Great Players Who Spent Their Careers on Horrible Teams

[raysox]

Rick Nash before his trade, but still counts because he has not played a game with the Rangers.

JUST about to say that.

[thespleenenator]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Andre Dawson. He's probably the most disrespected player in baseball history. The fact that he has only recently been inducted into the Hall of Fame is ridiculous.

[pmoehrin]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Andre Dawson. He's probably the most disrespected player in baseball history. The fact that he has only recently been inducted into the Hall of Fame is ridiculous.

Kind of the same thing with Carew.

Those late 70's-early 80's Expo teams were really good and even into the mid 80's they were still decent. With the Cubs they were roughly a .500 team that won a division title.

He was on multiple teams that had a legitimate chance to win a World Series, but just couldn't get the job done.

[infrared41]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Andre Dawson. He's probably the most disrespected player in baseball history. The fact that he has only recently been inducted into the Hall of Fame is ridiculous.

"The most disrespected player in baseball history?" That's overstating it just a bit, don't you think? The guy won an MVP award in 1987 while playing for a 76 win team.

[GriffinM6]

Walter Johnson and Ernie Banks are great examples.

How about Ted Williams? Greatest hitter who ever lived, Marine Corps fighter pilot, one World Series appearance. You could say that about most Red Sox before 2004, but Williams was the best. (And I'm not a Red Sox fan... at all... not even a little.)

Didn't Walter Johnson win a world series in 1924?

[TheOldRoman]

Didn't Walter Johnson win a world series in 1924?

Yes. The Senators beat the Giants in seven games in 1924, then made it back and lost to the Pirates in seven games the next year.

[Dexter Morgan]

Don Mattingly and Ted Williams qualify?

[Gfonk04]

Didn't Walter Johnson win a world series in 1924?

Yes. The Senators beat the Giants in seven games in 1924, then made it back and lost to the Pirates in seven games the next year.

On second glance, Johnson's Senators weren't "great," but they weren't horrible either, though they had a lot of mediocre years during his time on the team. But considering how good Johnson was, he was sort of wasted on the Sens compared to the success he might have had on the Giants, Athletics or Yankees (for example) during that era.

Don Mattingly and Ted Williams qualify?

Mattingly absolutely. The Bombers were just not very good during his time with them, despite Mattingly's ability.

Williams qualifies I think. The Red Sox were okay in the late 40s, but for the rest of Ted's career just weren't that great. Williams only appeared in one World Series, which seams significant until you consider that there was no playoff schedule to get through, the seasons were shorter and there were fewer teams in the league. During that era you'd really need sustained finishes at the top of the league to be considered a great team, in my opinion.

[pmoehrin]

Didn't Walter Johnson win a world series in 1924?

Yes. The Senators beat the Giants in seven games in 1924, then made it back and lost to the Pirates in seven games the next year.

On second glance, Johnson's Senators weren't "great," but they weren't horrible either, though they had a lot of mediocre years during his time on the team. But considering how good Johnson was, he was sort of wasted on the Sens compared to the success he might have had on the Giants, Athletics or Yankees (for example) during that era.

Well that's the thing with Johnson. I don't if any player in Major League history just flat out carried a team like Walter Johnson carried the Senators. You take him off that team and they would have been just downright awful. Most of the years he played the Senators were either last or next to last in OPS. So in alot of games he pitched it was all on Johnson to win it.

Also if people really want to know how much more loyal players were back as opposed to today, need look no further then Watler Johnson. He wanted out of D.C. in the worst way and was one of the most outspoken critics of the reserve clause for his era. The Senators wouldn't trade because he was the franchise player and there was no way they could ever get return value for him. Had free agency existed back then, no question he would have been out of D.C. the first chance he got. Without question the most dominant pitcher of his era and arguably the greatest pitcher of all-time. Every team in baseball would have wanted him on their roster regardless of their current pitching situation.

With Mattingly alot of people may not know this, but the Yankees were the winningest team in baseball during the 1980's despite only making two playoff appearances. He was on seven teams that won at least 85 games and that's not counting the two powerhouse teams he was on in '94 and '95. So no I can't see him being classified as someone who played for bad teams for most of his career.

With Williams the Red Sox only finished worst then fourth in two years when Williams was on the team the whole season. But when he wasn't there the Red Sox were usually awful. So in that sense I think you could apply the Johnson argument to him in that he was just so dominant he may have accounted for a good 10% of his teams wins, although I think the Red Sox had alot more talent then the Senators did. They were a great team in the late 40's and early 50's. They just had the misfortune of getting good right at the same time as the Yankees were gearing up for the greatest run of postseason success in baseball history. All in all I would say no he's not really somebody who you could say had the misfortune of playing for a perennial loser year in and year out.

[B-Rich]

Guys (and gals, if there are any on this thread), the title of this thread is "great players who spent their careers on horrible teams. Now, the definition of horrible is of course subjective, but I do not think that the definition should be stretched to include "he never won a championship with that team". I'll echo Cujo's criteria; if a player played in the their league's championship game, they shouldn't be making this list. Horrible to me is even much worse than that. Horrible is your team never making the playoffs, never having a winning record, or if you do have a winning record or make the playofffs, it is much too late in your career to contribute or you get bumped in the first round.

By such criteria, Buc's inclusion of Tampa Bay Buccaneer Paul Gruber certainly makes the list. As does Ernie Banks, and of course, the hometown favorite, Archie Manning ("Hey Peyton, just fired up the grill! Better hurry!"). Early baseball players kind of get the shaft; therewas only one league champion and essentially no playoffs back then. Ted Williams played for some bad teams in the 1950s, but made it to the World Series in 1946 and had some tremendous pennant races in the American League during that time. So I don't think Ted Williams qualifies.

Now let's look at another great (hometown) example that Pmoehrin mentioned: Pete Maravich. In college at LSU, he was Naismith Colege Player of the Year (1970), Helms Foundation Player of the Year (1970), UPI PLayer of the Year (1970), AP Player of the Year (1970), Sporting News Player of the Year (1970), a two-time USBWA PLayer of the year (1969-70), three-time SEC Player of the Year (1968-70) and three-time consensus NCAA All American First team (1968-70). In 2005, ESPNU named Maravich the greatest college basketball player of all time. But LSU never even went to NCAA tornament during his time there.

Drafted third overall by the Atlanta Hawks, he spent four years with that team. The first two years they had losing records (36-46 both years) Back in the day in the NBA, this still got them in the playoffs, but they were eliminated in the first round. In his third year in Atlanta, they finished with a winning record (in reverse, 46-36) but again were bounced in the first round of the playoffs. In his last season in Atlanta, the Hawks had a 35-47 record and missed the playoffs.

Traded to the expansion New Orleans Jazz, Maravich did well personally, but the team never had a winning season and never made the playoffs during his and the team's time in New Orleans. With woresening knee problems, he was waived by the Utah Jazz, picked up by the Boston Celtics, and contributed in a limited fashon on the 1979-80 Celtics at the end of the season, going as far as the Eastern conference finals. He retired after that season.

But his NBA career was great while he played for those horrible teams. He made the all-rookie first team (1971), he made the All-NBA first team twice (1976-77), the All-NBA second team twice (1973, 1978), was a five time NBA All-Star, and was named to the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team. Maravich scored 50 or more points six times and 40 or more points thirty-five times in the regular season, and was inducted into the Naismith Memorial BAsketball Hall of Fame.

That, my friends, is a great player who spent his career with horrible teams.

[Chawls]

So I guess Deuce McAllister doesn't qualify. I found out Saints teams to be painfully mediocre during his tenure. Too bad to make the playoffs (excluding the 2000 season) but too good to earn a valuable draft pick. He was our standout workhorse who lingered in the exhausting purgatory of mediocrity.

[MadmanLA]

I don't know if I (or anyone else) would consider Shareef Abdur-Rahim a great player, but he was certainly a consistent 20 PPG and 8-9 RPG player for the his bulk of career, but the teams he played on (Vancouver, Atlanta, Portland, and Sacramento) never made the playoffs or managed a winning season; the Hawks went through their worst playoff drought in franchise history with him there most of that time. He's probably more stat-padder than impact player, if notthing else.

[ninersdd]

Abdur-Rahim got to the playoffs in 2006. I remember the Kings were off to a slow start that year, and some people wondered if he was cursed from making it.

[pmoehrin]

I don't know if I (or anyone else) would consider Shareef Abdur-Rahim a great player, but he was certainly a consistent 20 PPG and 8-9 RPG player for the his bulk of career, but the teams he played on (Vancouver, Atlanta, Portland, and Sacramento) never made the playoffs or managed a winning season; the Hawks went through their worst playoff drought in franchise history with him there most of that time. He's probably more stat-padder than impact player, if notthing else.

I'd say he was a very good player. If he had been on a great team when he was at his best, probably would have been the second scoring option. Good scorer, durable, solid defender, solid rebounder. Only thing he couldn't do well was the pass the ball. But I thought he was one of the best players in the NBA when he was at his peak.

I think he's definitely underated because of the fact that he played on teams that just had no clue what they were doing. The Grizziles gave up on Mike Bibby for Jason Willilams in what has to be one of the dumbest trades in NBA history. They had a ton of bad luck. Michael Dickerson could have been an All-Star I think had he been healthy. And if Bryant Reeves had given a damn and been healthier, he could have potentially had a Hall of Fame career and the Grizzlies would probably still be in Vancouver.

As for the Hawks, maybe the only team in the NBA even dumber then the Grizzlies at the time. Gave up Pau Gasol to get him, then decided to bring in Antoine Walker's fat ass to Atlanta in exchange for Jason Terry. Poor Shareef just could not catch a break with how inept his team's front office were.

[MadmanLA]

Abdur-Rahim got to the playoffs in 2006. I remember the Kings were off to a slow start that year, and some people wondered if he was cursed from making it.

Yeah, you're correct...he was on the same team that featured noted knuckleheads Ron Artest and Bonzi Wells. But still, beyond that one season, his career was still rather unremarkable, even despite putting All-Star numbers virtually every year.

[bosrs1]

Surprised no one has mentioned Tony Gwynn.

[MadmanLA]

Surprised no one has mentioned Tony Gwynn.

I don't think he would qualify, in the spirit of the original question. Yeah, he played on some bad Padres teams, but he also played on three NL Western division winners, and went to two World Series.

[Arts11]

Don Mattingly and Ted Williams qualify?

Man, my earliest baseball memories all centered around Donnie Baseball and the bad Yankees teams he was on. It was such that before I really learned the history of the game, I thought the Yankees were one of those "unlucky" sad-sack franchises (in my defense, I was really young then so despite having heard of legends like Babe Ruth and co., I never really connected them to my then-current Yankees teams).

[bosrs1]

Surprised no one has mentioned Tony Gwynn.

I don't think he would qualify, in the spirit of the original question. Yeah, he played on some bad Padres teams, but he also played on three NL Western division winners, and went to two World Series.

He did spend 12 seasons on pretty pitiful teams out of the 19 in his career.

[JayJaxon]

Ken Griffey Jr.