The Greatest Reds: #6
6. Tony Perez
| Played as Red | Primary Position | Career Rank | Peak Rank | Prime Rank |
| 1964-76, 1984-86 | 1B, 3B | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| Percent Breakdown of Value | Best Season | Best player on Reds | ||
| Hit | Field | Pitch | 1970 | Never |
| 86% | 14% | 0% | ||
| Awards/Honors as a Red | Leading the League | On the Reds Leaderboard | ||
| Inducted to Hall of Fame – 2000 All Star MVP – 1967 All Star – 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1975, 1976 |
N/A |
-2nd in career RBI |
||

via images.art.com
If you’ve had any kind of indoctrination in Reds history, you are well aware of Tony Perez and his proclivity for clutch hitting. If you’ve had any kind of indoctrination in sabermetrics, you are already thinking up ways to discredit that last sentence. So then, how to consider Tony Perez? His career spanned 23 seasons (16 with the Reds), and his lifetime career OPS was 804. Looking at his career splits yields some interesting results, as compared to the 804 benchmark: An OPS of 833 with runners in scoring position (while only 764 with nobody on); when the game was in the 7th inning or later, and the score was close, Perez hit for an 859 mark; in "high leverage" situations (as defined by Tom Tango), the OPS was 859—in low leverage game states it was just 776; and in extra innings, Perez was off the charts with a career 984 OPS. Case closed, right? Digging deeper, if we look at Perez’s best season of 1970, in which he had a 990 OPS, we see almost no difference in his stats if the bases were empty or if there were runners in scoring position…and his high leverage numbers were worse (939 OPS) than his overall totals. In his next best season (1973), Perez actually hit the best in "medium leverage" situations. In 1975, while finishing 3rd in the NL in RBI, Perez’s overall OPS was 34 points higher than when filtering out all but his high leverage at-bats.
Is the clutch status a myth? Not necessarily, but I think there were probably three other issues contributing to this storyline: 1) Perez hit 4th or 5th for some really good offensive teams who put a premium on getting on base. Perez finished in the NL top 10 in RBI ten straight times (1967-76) without putting up consistently gaudy numbers, although he certainly had his moments, so presumably the perception was that there was some intangible skill beyond sheer volume of run-driving opportunity. 2) As documented in Joe Posnanski’s book on the ’75 team, Perez wasn’t very adept at producing quotable copy for the beat writers, so the clutch meme was probably an easy story to create. 3) In Perez’s first three full-time seasons (1967-69), the numbers were so overwhelmingly skewed towards the high leverage performances that it would have been nearly impossible to miss (3-year composite OPS: 823, "late and close" OPS over that period: 1027).
Depending on your point of view, this may constitute evidence for Perez’s clutchness, but it almost certainly set the tone for the rest of his career. As for that career, Perez played in over 1900 games for the Reds and hit well (127 OPS+). His peak came while hitting near a 160 OPS+; potentially MVP-worthy were it not for a certain catcher teammate. Perez was famously traded after the 1976 season to make room for Danny Driessen. Conceptually, the move made sense: Perez was 34 years old, he had clearly settled into a plateau a few degrees removed from his peak, and the Reds were dealing from a place of surplus. In reality, the move didn’t work. Although Driessen was an adequate replacement, the offensive depth was reduced to nothing, and more importantly—the players received from Montreal in return for Perez (Woodie Fryman and Dale Murray) pitched horribly for the Reds. Or maybe there was some clutch element missing…
The Top 15 First Basemen in Reds history
1 Tony Perez
2 Ted Kluszewski
3 Frank McCormick
4 Dan Driessen
5 Jake Beckley
6 Sean Casey
7 Lee May
8 Jake Daubert
9 Dick Hoblitzel
10 Hal Morris
11 Rube Bressler
12 Gordy Coleman
13 Deron Johnson
14 Hal Chase
15 Joey Votto*
*active
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Seeing Jo-eh on that list makes me all kinds of happy
"We, as for me all seasons you are affected peculiarly in the edge of my seat and are happy concerning the fact that the Adam Dunn fan has been mixed up exactly." - Reynard-san
it gave me the hiccups
"Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this."
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 11, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Has Bill Lee's blooper pitch from the 1975 World Series
come down, yet? That moment often has been the one fans point to when they term Doggie as “clutch.” Overlooked is how intelligent a hitter Perez was. He also displayed impressive strength, as he had a tremendous ability to drive breaking pitches.
The first Cuban elected to the Hall of Fame, Perez was the first to say he probably became the player he was because of the talent surrounding him. While that carries a measure of truthfulness, it also shows Perez’s modesty.
Rose often talked about what a clutch hitter Perez was. Morgan mentions the importance of Doggie’s clubhouse presence. Gullett has discussed how impressive Perez was off the field as a husband and a father.
The deal that sent him to Montreal was heartbreaking at the time and maddening in retrospect. I don’t necessarily buy into the argument thatthe Reds would have won another World Series in 1977 had the trade not have been made, but Doggie was quite productive through 1980. It would have been interesting had the Reds kept him
We Are ... Marshall!
by Thundering Turtle on Dec 11, 2009 2:57 PM EST reply actions
One of the interesting things about "The Machine" was how close they were to trading Perez before 1975
They decided to keep him and clearly it paid off in a big way. I think that winning it in ‘75 bought Perez another year, but it’s interesting that winning in ‘76 didn’t persuade the powers that be to keep Doggie one more year. I don’t know for certain, but I want to say that free agency had just come into play, and that might have factored into the decision (more money was needed to keep other components of the Machine?). Am I off base with that?
by Brendanukkah on Dec 11, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions
I've been trying to find that clip online for forever now
I love Posnanski’s explanation of the swing, like a car going from neutral to 2nd gear.
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
I watched the DVD the other day
Tony flinches slightly at about the time we would have begun his swing on just about any other pitch. The effect seemed to be that he ends up coiling a bit more than usual. If Perez was looking for it, as Poz writes, then it took him a split second to recognize it. But he kept his hands back.
by ben nevis on Dec 12, 2009 12:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It was Bob Howsam.
He gets a pass, though, based on his full body of work.
We Are ... Marshall!
by Thundering Turtle on Dec 12, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's too bad he's not getting in the HOF
If I could get worked up about non-player inductions/snubs, this would be at the top of my list.
Look up Clutchiness in the Oxford annotated dictionary
answer

I cannot believe that he is not nearer to number 1 on the list…especially that it appears that Bench could be closer
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Great player
No question Rose, Morgan, Perez, Bench together was kind of the unique batting order because they complement each other so much with speed and power. This is what the Big Red machine was all about. In many ways Tony because of his broken English and Cuban background, was also a very humble person. He had his unique swing, bat speed and extension to generate power. I’d like to say that Sparky was marvellous in keeping his all stars in status quo and the Reds did not have any of those fat-heads bragging, screaming and yelling “ME” that is essential in continuously winning championships. Truly without any big name starting pitchers, Sparky’s use of the bullpen also made history during this era.
Hard to believe that we can only must 13 comments on the greatest firstbaseman in Red's history.
Tony Perez the Mayor of Riverfront
The Big Dog
The calm and professional presence that made every team he played with that much better.
Perez was genetically wired to be a leader, he never had to grab for power or probably didn’t even want it. When he was at the plate there was always a sense of anticipation…every AB, even in the meaningless games. Who on this 2010 version of the Reds even comes close?
Not BP
Not Rolen
Not Gomes
Not Votto.
Not Harang
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
interesting stat
not only was the trade stupid and the players received useless and an incredibly positive clubhouse presence missed, but if you take the career stats only after the trade (which misses out on tony’s best years), tony still outperformed
(stat wise) danny driessen in almost every category and, despite tony being significantly older, tony continued playing while danny driessen retired.
by Big Red Machine on Dec 13, 2009 11:49 PM EST reply actions
that's not true
Here are their totals after Perez was traded:
Player G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ wOBA
Driessen 1294 4910 4214 564 1109 225 13 128 578 112 51 611 558 .263 .356 .414 .770 113 .328
Perez 1049 3815 3452 384 942 192 25 102 537 10 7 312 629 .273 .331 .432 .763 108 .323
Driessen was worth about 14 WAR after the deal, while Perez was worth about 8 WAR after he was traded. Also, Driessen retired the year after Perez.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Wow - i would never have guessed that DD was that effective
Maybe it was because he wasn’t clutch.
There is an overriding misconception that Clutch is an overriding misconception.
Ratio the Numbers UP for Perez
Give Perez the AB’s Driessen got and see who was better. Driessen was supposed to be a batting champ contender when they traded Tony. But Tony still outhit him for average has a 40 year old.
The ratios are there BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/wOBA
The point of the trade was that Driessen would provide the same production as Perez, but he was younger and cheaper. That is what happened. Driessen was never as good as Perez in his prime, but neither was Perez after he was traded. It’s always seemed to me that people held that against Driessen, but he was still a good player. The fact is that people who watched the BRM were spoiled.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Perez Reds Best 1967 thru 1969
OK, I nearly agree with everything I have read from these ratings of Red history. But I do disagree with something on the Perez stat sheet. I believe Tony to be the best Red from 1967 to 1969. No one is close with the exception of Rose. And Rose does not nearly eclipse Perez in run production in any of those years. He may have has a higher average, but that is it. Rose may have an argument in 1969 because he did lead the lead. But I see no argument for 1968 and now way on earth for 1967. Tony still underrated even by Reds fans!!!
Rose vs. Perez '67-'69
it’s not even close dude. Rose was clearly the better player. Rose hit .329/.396/.476 while Perez hit .289/.341/.482. Rose had all the power that Perez did (of course, Rose’s was more doubles-power while Doggie’s was more HRs), but he also got on base like a rockstar. Rose had an OPS+ of 144 while Perez’ was only 129. if you wanna get real statsy, according to Rally’s WAR database Rose was worth 17.9 wins compared to Perez’ 13.9. outside of HRs, Perez is clearly the inferior ballplayer.
"Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this."
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 15, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
Rose vs Perez 1967
Look at the numbers from 1967 for sure: I just don’t see a difinitive Rose is the greatest award for this year.
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB BA OBP SLG OPS
Perez 156 644 600 78 174 28 7 26 102 33 .290 .328 .490 .818
Rose 148 647 585 86 176 32 8 12 76 56 .301 .364 .444 .808
don't forget that Perez at the time was playing terrible defense at 3B
while Rose was a slightly above average LF who also played some 2B. I think that is what puts Rose over the top in 1967. And Rose was much better offensive in 1968 and 1969.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Defense
In 1967 Rose had 11 errors and Perez 13. Plus Rose played mostly in the outfield where errors are less common. Fielding percentage for 1967 Rose .972 Perez .974
Fielding Percentage doesn't tell you how many balls a player gets to
Errors can be deceptive because a player can be sure-handed but fail to get to very many balls (see: Derek Jeter). Perez didn’t make many errors, but he made far fewer plays than the typical 3B did. Rose only made 4 errors in LF, but most of his defensive value comes from 2B where he was getting to a lot more balls than the typical 2B. So, despite making quite a few errors, he was still turning in some solid play by getting to balls that most 2B didn’t get to. That’s important.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
Much better
Boy Rose must have been greater than Ruth in 1969. Perez had 37 HR’s 122 RBI’s and hit .294 with lots of power. Much better I don’t think so.
As a matter of fact
Rose was pretty damn good in 1969. His batting line was .348/.428/.512, all career highs. He led the league in batting average, was 3rd in OBP, and 9th in SLG. The baseball writers seemed to think that Rose was better in 1969 as he finished 4th in the MVP voting while Perez finished 10th.
Perez partly had so many RBI because he had the 6th most base runners on in front of him in the league. Both he and Rose drove in 20% of the base runners on base for them, but Perez had 452 base runners compared to Rose’s 337. Perez got a big boost in RBI numbers because Rose was batting in front of him.
Red Reporter or follow on Twitter: @redreporter
I get all tingly watching you two argue over who was better that year
I sincerely hope to have that argument about Bruce and Votto one day.
"Santa Claus doesn't use Craigslist." -- 'tHan
The Big Dog
Measure him to anybody else for his era and the same fact comes up.
If you have a man on second base and you need to score the run, you put Perez in the batter’s box.
But he will be remembered for one swing ….
I got to meet Tony once. A gentle giant. Very pleasant person.

by 


























