Mitchell Page (1951-2011)
Posted by Andy on March 21, 2011
Mitchell Page died more than a week ago and I only just noticed it. It's quite a shock as he was only 59 years old. No cause of death has yet been reported, as far as I can tell.
A friend of mine who grew up in the Bay Area in the 1970s tells me that Page's nickname in 1977 was "All the Rage" Mitchell Page.
Here are the highest OPS+ figures for a player qualifying for the batting title in his first season:
| Rk | Player | Year | Age | Tm | Lg | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | SB | CS | Pos | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Johnny Mize | 162 | 1936 | 23 | STL | NL | 126 | 469 | 414 | 76 | 136 | 30 | 8 | 19 | 93 | 50 | 32 | 1 | 0 | .329 | .402 | .577 | .979 | *3/9 |
| 2 | Ted Williams | 160 | 1939 | 20 | BOS | AL | 149 | 677 | 565 | 131 | 185 | 44 | 11 | 31 | 145 | 107 | 64 | 2 | 1 | .327 | .436 | .609 | 1.045 | *9 |
| 3 | Albert Pujols | 157 | 2001 | 21 | STL | NL | 161 | 676 | 590 | 112 | 194 | 47 | 4 | 37 | 130 | 69 | 93 | 1 | 3 | .329 | .403 | .610 | 1.013 | 5379/D |
| 4 | Mitchell Page | 154 | 1977 | 25 | OAK | AL | 145 | 592 | 501 | 85 | 154 | 28 | 8 | 21 | 75 | 78 | 95 | 42 | 5 | .307 | .405 | .521 | .926 | *7/D9 |
| 5 | Alvin Davis | 147 | 1984 | 23 | SEA | AL | 152 | 678 | 567 | 80 | 161 | 34 | 3 | 27 | 116 | 97 | 78 | 5 | 4 | .284 | .391 | .497 | .888 | *3/D |
| 6 | Dale Alexander | 147 | 1929 | 26 | DET | AL | 155 | 700 | 626 | 110 | 215 | 43 | 15 | 25 | 137 | 56 | 63 | 5 | 9 | .343 | .397 | .580 | .977 | *3 |
| 7 | Paul Waner | 147 | 1926 | 23 | PIT | NL | 144 | 618 | 536 | 101 | 180 | 35 | 22 | 8 | 79 | 66 | 19 | 11 | 0 | .336 | .413 | .528 | .941 | *9/7 |
| 8 | Del Bissonette | 144 | 1928 | 28 | BRO | NL | 155 | 669 | 587 | 90 | 188 | 30 | 13 | 25 | 106 | 70 | 75 | 5 | 0 | .320 | .396 | .543 | .940 | *3 |
| 9 | Del Ennis | 143 | 1946 | 21 | PHI | NL | 141 | 583 | 540 | 70 | 169 | 30 | 6 | 17 | 73 | 39 | 65 | 5 | 0 | .313 | .364 | .485 | .849 | *7/9 |
| 10 | Frank Robinson | 142 | 1956 | 20 | CIN | NL | 152 | 668 | 572 | 122 | 166 | 27 | 6 | 38 | 83 | 64 | 95 | 8 | 4 | .290 | .379 | .558 | .936 | *78 |
| 11 | George Watkins | 142 | 1930 | 30 | STL | NL | 119 | 424 | 391 | 85 | 146 | 32 | 7 | 17 | 87 | 24 | 49 | 5 | 0 | .373 | .415 | .621 | 1.037 | *93/784 |
Pretty interesting list. Keep in mind that it automatically eliminates anybody who didn't play a full season in his first year (such as anybody who had a cup of coffee.)
It's neat that Page is right next to Albert Pujols, as Page was Pujols' first batting coach in the majors in 2001 with the Cardinals.
Page's career transactions are interesting too:
- January 17, 1970: Drafted by the Oakland Athletics in the 4th round of the 1970 amateur draft (January), but did not sign.
- June 5, 1973: Drafted by the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 3rd round of the 1973 amateur draft.
- March 15, 1977: Traded by the Pittsburgh Pirates with Tony Armas, Doug Bair, Dave Giusti, Rick Langford and Doc Medich to the Oakland Athletics for Chris Batton, Phil Garner and Tommy Helms.
- March 29, 1984: Released by the Oakland Athletics.
- May 19, 1984: Signed as a Free Agent with the Pittsburgh Pirates.
- October 4, 1985: Released by the Pittsburgh Pirates.
He didn't sign with the Athletics when originally drafted but they got him from the Pirates 7 years later after he'd been in the minors for a while. Eventually, he went back to Pittsburgh at the tail end of his career.
Interestingly, Page's minor-league performance was a pretty good indicator of what came in the majors. In 1975 and 1976 (at AA and AAA) he had seasons with good power, speed, and a high batting average, which is just what he did in the majors in 1977.
Page joins just two other players (Marty Cordova and Ellis Burks) with at least 20 HR and 20 SB in their first season in the majors.
Anyway--Page's passing is very sad.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:02 am
[...] Bay Area in the 1970s tells me [...]Source : Sports Reference BlogExplore : Baseball Blogs, SportsContinua This entry was posted in sport. Bookmark the permalink. ← Former Met Castillo joins [...]
March 21st, 2011 at 8:35 am
Take a look at the 1977 ROY of the year voting. Page was robbed. There is no way that Murray should have won that award:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1977.shtml#ALroy
March 21st, 2011 at 10:17 am
Jeez, the list of guys he was traded WITH in the 1977 trade is incredible! Was Garner "that" valuable? 'Course, the Pirates did win it all two years later. Helms was at the end and Batton never did anything. Giusti was like Helms...at the end. Armas, Bair, & Langford were the unknowns, like Batton, who all went on to make more than a few $$$s at the MLB level. Medich still had a little in the tank, but I guess 34 years on makes this one an odd trade!
March 21st, 2011 at 11:07 am
@2 - You're right. I wonder if Murray won because he had more RBI.
March 21st, 2011 at 11:10 am
I mostly remembered Paige from his Topps All-Star Rookie cup displayed on Mithcell's 1978 Baseball card. But his first season was really great. I guess pitchers just caught up to him and he kind of got squeezed out of the A's OF just as they got good in the early 80's (Rickey Henderson, Dwayne Murphy and Tony Armas). It is a shame he never got a playoff AB in 1981.
March 21st, 2011 at 11:48 am
@2/ Chris Says: "Take a look at the 1977 ROY of the year voting. Page was robbed. There is no way that Murray should have won that award..."
Well Chris, in 1977 the Orioles (97-64) finished a close second (2.5 GB) to the Yankees, but the A's finished last (63-98) in the AL West, probably because Charlie Finley got rid of most of his best players who were going to become free agents. Murray's performance was probably seen as much more "important" to his team's success. If you reversed their teams, you might have also reversed the ROY results.
March 21st, 2011 at 11:49 am
It's kind of rare that the ROY is given to the wrong guy who eventually had the better career. Looking back, most fans who think about Murray would probably not be surprised to learn than he had won the ROY and wouldn't entertain the notion that he didn't deserve it (though clearly Page was more deserving.)
Usually, though, we see guys who win the ROY who do not go on to great careers (but did deserve the award that year) and players who went on to have much better careers who didn't win the award. Like Pat Listach in 1992 over Kenny Lofton...
March 21st, 2011 at 12:25 pm
This post is not in reference to Mitchell Page (RIP) but in ROY ballots. After reviewing a few years it seems like as Andy says here in comment 7, many ROY award winners go onto lesser careers and never really match their output of their rookie seasons, and many rookies that sometimes do not even get a vote for ROY go onto stardom and even the Hall of Fame, One such example is the ballots in 1974, 1975 and 1976. In 1974 George Brett finished 3rd behind Mike (rain delay) Hargrove and Bucky Dent and Robin Yount did not even garner a vote, In 1975 Fred Lynn won the award over his teamate Jim Rice and in the NL Gary Carter finished a strong second, in 1976 Kieth Hernandez, Willie Randolf, Gary Templeton, Chet Lemon and others did not recieve any votes over Butch Metzger and Mark Fidrych.
March 21st, 2011 at 12:32 pm
I read somewhere that Page was very bitter about not winning that reward. I was a huge Oriole (and Murray) fan, so I didn't want to hear it, but Page's numbers were superior. I'd agree with Lawrence (@6), though, that Murray's performance on a contending team probably put him over the top. Maybe some voters were also impressed that Murray did what he did at age 21, although that shouldn't have been a factor.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I think the main reason that Rookies of the Year often do not have as good a career as expected is that the ROY is often older, in his rookie season, than a really good prospect. These older ROYs are more experienced, more polished than a typical rookie, but are closer to their peak age -- i.e., they have low ceilings.
If you look at ROYs (and other fine rookies) who went on to disappointing careers, you find that almost all of them were at least 24 years old in their strong rookie years. But ROYs age 20-22 who don't fulfill their promise are rare.
March 21st, 2011 at 1:48 pm
@9 I disagree that age should not be a factor. I see the award as who, based on their rookie year performance and physcial characteristics and age (but not including minor league performance), looks to be headed for the most important career--including the impact of the rookie year itself, but not limited to that year.
March 21st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@11, Dvd Avins -- Although I can't find any official MLB statement of what the Rookie of the Year Award is "supposed" to be (besides the basic qualifications for "rookie" status), I think your vision of the award is inconsistent with the actual history of the award, nor can I see any way to extrapolate that vision from the simple meaning of the phrase "Rookie of the Year Award."
I also can't see any reason to issue an award based partly on expected performance. Isn't there already enough hype about things that have not yet been accomplished?
March 21st, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Page was one of the few players to have his best year (and a very good year) as a rookie, and then go straight downhill from there.
Others like him who drew lots of attention as rookies could include Joe Charbonneau and Mark Fidrych. Who else fits this mold?
March 21st, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@13.
Guess I should have looked at the next name on the list. Alvin Davis is another of the best-year-as-a-rookie club. Although, he did come close in a couple of later seasons to having a comparable year.
I saw a lot of Alvin that first year, and it really felt like the Mariners had something special. We were thinking, "if he's this good now, just think what he'll be like in a few years". You just never know how things will work out.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:02 pm
@#13 Doug. As mentioned up-thread, a lot of rookies of the year (and candidates who finished high in the voting) qualify. Just browsing the RoY voting in the last couple of decades, I can find Bob Hamelin, Pat Listach, Eric Hinske, Bobby Kielty, Terrence Long, Todd Hollandsworth, and Jerome Walton. Angel Berroa is still active but it looks like he's going to qualify
March 21st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
@5 mentioned the 1978 Topps baseball card. I also have this card, and it may explain why Page did not win the ROY award. Did the cards list WAR or OPS? Unfortunately, no. Those are two categories that clearly favor Page. Also, BB and Ks were not listed on the baseball cards. (Fortunately for Page, errors were not listed either, since he led the AL with 14 errors from the LF position). The voters (and most fans back then) probably did not look too deep into the numbers. You had Player A who hit more HR, drove in more runs, batted from both sides of the plate, and played a good 1B on a contender. Player B had a higher BA and an excellent SB total, but he did it in relative obscurity while butchering balls in the OF. Without the benefit of those useful stats (WAR, OPS), the vote can be explained.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I find it humorous that the link to this entry on <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pagemi02.shtml?utm_source=direct&utm_medium=Share&utm_campaign=ShareTool"Mitchell's page censors out the last half of his name. Hell yeah!
March 21st, 2011 at 4:34 pm
@15.
Thanks for the names, Paul. All good choices for the best-year-as-a-rookie-club.
What I noticed about all these names and the ones I mentioned (except Fidrych, and we're pretty sure we know why he flamed out) is none of them are really young guys. All are 23 or older.
This reminds me of a study Bill James did based on matching similar players who had big first years - his conclusion was a 21 year-old rookie would have 50% higher career value than a 22 year-old rookie with very similar stats. The reason: there's a longer period of skills progression resulting in higher peak value and, consequently, a longer and slower period of skills regression before dropping below replacement value.
I really have no idea, but my hunch is you will not find many 20 to 22 year-olds in the best-year-as-a-rookie club.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
@15.
Thanks for the names, Pete, that is. Don't know why I typed Paul. Sorry.
March 21st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@16/ Pete Says: "...You had Player A {Eddie Murray} who hit more HR, drove in more runs, batted from both sides of the plate, and played a good 1B on a contender..."
Murray actually DHed most of 1977, as Earl Weaver didn't feel comfortable putting him regularly at first base yet. Here's the breakdown in his games started:
DH - 111
1B - 42
LF - 3
In view of Eddie's fielding reputation now, it may surprise a lot of people that Weaver put Lee May (108 games started) over Murray at first, but he probably wanted to let Murray concentrate on his hitting his rookie year.
@11, 12/...I am also someone who is confused as to what standards the ROY voters are using; some years, it's for the best season, and some years it's for the player who looks like he's going to have the best career (1959 - Willie McCovey).
Some years a player who would be the obvious choose is not eligible because he's played a few too many games previously, such as A-Rod in 1996 (does anyone really think Jeter would have won it if A-Rod were eligible?).
March 21st, 2011 at 7:27 pm
@20 - regarding McCovey's selection, if I've used the Play Index correctly it looks like there are only 8 players in the NL who hit a HR in 1959 who were playing their first season. I realize this cuts out players who had cups of coffee in 1958, but George Altman looks like the next best ROY candidate in the NL in 1959. And McCovey outhomered him 13 to 12 despite having only 219 PAs to Altman's 468.
Expanding the search to include players in the NL who hit their first HR in 1958 and 1959, you get that Vada Pinson had a monster season in 1959. I'm assuming Pinson was NOT eligible in 1959, though I think he would have been under the current rules. He had 110 PAs in 1958, and had a pretty outstanding season in 1959 (led the NL in 2Bs and runs, hit 20 HRs with a .316/.371/.509 line).
Looking at pitchers who won their first game in 1959 in the NL, it looks like Ernie Broglio led the way with 7 wins and 133 Ks - but he also had 12 losses and a 4.72 ERA. Bob Gibson was probably the "best" rookie pitcher in 1959, but he went 3-5 with a 3.33 ERA and 48 Ks in 75.2 IP. Expanding the search to 1958 it again looks like there are no players who had cups of coffee in 1958 who had a better year than McCovey's third of a season in 1959.
So I don't think McCovey's ROY was based upon potential - it just seemed to be a down year in the NL for rookies under the eligibility rules back then. If McCovey had not been called up, George Altman likely would have been ROY in 1959 - and he had a .245/.312/.383 line with 12 HR and 47 RBI in over twice the PAs that McCovey had.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Its been mentioned here before, but a "rookie" designation would be nice. A little 'R' next to each season until they lose rookie status.
March 21st, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I'm shocked that he was 59. I guess that's more a sign of my own age that in my mind there's no way he could be almost 60 since I started watching MLB right around when Page broke in.
If I remember correctly, Page was great at hitting off-speed pitches but wasn't great handling fastballs. Kind of rare. Eventually that weakness was exploited.
March 21st, 2011 at 10:04 pm
@Doug, #18: You probably typed Paul because that's my name...not sure where you got Pete 🙂
Looking for young players who did well at 22 or under then faceplanted, I can find Rick Ankiel (an obvious special case), Ben Grieve, Mike Caruso (those two in the same year, yikes!), Milt Cuyler, Phil Plantier (also both in the same year). I stopped at 1984 because I was getting bored....
There were a half-dozen or so others at age 23, such as Jeff Stone and Bret Barberie.
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
@18/Doug Says "...I really have no idea, but my hunch is you will not find many 20 to 22 year-olds in the best-year-as-a-rookie club."
In 1955 Al Kaline had his best year at age-20; he was not a rookie, but it was only his second full year. Same situation for Mel Ott in 1929. I know we're discussing ROY, but it's very unusual for a player to peak at age 20.
@21/Artie Z Says: "@20 - regarding McCovey's selection... .... I'm assuming Pinson was NOT eligible in 1959, though I think he would have been under the current rules. He had 110 PAs in 1958, and had a pretty outstanding season in 1959 (led the NL in 2Bs and runs, hit 20 HRs with a .316/.371/.509 line)... ...So I don't think McCovey's ROY was based upon potential - it just seemed to be a down year in the NL for rookies under the eligibility rules back then..."
Yes, Artie, that's another type of ROY candidacy-pool: sometimes there is not a strong full-season candidate, and _someone_ has to win the award, for either a mediocre full season or a good partial season. Aa you noted, if Pinson were eligible, he probably would've (and should have) won easily.
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@20, Lawrence -- Willie McCovey's selection as 1959 NL ROY does not suggest to me that the voters were considering future potential.
Although McCovey played only 52 games -- about 1/3 of the season -- his bat was so devastating (.354 BA, 1.085 OPS) that he really produced more WAR value in that season than any other NL player who was eligible for the ROY. Vada Pinson, who would have been considered a rookie in '59 by today's rules, did not qualify by the rules of the time.
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:18 pm
(Sorry for duplicating what Artie Z wrote @21.)