go on a ridiculous hitting tear, it would not be regarded as a fluke. He's got his own reputation. 

    In the same way, Bryce Harper has his own reputation, and is a truly great hitter, but most people would probably rate him below Trout, especially considering the entirety of their careers. 

    Over the past two seasons, Mike Trout has been better than Bryce Harper, but Harper has been more valuable. In 2021, Mike Trout was in the midst of his greatest season to date when he was shelved for the season with an injury. In 36 games, he was hitting .333/.466/.624 with eight homers in 117 at bats - simply insane statistics. However, he only played roughly a fourth of the season, and provided zero value after the injury. Trout left a lot of work for other, lesser players to play centerfield for the Angels. On the other hand, Bryce Harper also had an outstanding season (.309/.429/.615). He wasn't quite as hot as Trout was, but he was able to sustain it throughout most of the season, and as a result hit 35 homers, took home the NL MVP Award, and provided much more real value to his Phillies. He may have been slightly below Trout-calibre in 2021, but he provided a dangerous bat the entire year through. So far in 2022, Trout and Harper have played about the same number of games, and have hit about even (ironically, it's Harper who's probably hitting better, but Trout who's provided more value), but for the purpose of defining my terms, let's say they've been about the same. If you lump their 2021-22 seasons together, Trout's hitting .288/.398/.605 with 32 homers (8.02 HR%) and 69 RBI's in 115 games, while Harper's at .312/.415/.610 with 50 homers (6.85 HR%) and 132 RBI's in 205 games (with a defensive edge to Trout). Their career marks: .303/.416/.584, 334 homers (6.76 HR%), 867 RBI's for Trout; .281/.391/.528, 282 homers (5.88 HR%), 800 RBI's for Harper. That said, I think it's fair to say that Trout's been a little better since 2021, but Harper's produced much more than Trout over the same time. 

    Let's put it this way: if I had to pick one of them for one game, I would pick Trout (because he's better). If I were to pick one for a full season (knowing that Trout is more injury prone), I would pick Harper (because he's been more valuable since 2021). 

    The point of this post is simply to define these terms that I will use in many different articles. That said, I guess we can all say that we're on the same page. Here's the key: rate statistics will tell you how good a player is when he plays, while counting statistics keep track of his real value. You need both when evaluating a Hall of Fame candidate.