Brady Anderson Was Not Alone
Last week, the folks over at Baseball-Reference released a new feature for the Play Index that I've wanted for a long time—the ability to perform a search within a specific group of players. Basically, now you can perform a search, save it, and then run a new search just from the pool of players generated in the first search. Super cool.
This seemed like a perfect time to do a follow-up on Brady Anderson. I don't know why, but lately I've been feeling like Brady gets a bum rap for his career year. A few weeks ago, I attempted to find the defensive version of Brady Anderson. Today, I want to look at the worst career WAR Batting Run totals among players who had a 50 WAR Batting Run season. Brady Anderson fits this critieria since his 1996 season was worth 53 runs. And here they are:
That's seven players in history who have produced a 50 batting run season, but have a lower career batting run total than Anderson. Interestingly, three of them (Johnson, Pinkney, and Wolf) came in 1890. Two of those seasons were in the American Association while one came in the National League. Orator Shafer—the only 60 run hitter on this list—also played in the 19th century.That leaves four guys to discuss: Anderson, Bret Boone, Tommy Davis, and Phil Nevin. We've all heard steroid whispers about Bret Boone and Brady Anderson. But I haven't heard anything about Phil Nevin or Tommy Davis being accused of performance enhancing drugs. And they both had the same outlandish peak that Anderson and Boone displayed.
Here's how the careers of these four players (in batting runs) look:
Another way of looking at this is listing each player's top five seasons, by batting runs:
- Boone: 52, 40, 15, 12, 0
- Davis: 55, 33, 15, 6, 4
- Nevin: 54, 30, 24, 16, 7
- Anderson: 53, 31, 27, 16, 12
I'd actually call Anderson the least suspicious of the four. He was good for the longest stretch.
Who are some of the players who come after Anderson? Chuck Knoblauch generated 52 batting runs in 1996 and totaled 113 in his career. Cecil Fielder posted 50 in 1990 and a total of 123. The One And Only Alan Trammell was worth 50 batting runs in 1987 and 124 in his career. Howard Johnson was worth 52 batting runs in 1989, a big part of his 129 run total. Ken Caminiti posted a 60 run season in 1996, padding his total of 144 runs. And Jim Gentile, another player from the 1960s, was worth 61 in '61 and 144 in all. Caminiti, of course, used. The others? Not that we know of.
What I'm trying to say here is... the reason Brady Anderson is pointed at so often as a poster boy for steroids is that in 1996 his 50 batting runs season happened to manifest itself as a 50-homer season. If he was worth the same, but instead hit 38 or so homers and more doubles and walks, nobody would say anything. But the fact that he hit that big round 50 makes all the difference.
Brady Anderson was not alone.
8 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
One mistake
You’ve got Boone’s big year listed as 1996 – should be 2001. He was awful in 96.
Here’s my problem with people who want to say Brady’s big year can be explained by steroids:
1. His contract year was not 1996, but 1997.
2. If you were clean through 1995, tried steroids and hit 50 homers, and knew that after one more season you’d be a free agent, why exactly would you stop?
For all I know Brady might have been a steroid user. But I’m firmly convinced that whatever he did or didn’t do in 1996 is no different than how he approached the game in 1995 or 1997.
"That boy is our last hope" - Obi Wan Scioscia, as Francisco Rodriguez left for the Mets. "No, there is another" - Yoda Reagins.
Looks like Bret Boone should be getting the bum rap instead of Brady
Tommy Davis is a great non-steroids era example too. I think you’ve effectively proved that Brady Anderson does not equal Lee Harvey Oswald. :)
Left Field: Adventures in baseball fanaticism, music obsession, craft beer enthusiasm, and other stuff from out of left field.
Comp...or accomplice? :)
Left Field: Adventures in baseball fanaticism, music obsession, craft beer enthusiasm, and other stuff from out of left field.
by Dan McCloskey on Apr 18, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting stuff
I think another reason Anderson and Boone get called out as suspicious characters is not just because they had a crazy season, but when then had it (relative to their careers, not the era). Boone was absolute garbage for years then suddenly became a stud. Anderson was a better player than Boone, but look how deep into his career before he had that season.
Davis had his crazy year in year 3, and Nevin had three previous years where he seemed to be building towards a better performance.
None of this is to say that guys were clean, dirty, or whatever. Rather, I think the reason some guys get second and third looks more than others has to do with the context of their own careers.
Columnist at Beyond the Box Score
A 50 WAR batting run season?
That would be pretty incredible. I’m pretty sure you meant 50 RAA (runs above average).
by nathaniel dawson on Apr 18, 2011 9:46 PM EDT reply actions

by 






























