Bomber Bites With Jumping Joe–Joe DiMaggio is Romanticized But He’s Not Overrated

On Joe DiMaggio’s 100^th birthday, baseball historian John Thorn named him starting center fielder on his “Most Overrated Hall of Fame Team.” DiMaggio is by far the most prominent member of the team. He is also the most suspect member.

"“There is a trend toward baseball analytics now and the more you apply them, the more you chip away at the DiMaggio myth. On his 100th birthday you can still call him an all-time great but he was not the peerless center fielder he was made out to be.” (h/t John Harper, New York Daily News)"

Thorn stops short of saying that DiMaggio does not deserve his bust in Cooperstown but the idea that Joltin’ Joe was or is overrated is shortsighted at best. While his title as “Greatest Living Ballplayer” has always been more “Most Popular Living Ballplayer,” the idea that he was anything less than an all-time great is ludicrous.

More from Yankees News

DiMaggio’s stats speak for themselves but he admittedly was not the best home run hitter or the best defensive center fielder. He didn’t get 3000 hits or 500 home runs. Over the years, other players have broken many of his records and passed him on the all-time lists. All except for one record, a record which has stood the test of time and may never be broken, the 56 game hit streak. The 56 straight games with a hit is a record that has never been truly approached in the 60+ years since DiMaggio accomplished the feat. It is unlikely to fall anytime soon. But DiMaggio was much more than an epic streak in the summer of 1941.

DiMaggio enjoyed a short thirteen year career in the majors, having lost 3 years in the prime of his career to service for our country in World War II. He was an All Star every season he played. He won the MVP three times. He finished in the top ten for MVP seven other times. He led the American League in home runs twice, RBI twice, triples once, and won two batting championships. He finished his career 361 home runs, 1537 RBI and a .325 career average.

Mandatory Credit: Chad R. MacDonald.

Thorn’s idea that DiMaggio’s career somehow doesn’t live up the standards required of an all-time great according to the new advanced metrics of today seem flawed as well. DiMaggio racked up 78.2 WAR over the course of his career, a solid career number that is good for 6th all time among center fielders. One must also remember that he only played 13 seasons and lost his prime age 28-30 seasons to the war. He finished only one season with a WAR under 3, his final season in 1951 in which he had 2.9.

Defensively he was among the best in the game, but not the best. He was not the fastest center fielder. He did not have the greatest arm. His range was not immense. But retroactive attempts to apply defensive metrics to games from bygone eras without the help of video is a foolhardy errand.

Proponents of sabermetrics often rail against compilers for the Hall of Fame. They would often rather see a player dominate during his peak years rather than hit magic numbers and be a steady good to great player over an extended period of time. This is why they believe had Craig Biggio ended his career a year or two early not reached 3000 hits, he would not even be in the discussion for election to Cooperstown, let alone knocking on the door. There is some merit to that argument. However, this is also truly where Thorn’s theory falls apart.

DiMaggio was not a compiler. He did not extend his career to hit 500 home runs. He was great player every year that he played. He won world titles with the Yankees and every award worth winning. His peak is also as good as any one.

If we call the peak of his career is first seven years in the majors before he went to war, he averaged about 7 WAR a season. The average year was a .341 average, 31 home runs, and 133 RBI. That type of production plays anywhere and in any era. Keeping in mind that he was playing a 154 game season and likely would have had an even greater peak had his prime been spent in a Yankee uniform rather than an Army one and you see why he was a Hall of Famer. If anything he, and other who lost time during World War II, are underrated as a whole as we will never know exactly how great they could have been.

"“But when you put it all together, I think the myth counts. The story counts. It’s not just stats. The DiMaggio myth transcends history and you deny it at your peril. I admire his performance, I’m just letting a little air out of the balloon.” (h/t John Harper, New York Daily News)"

The problem Thorn and other sabermetricians have with DiMaggio is that they want to devalue his accomplishments but can’t quite do it. They want to portray him as overrated or somehow lacking because he doesn’t fit the mold of what they believe the best players ever should be. DiMaggio’s game was different from their archetype and therefore is a threat to their singular way of thinking.

Sabermetricians believe that is it ok to strikeout and consider it a preferred outcome to other types of outs. DiMaggio hated strikeout and was one of the hardest to punch out over the course of his career. He had only 13 Ks during his 56 game hit streak. In his entire career he went down on strikes just 369 times. By comparison, sabermetric darling Mike Trout finished the 2014 season with 184 strikeouts.

Joe DiMaggio is not the greatest player who ever lived, Babe Ruth has that title. He was not the best hitter of his era, Ted Williams holds that honor. He is not the greatest center fielder ever, both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle probably rate over him. There are other all-time greats like Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, and Stan Musial who may outrank him on a list of the best of all time. That would leave Joltin’ Joe as the 11^th best player in the history of the game at worst? How is that overrated?

Then you factor in that when DiMaggio retired in 1951 only Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb and Wagner were ahead of him, he was the fifth best player ever? Thorn’s argument just doesn’t add up. DiMaggio’s career and life certainly have been romanticized but it has not been overrated. Any list of the all-time greatest that lacks his name is not a list worth compiling. Greatness like DiMaggio cannot be overrated.

Schedule