How low can you go?

 

Last night at work I came across a Philadelphia Inquirer story suggesting that it was time to update the stats that are on the backs of Topps baseball cards.

It was the familiar line you've heard before: the statistical categories we grew up with are antiquated, don't properly measure the value of a player, etc. And, although I've come to appreciate some newer stats like OPS, I'll never get a handle on all of them and, more importantly, I'll never care as much as I did with the other stats.

There will always be a part of brain that values batting average and runs batted in because that's what I knew as key measuring stats for the first 25-to-30 years of my fandom. It's difficult to put that aside, and I'm not eager to see a bunch of new stats on the backs of my baseball cards (although the article headline doesn't seem to grasp that Topps has already incorporated a few of the newer stats on its backs).

I don't think collectors these days look at card backs much anyway, particularly to get a player's stats, so what's the point of a statistical rehaul on cards?

The prime time for card-back viewing, at least from my perspective, was smack in the middle of the '70s and '80s when I was collecting feverishly and turning over every last card.

Back in 2014, I mentioned a habit I had as a youngster where I'd look at the backs of each card for that particular year and try to determine which players in my collection had the WORST career batting average. I'd compile a top 10 (or bottom 10) right there on the bedroom floor, satisfied that this was a bit of info that I knew and no one else did.

In that post I looked through the 1979 Topps set and found the bottom 10 in average. I also suggested that I'd try this for other sets in future posts, but per usual, I never went back to it.

I'm going back to it now -- even though batting average means even less than it ever has. Have you seen the batting averages on players these days? The manager just keeps sending these guys to the plate who are batting one-seventy-one. These certainly aren't the days when everyone knew if your average dipped below .240, you best be Dave Kingman (which every modern player just about is now) or you sit your fanny on the bench.

This time I'm looking at the 1989 Topps set and finding those bottom dwellers. The career averages on these 10 are even worse than the ones I found in 1979, perhaps because the set was larger 10 years later?

Anyway, here are those bottom 10:

.187

10. Johnny Paredes, Expos

With the 1979 set, I started with .207 as the best of the worst. We're already under .200 with the first candidate in the 1989 set. I'll bet Mario Mendoza wishes he had lasted to the '89 set.

 

 

.185

 

9. Craig Worthington, Orioles

 

Craig Worthington would land a rookie cup from Topps the very next year but he's ninth on the list after his first 26 games in the majors.

 

 

.184

 

8. Darryl Hamilton, Brewers

The late Darryl Hamilton began his career in 1988 with a .184 average in 44 games. He would rectify that in his next four big league seasons, never batting below .295 in any one. But this list doesn't consider where you are in your career. (Yes, I know the top picture is out of order. I've already put the cards back in the binder, I'm not pulling them out again).

 

.182

7. Orestes Destrade, Pirates

A future member of my baseball fantasy team in the mid-1990s. Perhaps I should have considered his 1989 baseball card? He had one big year for Florida in 1993.

.181

6. Tom Prince, Pirates

Another Pirate. Prince was a regular member of the Triple A Buffalo Bisons back when I would sporadically cover the team in the late 1980s. Ten years into the future, he'd wind up on a Dodgers card. But his career average was still below .200.

 

 

.175

5. Randy Velarde, Yankees

 

Randy Velarde would go on to be one of the longest-tenured Yankees of the 1990s, kept on for his versatility. He batting average would improve but he was rarely a regular full-time player.

 

 

.172

 

4. Mark Parent, Padres

Mark Parent is exhibiting the classic catcher pose and had the classic catcher batting average of the time to go with it. But Parent made the role work for him for 13 years in the majors, getting up to .214.

 

 

.168

3. Ron Karkovice, White Sox

 

Still trying to connect in the majors at this point, Karkovice would end up getting regular time as a catcher for the White Sox in the early 1990s. He hit 20 home runs for them in 1993.

 

 

.167

 

 2. Keith Miller, Phillies

"The other Keith Miller" in the 1989 Topps set. This Keith Miller didn't hit like the Mets' Keith Miller. He lasted eight more games in 1990 with the Phillies and that was the end of his big league career.

 

 

.136

1. Ron Tingley, Indians

Ron Tingley was a 32-year-old rookie at the time this card arrived. He'd play into the early 1990s, appearing on cards in 1994 and getting his career average into the .190s.

That's a lot of time in the minors.

But Tingley's .136 average is not as low as the lowest average in the 1979 Topps set. If I combine those two together for the bottom 10, this is what I get:

1. Luis Pujols, 1979 Topps, .125

2. Ron Tingley, 1989 Topps, .136

3. Keith Miller, 1989 Topps, .167

4. Ron Karkovice, 1989 Topps, .168

5. Mark Parent, 1989 Topps, .173

6. Randy Velarde, 1989 Topps, .175

7. Tom Prince, 1989 Topps, .181

8. Orestedes Destrade, 1989 Topps, .182

9. Darryl Hamilton, 1989 Topps, .184

10. Craig Worthington, 1989 Topps, .185

All of them are from 1989 except the Pujols card. The second-lowest batting average for the 1979 set was Bill Plummer's .188.

I'm going to continue doing this series, but I better pick up the pace because at this rate I'll need to live to be at least Ron Tingley's career batting average, with the decimal point moved three places to the right.