Comments on: Jim Mason

By: celerinosanchezsombrero

celerinosanchezsombrero — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:45:36 +0000

I remember one year while he was with the Yankees, the first day of spring training he went into the cage to take batting practice and he swung at missed at like the first 20 pitches in a row that he saw. In batting practice, mind you.

By: Josh Wilker

Josh Wilker — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:30:39 +0000

18. 17 : I just checked and 3e32 is in fact his defensive rating in the 1970s Strat game. Out of 93 eligible shortstops in that game (including guys like Brett and Schmidt who of course had other primary positions), Mason's rating is tied for 37th, so in that sense he could be considered to be an above average shortstop for his day, and an above-average major league shortstop is of course a god of fielding compared to the rest of us butterfingered humans. He was also the highest rated fielder among lefty shortstops (not counting Roger Metzger, who dabbled in switch-hitting). I wonder if the mere idea of him being left-handed added some years to his career.

By: Tybalt

Tybalt — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:16:53 +0000

17. 14 : If he hit like that as a 3e32, he didn't deserve to be on a AAA ballfield. That's repugnant. I think he was better than a 3e32 though... looks to be a basic, major-league average SS, which obviously means he could really pick it.

By: Jacob L

Jacob L — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:58:03 +0000

16. 13 If Cesar Izturis can't hold down a starting job, then I would say yes.

By: Joe Romano

Joe Romano — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:31:17 +0000

15. 14 Mason really had no business being a major leaguer for as long as he did, did he?

By: Josh Wilker

Josh Wilker — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:41:22 +0000

14. 13 : Definitely on the endangered species list. But the Red Sox had a guy a couple seasons ago, Alex Gonzalez, who was of that species. Adam Everett also qualifies as a weak-hitting, slick fielding shortstop.

As for Jim Mason, he was weak-hitting, but I don’t know how slick he was in the field. I don’t understand the range factor stat enough to apply it with any confidence, but it seems to my untrained eye that Mason’s range factor stats were in the fair to middlin’ range (scroll down on his page at br.com: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/masonji01.shtml). He also seemed somewhat prone to the error. Also, for what it’s worth (a lot, to me) his Strat-O card in the ’70s online game lists him as something like a 3e32.

By: Joe Romano

Joe Romano — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:15:04 +0000

13. Has the slick-fielding, weak-hitting shortstop become nearly, if not totally extinct in MLB? If totally extinct, who do you think was the last survivor? Was it Rey Ordonez?

By: Josh Wilker

Josh Wilker — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:30:43 +0000

12. FYI: Some interesting comments have recently been appearing on older posts: Doug Bird (Royals), Pete Lacock and Dick Pole (Behold the Unsortable), Bert Blyleven (Rangers), and Craig Kusick and Tony Solaita (Blue Jays). Also, the recent Hall of Fame discussion in the comments for Tommy John, 1980 (Yankees) continues to chug along.

By: Josh Wilker

Josh Wilker — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:34:43 +0000

11. 9 : I also like how the prominent "350" distance marker just off his right hip not only shows him to be facing the wrong way but also seems to comment on, perhaps even mock, his chances of ever again launching a ball beyond that distance (even when facing the right way). And in fact, after this card came out, the owner of the greatest slugging percentage in World Series history never did get another round-tripper. 10 : I know what you mean. Even after I'd started this whole project it took me a little while to be able to immediately place each year (except for '74 and '75, which I've always been able to identify at first glance).

By: Brent is a Dodger Fan

Brent is a Dodger Fan — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:45:44 +0000

10. Every time you put up a card, Josh, I’m not sure which year the card is from. They are all pretty much messed up in my head, though I think 1975 was the year they had the two-toned colored boarders, and the 1974 set at a particular kind of line around the image, with curved corners.

The mystery of not being able to put a year to the card, at least not right away, drives something deep inside to a sense of nostalgia. I’m pretty sure that 1976-1979 were the first times I actually bought the cards when they came out (or had my folks buy them, but whatever). And those cards, just the image, the borders, the Topps logo, the bands of color… they really register for me. Even if you put up a card from one of those years and wrote nothing, I might get something evoked…

Thanks, Josh.