The Hammer Question

[magnumo]

As is frequently the case when rating anything, it comes down to definitions. "Excellent" has different meanings for different people, but everyone would agree that "excellent" is better than "average." When considering sychmd's definitions, one question is: How far above average must a tool be in order to be defined as "excellent?"

I prefer to modify sychmd's definitions a bit, as follows. First, rate each tool into one of five categories:

1. Excellent (or outstanding..... among the best)
2. Good (both "excellent" and "good" are "above average" by definition)
3. Average (key question is how wide should the "average" band - and the other bands - be?)
4. Fair
5. Poor

My definition of "five-tool-player" is that the player must be AT LEAST "good" (no worse than the second quintile when compared to his contemporaries) in all five tools..... while being "excellent" (the first quintile) in more than one tool. Perhaps there's a better way to categorize players' tools than using strict quintiles, but this illustrates the concept behind my definitions.

At any rate, I believe a player should NOT be considered a five-tool-player if ANY of his tools is below "good." McCutchen's arm clearly is below average.... "fair" at best, in my opinion. Hence, he is not a five-tool-player. Nor is he a superstar, at least by my definition. I'm extremely happy that Cutch is a Pirate..... and he's clearly our best player..... and he has the potential to become a superstar (if not a "five-tool-player"), but he's not there yet.

The term "five-tool-player" was original coined to describe that true and rare "superstar" position-player who performed well in all key aspects of the game. In fact, the term "superstar" had become overused and devalued..... causing someone to come up with the term "five-tool-player," in order to better define a superlative player. Unfortunately (but perhaps inevitably) the meaning of the term "five-tool-player" also is becoming diluted and devalued in common usage over time.

I believe the true "five-tool-player" is rare..... much more rare than "Hall of Fame player." In fact, a true "five-tool-player" is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame.

- Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle come to mind as true "five-tool-players."
- Roberto Clemente maybe, although his "power" tool is a bit suspect.
- Dave Parker could probably be included, at least before his drug problems took their toll.
- Among current players, I agree about A-Rod. Josh Hamilton also comes to mind. There may be others (but NOT many).

 

[sychmd]

As is frequently the case when rating anything, it comes down to definitions. "Excellent" has different meanings for different people, but everyone would agree that "excellent" is better than "average." When considering sychmd's definitions, one question is: How far above average must a tool be in order to be defined as "excellent?"

I prefer to modify sychmd's definitions a bit, as follows. First, rate each tool into one of five categories:

1. Excellent (or outstanding..... among the best)
2. Good (both "excellent" and "good" are "above average" by definition)
3. Average (key question is how wide should the "average" band - and the other bands - be?)
4. Fair
5. Poor

My definition of "five-tool-player" is that the player must be AT LEAST "good" (no worse than the second quintile when compared to his contemporaries) in all five tools..... while being "excellent" (the first quintile) in more than one tool. Perhaps there's a better way to categorize players' tools than using strict quintiles, but this illustrates the concept behind my definitions.

At any rate, I believe a player should NOT be considered a five-tool-player if ANY of his tools is below "good." McCutchen's arm clearly is below average.... "fair" at best, in my opinion. Hence, he is not a five-tool-player. Nor is he a superstar, at least by my definition. I'm extremely happy that Cutch is a Pirate..... and he's clearly our best player..... and he has the potential to become a superstar (if not a "five-tool-player"), but he's not there yet.

The term "five-tool-player" was original coined to describe that true and rare "superstar" position-player who performed well in all key aspects of the game. In fact, the term "superstar" had become overused and devalued..... causing someone to come up with the term "five-tool-player," in order to better define a superlative player. Unfortunately (but perhaps inevitably) the meaning of the term "five-tool-player" also is becoming diluted and devalued in common usage over time.

I believe the true "five-tool-player" is rare..... much more rare than "Hall of Fame player." In fact, a true "five-tool-player" is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame.

- Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle come to mind as true "five-tool-players."
- Roberto Clemente maybe, although his "power" tool is a bit suspect.
- Dave Parker could probably be included, at least before his drug problems took their toll.
- Among current players, I agree about A-Rod. Josh Hamilton also comes to mind. There may be others (but NOT many).

thanks for the better details.
i would like to see excellent in at least 3 categories(not just 1) to get the label or 5 tool according to your categories.

Josh Hamilton is a good contemporary addition.
Bo Jackson is another that comes to mind.

 

[magnumo]

Reply to sychmd

I sense that you and I are very close together in the high standard we set for calling someone a five-tool-player.

To reiterate, I posted that I thought a "five-tool-player" should be at least "good" in all five tools and "excellent" in more than one tool. That's tantamount to "excellent" in at least two tools, vs. your stated standard of "excellent" in at least three tools. I won't argue over that.

In looking back in history, there can be little doubt that Babe Ruth was "excellent" in hitting, hitting for power, and arm. In his younger days, Ruth stole a few bases (but was caught a lot, as well). Nevertheless, I don't think he would be rated "good" or excellent" in running..... and I've never heard much about his fielding. At any rate, although Ruth was a superstar, he was NOT a five-tool-player (no doubt his hit tool and his power tool were among the best of all time). Ty Cobb doesn't make it as a five-tool-player, either.

 

[element1286]

Also, there is a difference between being average/good/great defensively at a specific position, and a good defensive player in a tools sense. Almost all guys who can play SS/CF in any capacity, are in a tools sense, above average defenders by default. Since tools are not position dependent.