Nagashima vs. Oh

The Japanese have a wonderful expression that probably answers this question best: Kiroku wa Oh, kioku wa Nagashima. It plays on the similarity of the words kiroku, "records," and kioku, "memories," and basically means "For numbers, Oh; for memories, Nagashima."

My article ranking the all-time greatest Japanese players [BaseballGuru.com] has Oh at first and Nagashima at third.

Granted, that article looks at it from a career perspective, but I don't think that changing the perspective to a prime or peak performance approach would change the conclusion that Oh was the greater player.

Career stats for both men:
           Nagashima    Oh
MVPs            5        9
Best Nines     17 (3B)  18 (1B)
Games       2,186    2,831
AB          8,094    9,250
R           1,270    1,967
H           2,471    2,786
2B            418      422
3B             74       25
HR            444      868
RBI         1,520    2,170
BB            969    2,390
SB            190       84
AVG          .305     .301
OB Pct       .380     .445
Slg          .540     .634

The Japanese Gold Gloves weren't awarded until Nagashima's last two years (he won both at 3B) and Oh's last 9 seasons (he won all of them, all at 1B). I'd think Nagashima probably rates an advantage on defense, but especially since Oh was a good defensive first baseman, I cannot see how that advantage can outweigh the significant edges Oh possesses as a hitter.

Jim Albright

I've often heard people attribute Nagashima's popularity to being a better clutch performer. Are there any stats to support that claim?

First let me say I'm a believer in Bill James' take on "clutch" performance -- at the very best it is a molehill that its supporters have blown up into a mountain. Therefore, I haven't researched such a topic. Further, with the poor skills I have in Japanese, I would be hard pressed to do so if I wanted to. However, I have seen extensive stats on Oh, and they are presented in the baseballguru.com site. I see nothing there to suggest Oh wasn't at his usual high level in the "clutch".

I think the reasons for Nagashima's greater popularity in Japan are due to some combination of the following factors:

1. Nagashima was a better showman,
2. Nagashima was more outgoing, and
3. both of Nagashima's parents were Japanese, while Oh had one Japanese parent and one Chinese).

Jim Albright

I basically agree with you in the view on clutchness. I will also share an anecdote I experienced while visiting Japan. A couple of family friends in Japan (both over 60 years old casual Giants fans) were discussing the possibility of Matsui winning a triple crown (this was last season). They went on to talk about past triple crown winners. After they mentioned Ochiai, Bass, and Nagashima, one of them brought up Oh, then the other dismissed him (incorrectly), saying that while Oh has hit lots of homeruns, his average has never been good enough to win a batting title.

Granted this is only two people, but I wonder if that's the general misconception of Oh among casual fans in Japan.

Oh won two Triple Crowns, for crying out loud, and nine MVP's. But Nagashima did have a penchant for upstaging Oh. For example, when Oh set the homer record in 1964, that was the year that Nagashima decided to marry his girlfriend and the wedding was broadcast on national television, which garnered the highest ratings of any program that year.

In a lot of ways, Nagashima is a comical character. He is notoriously absent minded and he tortures the English language trying to sound sophisticated. Yet, I think people find that endearing in contrast to the more introverted and cerebral Oh.

Then there was Katsuya Nomura's evaluation of a talk Nagashima gave the other night, where the former Giants' third baseman rambled on and on. Nomura afterward called it "Nagashima's Yamanote Line speech." The Yamanote train line goes around in a circle in Tokyo. In other words, Nagashima was talking in circles.

I neglected to mention in my previous post that the two were teammates from 1959 to 1974. Nagashima played in 1958, but retired in '74. Oh continued to play through 1980.

Jim Albright

Perhaps the most well known "clutch hit" Nagashima hit was the controversial sayonara home run that he hit in front of the Emporor at Korakuen Stadium.

It was the first baseball game that the Emporor had attended, so the legend goes, and just as the Emporor was preparing to leave, Nagashima hit a long drive over the left field fense. The umpire ruled it fair, a home run, much to the dismay of the left fielder who, to his dying day, swore that it was foul.

Nonetheless, Nagashima came through in the clutch for the Emporor. With that one swing of the bat, he sealed his place in history as a clutch hitter under the most important of circumstances.

Seiyu-san, can you separate the myth from the facts of the story?

OK, where should I start...

Let me start out by simply saying, Oh is a much better ballplayer than Nagashima, period.

Nagashima joined the Giants in 1958 after his heralded college playing days. At that time, popularity of college baseball was just as high, if not higher, than that of NPB. He set all kinds of college records, and right from the beginning, he became a star professional player by winning the homerun and RBI titles. Nagashima's first 4 years were magnificent, outplaying most player in NPB at that time.

The legendary game in the presence of the Emperor (14 years after he de-divinified himself, Hirohito was still very much revered back than) occurred in his second year. That swing forever helped put Nagashima into the stratosphere.

Then came Oh, a half Chinese player who was not allowed to play in the Kokutai (National Athletic Game) because of his ethnicity. I agree with Albright-san that his ethnicity did play a big role. Nevertheless, he was a superstar as a high schooler, winning the heralded National High School Championship as an ace pitcher and batting 4th. He joined the Giants in Nagashima's second year. He struggled the first 3 years while Nagashima was at the peak of his career.

Nagashima's first 4 years were not only important to himself, but was also significant in modern Japanese history. The economy started to skyrocket, and the so-called "postwar babies" had grown up to become teenagers. He was their ultimate hero. Every boy growing up wanted to play third base and wear #3.

Nagashima's personality and his showmanship also helped. No one in baseball has even come close to him in terms of his ability to shine. The closest thing in the U.S. to the Nagashima family is the "Kennedy Clan," seriously. Nagashima is bigger than baseball. Ichiro or Matsui doesn't even come close. They are both more similar to Oh than Nagashima. In my opinion, those 4 years between 1958 and 1961 sealed the fate of how those two players were judged then and now. Those 4 years forever etched Nagashima's "memories" as CFiJ-san says, "in people's mind."

In 1962, Oh switched to the famous "Ippon-ashi daho" (flamingo-batting stance). He was 22 years old, equivalent to the year Nagashima became a professional. From that point on, it was all Oh. From 1962 to 1974, when Nagashima retired, Oh outplayed Nagashima in batting average 9 out of 13 years, homeruns in all 13 years (didn't even come close), RBIs 10 out of 13 years.

Oh hit in the third spot most of the time and drew monstrous numbers of walks year after year (in Japan, best player hits 4th). He averaged 122 walks per year during that timespan compared to Nagashima's 54. Kawakami put Nagashima in the 4th spot because he would get fired up when pitchers walked Oh to pitch to Nagashima. I wonder how Oh would have done if he hit after Nagashima.

Statistically, Nagashima didn't even come close to Oh. People talk about ON preventing each other from becoming the triple crown winner, but it was more like Nagashima and others, e.g., the Dragons' Shinichi Etoh beating Oh in one category Oh needed to reach the triple crown year after year.

Even during their 5 twighlight years of their careers, one can also see that Oh dominated statistically. So why is Nagashima so much more popular than Oh other than the 4 years I mentioned above? Their personality, showmanship etc.? It really beats the hell out of me too!!!

I started watching NPB around 1967 when Oh was already dominant and really wondered why Nagashima was more popular. I think it is summed up by the way these two were described in the media. Nagashima was "a natural, born to play" (human being). Oh was "Kaibutsu Oh Sadaharu" (Monster). Maybe people can identify more with a "man" rather than a "monster."

ON head-to-head comparison
(red: winner of the head-to-head comparison)

  Nagashima				Oh

  Year   Hr   RBI  BB    AVE		Hr   RBI  BB    AVE
  1958   29   92   36   .305	
  1959   27   82   70   .334		 7   25   24   .161
  1960   16   64   70   .334		17   71   67   .270
  1961   28   86   88   .353		13   53   64   .253
  1962   25   80   51   .288		38   85   72   .272
  1963   37  112   86   .341		40  106  123   .305
  1964   31   90   96   .314		55  119  119   .320
  1965   17   80   50   .300		42  104  138   .322
  1966   26  105   58   .344		48  116  142   .311
  1967   19   77   37   .283		47  108  130   .326
  1968   39  125   66   .318		49  119  121   .326
  1969   32  115   38   .311		44  103  111   .345
  1970   22  105   40   .269		47   93  119   .325
  1971   34   86   59   .320		39  101  121   .276
  1972   27   92   63   .266		48  120  108   .296
  1973   20   76   37   .269		51  114  124   .355
  1974   15   55   24   .244		49  107  158   .332
  1975					33   96  123   .285
  1976					49  123  125   .325
  1977					50  124  126   .324
  1978					39  118  114   .300
  1979					33   81   89   .285
  1980					30   84   72   .236

A couple of things:

1. Oh had a late homer which tied the famous "Emperor's Game," setting the stage for Nagashima's heroics.
2. The counts on the head to head (only counting years both were active, a method which is biased in favor of the less durable Nagashima):

          Nagashima   Oh
   HR        2        14
   RBI       7         9
   BB        3        13
   Avg       7         9

Oh clearly wins the comparison, without even allowing for the fact Nagashima's RBI wins were almost certainly boosted by batting behind an on-base machine like Oh, though Oh knocked in a lot of runners, which probably has a smaller negative effect on Nagashima's RBIs.

Thanks for your support Albright-san. I think ALbright-san agrees with me that we are not trying to put Nagashima down. We just think Oh is underrated when compared to Nagashima. Mantle and Mays or Mantle and Aaron comparisons are too close. Statistically, I would say Oh = Babe Ruth and Nagashima = Gehrig, except their personality are the exact opposite. Oh is more like Gehrig's personality. Ruth is more like Nagashima.

I am not putting Nagashima down. While he is the second or third best Japanese player ever in my estimation, I feel it is beyond doubt that his accomplishments pale in comparison to Oh, who is the best Japanese player ever. If we're comparing them to major leaguers, Oh is most like Eddie Murray or Mel Ott, while Nagashima is probably most like Brooks Robinson or Ron Santo (who really does belong in Cooperstown, IMO).

Others may think I am over- or under-estimating the talents of these two men, but that's what my research tells me. Further, when I compare anyone to people I believe are of legitimate Cooperstown quality (leaving out the clear mistakes in enshrinement, like Highpockets Kelly), I am saying they are among the very best players who ever played the game. I would tell anyone who thinks my assessment insults or degrades either man that I wish that the most stinging insult ever directed at me was so complimentary.

Jim Albright

I understand the bias towards Nagashima with my comparison. But that is because I wanted to give Nagashima a little bias, because if I don't do that, as your calculations show, Oh blows away Nagashima statistically. It's a respect that I have for MISTER.

I feel a need to add my own two cents here because it seems that the great Nagashima isn't being given his due respect.


First, there is no doubt that Nagashima's popularity had a great deal to do with being "pure" Japanese and a highly charismatic player. Second, since Oh was a much more powerful hitter and played five more years, he has much more impressive career numbers than Nagashima.

But one could make a pretty strong argument that Nagashima played an equally vital role in helping to win championships. He inspired other players by his relentless drive, and indeed was a tremendous clutch performer. While the home run that he hit to win the "Emperor's Game" in 1959 was his proudest moment (and probably the most memorable moment in Japanese baseball history), he generally played best when games were on the line.

Below is a brief summary of the Japan Series totals of Nagashima and Oh.

Nagashima -- 68 G, 296 AB, 49 R, 91 H, 25 HR, 66 RBI, .343 AVG
Japan Series MVP -- 4 times

Oh -- 77 G, 334 AB, 58 R, 68 H, 29 HR, 63 RBI, .281 AVG
Japan Series MVP -- none

I bring these matters up not to denegrate Oh, but to elevate Nagashima. They both were incredible athletes.

Thanks for the Japan Series stats. I guess they at least show the common view that Nagashima was a better clutch player is not totally imaginary. I don't think there's ever a doubt that Nagashima was a great player (Jim ranked him 3rd. all-time?). The reason(s) for this huge disparity in popularity is what people are questioning.

The other great player that seems to garner even less respect is Nomura. Playing for Nankai (or not playing for the Giants) seems to have an even greater effect on your popularity then not being a "pure" Japanese.

Dusanh, I'm glad that you find the stats helpful, and hope that other readers do, too. While some of the entries on this thread deal with the popularity issue, many others focus on the original question of who was better in their prime, while still others deal with who was better throughout their careers. Given the drift of some of the entries, I felt a need to further accentuate the excellence of Nagashima.

The issue of Nagashima's popularity seems to interest many readers, so I thought they might like to read the following excerpt from pages 189 and 190 of A Zen Way of Baseball, the beautiful autobiography that Oh wrote with David Falkner. Due to Oh's intimate familiarity with the "Nagashima pheomenon," I'm sure that he is able to explain it better than any of us. I hope everyone will excuse the length of this excerpt, but it all seemed relevant.

I have always believed from the day I first met him in Tokyo Station that Nagashima-san had a "mysterious" part that accounted for the tremendous hold he had on the imaginations of people in our country. It is this part that makes me think he had genius as well as great talent. With it, Nagashima-san revolutionized our game.

The best way I can think of to describe this "myserious part" is to recall the oneness he had with fans and players alike. Nagashima-san was the kind of player who seemed genuinely to depend on the support of fans. When the game was on the line and the fans were wild for a hit, he always seemed to rise to the occasion. It was as though he allowed the fans to lift the level of his game. If ever he was in a slump, everyone in the park would be aware of it; there was a way Nagashima-san carried himself that seemed to draw everyone into his own trouble, so that there might be help and comfort to get him through.

Nagashima-san had the ability to make a routine play look like a great one and a great one merely routine. If the fans seemed to hang on his every move, he seemed always to be perfectly attuend to what they were feeling. If they wanted to roar with approval -- he would provide them with a moment; if they wanted to laugh -- he would find a way; if they needed, somehow, as a collective body, to express the poignancy of things -- he would concentrate that longing and draw it into his own person.

A genius, it is often said, usually has a side that is quirky and arrogant. This was not the case with Nagashima-san. He was the most natural of men, a hard worker and easy-going at the same time. Emotional to the point of seeming almost dependent, he always had a way of being totally captivating. With reporters and the media, he always had the right words to go with looks that everyone agreed were handsome and dashing. In the clubhouse he did little things that seemed to endear himself to his teammates. Sometimes he would put two socks on the same foot or start to the field wearing someone else's uniform shirt -- and hence someone else's name on his back. He always did these things in such a way that everyone knew they were happening. There were expolsions of affection and emotion around him wherever he went.

It seems that statistics lovers such as myself need to keep reminding ourselves that as insightful as they can be, they are very limited. Baseball is much bigger than statistics or any other evaluative tools. The magic of players such as Nagashima, Ichiro, Willie Mays, and Babe Ruth can never be quantified. Oh certainly had his own sort of magic, and together with Nagashima they spurred the Yomiuri Giants on to championships. But Nagashima's personality and athletic excellence seemed to be what Japan most needed at a critical point in its history, and I feel that this -- along with his pure Japanese blood -- largely accounts for his immense popularity.

They were both great players and comparing them is like comparing Mays vs Mantle.

Alright, so who are some of the other great Yomiuri Giants in the history of the NLB?

Have a look at Albright-san's Best Giants' Franchise All-Star Team [BaseballGuru.com - has all 12 teams]. He's got a number of related articles such as Japan's greatest players, etc.

Nagashima certainly seemed to be a showman, and really entertained the crowds. I love the way Nagashima used to really ham it up when he swung and missed. I've seen some footage of real classics: legs sprawling, bat flying, butt in the air, pained expression... all because he struck out.

Just to straighten out the Emperor's Game homer: it was the pitcher who gave up the homer, Minoru Murayama, who contended until he died that the ball was foul, not the left fielder.

As for Nagashima, I don't think anyone is saying that he wasn't a great player. He was certainly that, as seen by the interest in him by the St. Louis Cardinals and L.A. Dodgers.

However, it is hard to understand his popularity when Oh's numbers are not only great, but absolutely staggering. Dan Johnson's quoting his Japan Series numbers makes a good case for some of that popularity, but on the other hand, he was a terrible manager and "guided," if you can call it that, the Giants to their first last place finish in history in 1975. Oh is a much better manager (look at what he did with Daiei) than Nagashima, so again, it is hard to fathom Nagashima's popularity over Oh from a pure baseball standpoint.

The argument that Nagashima came along at the right time while Japan was building itself into a major economic power is more persuasive to me, personally, as far as explaining his popularity. He was the jewel for a while of Japan's most popular team, so that may carry more weight than what he did vis a vis Oh.

What I tried to get across with the Japanese quote I mentioned above is that even in Japan it is clearly accepted that Oh was the better player. I don't think anyone disputes this. Nagashima, while leaving excellent and clearly Hall of Fame numbers, doesn't hold many records, and none of real distinction. On the other hand, the record book is practically a paean to Oh; most homers in a career, most homers in a season, most walks in a season, the list goes on and on. There is no question that Oh was the better player, while that takes nothing away from Nagashima.

But who is the better player has nothing to do with popularity. If numbers alone dictated popularity, Albert Belle would be more loved in Chicago than Mark Grace, and that's clearly not the case. Ted Williams would have been a national baseball hero, rather than Joe Dimaggio.

I could espouse some subjective national psychoanalysis and talk about how Nagashima represented to the Japanese everything they could not be; fiery, emotional, expressive, singular, and yet still remain quintessentially Japanese, and I do believe that. But in the end, Nagashima was more popular because he did more memorable things.

Pro Yakyu lore is filled with legendary images of Nagashima: the sayonara home run in front of the Emperor, skipping down the third base line as his teammates crowded the plate, wriggling his fingers after throwing the ball across the diamond, diving in the dirt infield of Korakuen Stadium until his white Giants uniform was a stained mess, putting his bat down and pantomiming holding it in protest of being intentionally walked. Add to this his handsome good looks, his attractive actress wife, the quirky and funny things he said. All these things, as well as his high-caliber of play on the most popular team contributed to people knowing of him, and feeling like they know him, and liking him.

In sharp contrast to Nagashima, Oh and Nomura, both who left better numbers than him, were very cool, collected, not showy, and somewhat staid. People often bring up Oh's Chinese ancestry as an explanation why Nagashima was more popular than him, but I'm not sure that was really such a large factor. I think that in the end Nagashima just did more things that made him memorable to the nation at large, instead of just baseball fans. His popularity transcends his baseball career.

I've always thought the distinction between the two could be seen this way: Oh's career homers total is 868; it is distinctive in being the only 800 total in professional baseball (as recognized by the Guiness book), and it's distinctive for being the world record. Nagashima's career homer total was 444; a completely idiosyncratic number, not particularly high, not particularly lucky in Japanese superstition, and also very easy to remember. Kiroku wa Oh; Kioku wa Nagashima.

LOL. Interesting quote you have there. Shinjo said the same thing about himself and Ichiro's performance in the Majors. "Kiroku wa Ichiro ni makashite, kioku wa ore in makashite kudasai."

Problem in this case is, some people have selective kioku. I, for one, remember "the throw" by Ichiro, better than anything Shinjo did in the majors.

I guess it all depends on your taste. I've always prefered players who are more like Oh and Nomura, letting their plays do the talking. Great players never lacked memorable moments: Ted Williams' not sitting out to preserve .400 and the last at-bat homer, Oh's 715th home run and his Japan Series sayonara shot against Yamada. Hideo Nomo's two no-hitters, etc.

Getting back to the original question of who was better in their prime, well, Nagashima was an absolute terror during his first six years, hitting .334 or better four times (which he did five times in his career, and Oh did twice) and tallying 150 or more hits every year (which he did 11 times in his career and Oh did only once, partially, of course, because he drew so many walks). And during the V-9 championship years, Nagashima hit an amazing .376 in the Japan Series while Oh batted .293. If we also consider the huge impact of Nagashima's "mystery part," as Oh calls it, his speed, and his flair for producing in clutch situations, I feel that he certainly gives Oh a run for his money. However, due to his awesome power, Oh's offensive contributions in his prime were even more staggering than those of Nagashima during the regular season, and he produced even more runs than Nagashima in the Japan Series during the V-9 years. So, I would give Oh the overall edge.

But not everyone in Japan would quickly agree with this position. While I was there, I made a point of asking many long-term Japanese baseball followers about specific players. I felt that this would give me some insights that I couldn't gain through statistics and most written materials. Of course, they invariably acknowledged that overall, Oh was a far more productive hitter. But some of them emphasized that Nagashima was more of a driving force behind the Giants, and sometimes added that they would rather have him at bat in an important situation. So, the people I talked with often had a hard time judging who was simply "better" during their prime.

Dan,

I know you went with Oh at his peak, but I did a little research [imagine that ] and I think the decision in favor of Oh is much clearer than your post indicates. What you will see below is a three column presentation, the first column representing a statistical category, the second Nagashima's career high for a season in that category, and the third column representing how many times Oh met or exceeded that standard. Remember, they are basically playing under exactly the same set of circumstances. For clarity, any season where either man did not have 400 plate appearances was not used for any rate stats (OBP, Slg, OPS, RC/G):

Stat     Nagashima     Oh
HR          39         15
RBI        125          0
Avg       .353          1
OBP       .460         11
Slg       .657         11
Ttl bases  314          3
Runs scored 99         11
RC       124.4         12
RC/G     10.12         12
OPS      1.101         11

I figured these late on a sleepless night, so please forgive any errors. I was awake enough that the general point remains valid. The point is, that while Nagashima's career highs are quite impressive, Oh surpassed many of them in half or more of the seasons in his career.

Lest anyone try to make the argument that Oh wasn't as dominant in average and RBIs, that is true. However, 1) in RBIs Nagashima benefitted from hitting after an on-base machine named Oh, and 2) when you look at the overall record, Oh certainly isn't dominated by Nagashima in either category:

                   Nagashima    Oh
avg >= .320            6        10
RBI >= 120             1         3
RBI >= 100             5        14

The bottom line for me is, no matter how you look at it, while Nagashima was great, Oh was by far the greater player, whether one uses a peak or career measurement.

Jim Albright

Jim,

In your statistical analysis, you are defining "peak" as the top mark in each category, regardless of year. I am interpreting "peak" as an extended period of time during which a player was at his best, a pretty common interpretation of the word. The original question was who was better in their prime, and to me at least, this suggests the definition that I've been using.

It seems that the way in which statistics are chosen, manipulated, and interpreted has a great deal to do with conclusions that are reached. In other words, a good deal of subjectivity is involved. This is one reason why I feel that additional ways of judging are needed.

- It seems that the way in which statistics are chosen, manipulated, and interpreted has a great deal to do with conclusions that are reached. In other words, a good deal of subjectivity is involved. This is one reason why I feel that additional ways of judging are needed.

There is a good deal of judgment in any study, that is true. I try to be very mindful of that fact when the evidence leans (but does not dominate) in one direction. I chose to use Nagashima's career bests to put his very best foot forward. Surely, Nagashima could not be significantly greater than his very best numbers stacked together. Even allowing for defense, clutch ability, etc., etc., he probably wasn't as good as that in his prime as you define it -- because he didn't put them all together in one year -- and then you are defining prime as being more than one year.

By comparison, Oh was regularly better than all of Nagashima's career bests. Ten or more seasons is well beyond what I think would commonly be called a player's prime (heck, for the vast majority of players, it is their whole career or more). Oh wasn't just consistently edging Nagashima's bests: Try 55 homers, over 140 runs created, over 14 RC/G, OBP over .500, slugging well over .700 as examples. Oh is just so good, he dominates even a wonderful player like Nagashima.

I'll try once again to explain my sentiments about the two men. If I'm in Europe and look at one of the Alps, I see a big mountain. Maybe that's a one time all-star. Mount McKinley in Alaska is a little over 20,300 feet high. It's a heck of a big mountain -- the biggest in North America. That could be Nagashima. Then we compare that to, say, Mount Everest, which is over 29,000 feet high. McKinley doesn't seem quite so big when you compare it to Everest. Well, to me, Oh is Everest, and Nagashima McKinley. Nagashima isn't a small character in Japanese baseball, he's huge. But if you compare him to the even more gigantic accomplishments and talent of Oh, he doesn't appear so huge because of what he's being compared to. It is only that trick of perspective which makes it seem to some that I am knocking Nagashima, when I am not. If it weren't for Oh, the fight for the best ever Japanese baseball player in my opinion comes down to Nagashima and Nomura. Nobody else is in their class -- but then again, neither are they in Oh's class.

Jim Albright

Jim,

It seems to me that when baseball people talk about a player's "prime," they usually are referring to a several year period rather than just one season or the player's best individual totals dispersed over his whole career.

Well, the whole reason that I got started writing about Nagashima's talents is because I felt that many of them weren't even being mentioned, so I guess I disagree that you've used a lot of statistics or arguments that have put his best foot forward. I've never said that anyone is knocking Nagashima--I just feel that much more needed to be introduced on his behalf. I'll try to introduce a few more statistical points here. None of them relate directly to the issue of who was better in their prime, but hopefully they shed more light on Nagashima's talents.

Using your definition of the word "peak," I don't dispute that Oh's offensive numbers generally are much more impressive than those of Nagashima. But in your comparison, you chose not to include some numbers that are among the staples of baseball statistics. Oh never surpassed Nagashima's single-season marks in doubles (38), triples (12), stolen bases (37), and fewest strikeouts (28), although he did exceed his walks total (88) 17 times. Clearly, at his best, Nagashima was a solid five-tool player, but Oh, because of his lack of speed, was a four-tool player, although a superb one. Also, Oh played six more years than Nagashima, so he had many more chances to exceed Nagashima's best totals. Yes, I guess this means that Oh was more durable, but he also played a position that was less physically challenging.

True, fourth-place hitters' RBI totals benefit if they bat behind great third-place hitters. But third place hitters' run totals benefit by hitting in front of great fourth-place hitters, and hitting in front of a great batter typically assures that a player will get some pretty good pitches to hit. Anyway, contrary to some rumors, Oh hit in the fourth spot nearly as much as he hit third (4,312 vs. 3,994), typically with Nagashima and batting king Isao Harimoto batting ahead of him. Nagashima usually, but not by any means always, batted fourth rather than third (5,396 vs. 2,206).

I've already cited a few of Nagashima's superior Japan Series statistics and his 4-0 edge in Japan Series MVP awards. When pitted against the best Pacific League pitchers in All-Star Games in an era when these contests were much more significant, here are the abbreviated statistics of the two players:

Oh--225 AB, 25 R, 40 H, 8 2B, 0 3B, 13 HR, 31 RBI, 0 SB, 33 BB, 32 K, .213 AVG.

Nagashima--168 AB, 21 R, 47 H, 10 2B, 0 3B, 7 HR, 21 RBI, 8 SB, 17 BB, 13 K, .313 AVG.

I agree with you that in terms of offensive statistics, Oh is Mt. Everest and Nagashima is Mt. McKinley. But perhaps this is reversed when we talk about the significance of each player to Japanese baseball. And during their prime as I define it, I feel that Oh was Mt. Everest and Nagashima was K2.

Jim,

I fogot to mention that in your list of "peak" statistics, as you define the word, you didn't list that Nagashima's single-season bests in total hits (163, twice) and singles (106) never were equaled by Oh, either.

Jim,

I think most of us are aware of your insightful statistical research. I, like you, do plenty of research -- but this doesn't mean we'll always agree, or that there's a right and wrong answer to questions of opinion.

We're really not breaking any new ground here. In Japan, countless books and articles have been devoted to the issue of Oh vs. Nagashima ever since their playing days. This alone should tell those of us who didn't watch them consistently during their heyday that comparing their talents and value to the Giants isn't a simple or easily conclusive matter.

I think that we could go around and around and around about this, but guess I should elaborate a bit on my position. Again, I feel that Sadaharu Oh was a vastly superior offensive performer than Shigeo Nagashima OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR CAREERS. Perhaps the most telling factor, in my opinion, is that Oh won nine MVP awards to Nagashima's four. But I feel that if you compare Nagashima and Oh at their peak, it is a close call. Still, I give the edge to Oh because his power numbers were so dominant during his prime, and he had a much more extended "primetime."

But I feel that several points need to me made for Nagashima. During the first six years of his career, he was an incredible force, and always seemed to be everywhere. When he wasn't smashing game-winning hits, he was making dazzling defensive plays, stealing bases, and spurring his teammates to new heights. As I've shown, Nagashima put up very impressive numbers during the regular season and Japan Series during the prime of his career. Some of these stats exceeded those of Oh. In addition, during his first six years, he stole 137 bases, 53 more than Oh did during his entire career. Plus, he superbly played a more challenging position than Oh in the field. During his peak, he also was a better clutch hitter than Oh. The great Oh himself lauds Nagashima's tremendous clutch hitting, and feels that his "mystery part" revolutionized the Japanese game. I really can't understand why you don't give these matters more significance.

It is difficult for me to keep writing this stuff because, like you, I feel that Oh was a better player, even during their primes. And I'm more drawn to the personality of Oh than I am to that of Nagashima. I'll never forget an extended interview that I had with Oh about a decade ago. But someone needs to make some of the arguments for Nagashima that many Japanese baseball experts have been making for decades.

I know that you and some other readers are very supportive of Oh, and feel that he deserves more recognition. Well, I agree. But stop and think for a minute about Nagashima's situation. Despite his immense popularity in Japan, he is virtually unknown to baseball followers outside of the country. Even before Japanese athletes came to North America in the '90s, most of my friends in the United States who avidly follow baseball knew who Sadaharu Oh was -- but they weren't familiar with any other Japanese baseball players. Since Oh has by far the most impressive offensive numbers, this is to be expected, I guess. But like Oh, Nagashima transcended the game, and again, in the words of Oh, "revolutionized" it. I believe that Nagashima hasn't received much recognition abroad because his value as a player vastly exceeded his numbers. Clearly, Nagashima, Oh, and many other Japanese players deserve much more recognition, and this is why I have devoted so much time to researching and writing about them.

Dan:

First, thanks for calling my research "insightful" -- I appreciate it. I'll probably pick up the torch for Nagashima and Nomura if and when the poobahs at the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown decide to honor the greatest Japanese player of all time -- Oh. Once the principle is established that NPB accomplishments count toward a plaque in Cooperstown, I will be happy to tackle assessing everybody else in NPB history. Right now, though, my personal opinion is that the most important thing is establishing that critical principal -- and the best candidate for the job is the man who is unquestionably the greatest player ever in NPB annals.

I feel that while Bill McNeil's Other Stars book is excellent, if we push as many candidates at once as it seems he would, the Hall of Fame won't listen. They were exceptionally difficult over letting in Negro Leaguers (and Negro League supporters would say they're still far too difficult), and at least until an Ichiro or a Godzilla has enough of a career and enough American backers to help us establish the principle that NPB accomplishments count, I foresee a similarly uphill battle. I don't want to dilute the effort to get NPB accomplishments recognized, and therefore I will continue to focus on only one candidate without MLB experience.

Unfortunately, Nagashima will not likely get his just due in the US until that recognition of NPB accomplishments happens (if then). It may seem that I am giving him short shrift when in fact my apparently singular focus on Oh is a mix of Oh's greatness, Oh's superiority to his Japanese counterparts, and the tactics I feel are best to get all the deserving NPB players the recognition which is due them in the US.

I am trying to raise awareness of all the greatest Japan has offered, as I'm sure you know. I do not have much data to document Nagashima's defensive prowess beyond his two Gold Gloves, so I can't do much in that respect. When it comes to Nagashima's impact and other more ephemeral (at least in a statistical sense) qualities, I am at a complete loss, partly because of my very limited Japanese and partly because I wasn't there at the time. My writings are largely devoid of such "color" (which would make them a better read) because of those two limitations. As it is, I think I often sound like the original Joe Friday from Dragnet: "Just the facts, ma'am." I welcome the efforts of those who can put some color into the outlines I have provided.

Jim Albright

- [...] and partly because I wasn't there at the time. My writings are largely devoid of such "color" (which would make them a better read) [...]

Sometimes not being there isn't a bad thing at all. It allows you to look at events and things more subjectively. It's true that numbers and statistics don't capture the colour and charisma of players, but in doing that, they allow us to focus on what really matters (at least to me) -- what they did on the field.

Memories fade as time goes by (although ESPN Classic is doing a good job of slowing that process, I wonder if there's a Japanese equivalent?), but numbers don't. It's not unlike that famous Einstein quote:

"Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."

Except to point out that I believe you meant it allows you to look at things more objectively (rather than subjectively -- my English can go out a little late in the day, and it's my native tongue), I agree with you completely. I am largely limited to what the numbers tell me -- but I am convinced I have some ability to make some sense of them. I can use that ability to help those who are interested in doing so to learn about Japanese baseball, and have tried to do so.

Jim Albright

Ah... That is what I meant to say. My 4 am post time is one likely explanation.

Hi Jim,

I understand your intentions, which are admirable. Your statistical work is much needed and provides some good insights, and Oh deseves all of the recognition that he can get. In my work, I have chosen to try to, in my own small way, help promote Japanese baseball as a whole rather than focus primarily on one player. I am gaining my own insights through various means, including statistical analyses, personal interviews, written materials, personal observations, etc. Among my friends, I am notoriously known for cornering old Japanese men and asking them questions about Japanese baseball until they are practically dying from exhaustion.

I agree that Oh was the best offensive player of all-time as well as during his prime, but I have a feeling you and I may never agree about how they compare during their prime years. Well, we're certainly not the first people to disagree on this matter!!

Nagashima's prime years, as I define them, lasted from 1958-63, although he remained very productive beyond this time. He was a terrific Japan Series performer throughout his career and was chosen to the Central League Best Nine team every season.

From 1958-63, he compiled his awesome totals usually while batting fourth, but sometimes he hit third. During this time, the player who occupied the other hitting slot batted just .276. I believe that this makes Nagashima's accomplishments during this period all the more impressive. During this stretch, he won batting titles by 38, 18, 37 and 2 points.

But again, statistics are only one way of assessing a player's ability.

In A Zen Way of Baseball, Oh writes the following about Nagashima:

If I were merely to mention his records, it would say a great deal. Nagashima-san joined the Giants a year before I did, the "Golden Boy" of the Tokyo Big Six university circuit, where in one season he compiled the second-highest batting average in the history of college baseball. He was an instant star, a dominant player from the day he put on a Giants' uniform. In his professional career that followed, he succeeded in winning six batting titles, five RBI titles, and the home-run crown twice. He was the league's Most Valuable Player five times, a perennial all-star selection at third base, a lifetime .305 hitter who hit 444 career home runs. And yet records don't begin to tell the story of this strange and wonderful player.

It seems that many of us have a need to rank and assess players based on numbers, and because we want definitive answers, we get a little uncomfortable when unquantifiable matters are entered into the mix. Even statistics expert Bill James writes, as quoted by Bill Starr in the book, Clearing the Bases:

The ratings of ball players is an arrogant bit of nonsense,...and{} I am very leery of it...statistics which consider everything and provide the once and final answer to great baseball questions like: who was the best player ever? or who really belongs in the Hall of Fame?... It is my considered opinion that we have no business answering these questions by formula...

He later writes:

Statistics...consume knowledge, but don't yield it... There is no way in the world to evolve a set of standards which is as comprehensive, as complex, as fair or as open to improvement, as is human judgment. There are simply too many things in the game of baseball which are not measured, are poorly measured, and are still in the process of being measured.

In the same book, Ossie Bluege illustrates the limitations of statistics by discussing Ty Cobb:

Cobb could beat you in so many ways. When he was at bat, the infield would shorten up. I would be two or three steps closer to the plate, to protect against the bunt, but this would make is easier for Cobb to hit sharp drives by me. When he was on base, the shortstop and second baseman were a step or two closer to the bag to make the double play before Cobb could get to them. We could neve relax when playing against him. The pitchers were often jittery and less effective when Cobb was on base, because they never knew what he'd do next. He'd steal home if the pitcher wasn't alert, and often caused them to balk by making fake attempts to steal home.

While Nagashima wasn't nearly as fast as Cobb, speed was a vital part of his game during his prime, and he had the same knack of disturbing the opposition in a multitude of ways--and an ability to inspire the Giants' players and fans to victory during a time when the "old guard" of players was quickly declining and Oh was just emerging as a pro star.

Since I included the quotations from Bill James above, I feel a need to add that I personally don't feel that ratings systems and statistical analyses are purely nonsense, and judging from his work, don't feel that James does, either. But I agree with the thrust of the first quote -- that statistics don't provide final, conclusive answers to the "great baseball questions." Typically, I'm the first person in line at my local bookstore to buy new books on baseball rankings and statistical analyses. I believe that they -- like Jim Albright's great work -- can provide many insights, even though I don't always agree with the conclusions that are reached.

However, I feel that statistics need to be kept in perspective. If I was trying to determine if Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio in their prime, I would rather base my judgment on the opinions of five fair-minded baseball experts who had played the game and had intently watched both players during their careers instead of basing it on five in-depth, statistical-based articles about the issue. But that's just me. Thankfully, we are able to tap both types of resources, as well as read books, watch game films, etc.

Daniel, here's how I look at it.

I, too, value a balanced perspective. I try to look at the whole picture, not just stats. If I was trying to determine if Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio, I'd rather base my judgement on both the five experts who watched both and the five stats based articles.

And the minute one of those experts used stats to justify their conclusions, I'd ignore them in favor of the statistical based articles. The stats used in baseball are imperfect, and the vast majority of the time are inappropriately used in ways stats are not supposed to be used.

If I want to know how and why Nagashima was a good fielder, or a team leader, or so on, I'd go to that expert who watched Nagashima.

But when I hear statistics being used, I'm going to pay attention to the person who knows how to use them.

CfiJ,

I agree with the points that you are making, and luckily, have run across some experts who both have watched Japanese players extensively as well as learned how to adeptly interpret statistics.

Although this doesn't have anything directly to do with the Oh and Nagashima issue, I'll try to use another example to illustrate the limitations of statistics. I've had an opportunity to watch Carlos Beltran, the center fielder for the Kansas City Royals, ever since he became a major leaguer. I've observed his rapport with teammates in the locker room, and watched him in games from the press box at Kauffman Stadium, from regular seats, and on television. He is a five-tool player, and his agent, Scott Boras, sometimes has compared him to Bernie Williams at this stage of his career. But he may or may not become another Bernie Williams, and his statistics don't at all tell the whole story. He often has mental lapses, forgetting how many outs there are, for example. He often doesn't seem to even want to be on the field, and sometimes seems to be sulking. Also, he frequently doesn't even try for balls that he has a good chance of catching, given his excellent speed. Well, Carlos certainly has a ton of talent, and may or may not improve on these things. My point is that right now, he is not very good at many things that are not measured -- or are only peripherally measured -- by statistics.

Mike Sweeney, on the other hand, isn't nearly as fast as Carlos, but he is tremendous in the intangibles category. He has a charismatic energy, always plays hard, and always has his "head in the game." If I were asked who is the better player, I would select Sweeney over Beltran in a heartbeat, even when Beltran has somewhat better statistics.

Excuse me CFiJ, this doesn't relate in any way to what you just wrote, but I feel a need to add a couple more things about Nagashima. Although some people reading this thread already realize this, one point that I should have mentioned much earlier is that Nagashima entered pro baseball when he was 22 years old, while Oh began when he was 18. This is because Oh entered the pro ranks directly out of Waseda Jitsugyo (Waseda Commercial High School), whereas for four years, Nagashima attended Rikkyo University, where he became a nationally known baseball star before entering the pro game. So, Nagashima had an opportunity to become a more polished player than Oh when he entered pro baseball, but he also "lost" four potentially productive years, and this adversely affects his career totals. Nagashima retired when he was 38 years old and Oh did so when he was 40.

Also, Nagashima won only two Gold Glove awards only because they weren't given out until 1972, two years before he retired. He was widely considered the best fielding third baseman in Japanese pro baseball until the tail end of his career. Oh also would have won many more Gold Glove awards if they were distributed earlier.

I agree with 98% of what you said. However, I just wanted to emphasize that Oh's stats are so mindboggling that he should not be categorized as just a "man with the record." He is not Henry Aaron who just compiled the record. Oh had near triple crown stats year after year!!! He could have 5 or 6 triple crown years if Nagashima wasn't there. His records are more like Babe Ruth. Also, the racial issue is more serious than what you think in Japan, especially against other Asians. Racism against Chinese are less prevalent compared to Koreans, but are nonetheless there.

- I agree with 98% of what you said. However, I just wanted to emphasize that Oh's stats are so mindboggling that he should not be categorized as just a "man with the record." He is not Henry Aaron who just compiled the record. Oh had near triple crown stats year after year!!! He could have 5 or 6 triple crown years if Nagashima wasn't there. His records are more like Babe Ruth.

It's tough with this argument. When one tries to explain the particular greatness of Oh, it seems like a slam on Nagashima (not so great a player), and when one tries to explain the particular greatness of Nagashima, it seems like a slam on Oh (just a guy with numbers). I'm certainly not trying to denigrate either man. I was merely attempting to explain Nagashima's extreme popularity, even though his numbers (in his career and prime) are not equal to Oh's.

- Also, the racial issue is more serious than what you think in Japan, especially against other Asians. Racism against Chinese are less prevalent compared to Koreans, but are nonetheless there.

I don't underestimate the racist attitudes that exist in Japan. I'm just not sure it's really a big a factor in the popularity of Nagashima over Oh as much as it is brought up. It seems like a quick and easy thing to point to: "Why was Nagashima more popular than Oh, even though Oh was the better player? Well, because Oh was half-Chinese." I don't think things are quite so clear cut. I think moreso than their bloodlines, their respective behaviors are the reason Nagashima became more popular than Oh. After all, Nomura is full blooded Japanese, and he was probably a better player than Nagashima, but he is not more popular than Oh. Of course, he played in the PL, but I think my point stands.

Hi Seiyu,

Given the context of your remarks, I take it that they were directed to CFiJ.

I believe that Oh definitely was more than a "man with the record." Like Nagashima, he transcended baseball, and his accomplishments are nearly unbelievable. I am perhaps most impressed by the high level at which he played for so many years. (Of course, being a first baseman helped his longevity.)

I also believe that the racial issue is very significant, and feel that Nagashima's "pure blood" was a vitally important factor in his popularity as Japan was taking immense national pride in the great progress that it was making in practically every field.

By the way, in my last post, I mentioned that Oh tallied 150 or more hits only once -- he actually did it three times. My apologies.

- He is not Henry Aaron who just compiled the record.

I suggest you review Aaron's career stats, Seiyu. I agree that Oh should not be categorized as just a "man with the record," but neither should Hammerin' Hank.

1908-san, I totally agree that Hank Aaron is a legend. In fact he is one of my all time favor MLB players. I cringe whenever they talk about Mays being the greatest ballplayer alive now. All I'm saying here is that the difference between Nagashima and Oh is much bigger than the difference between Mays and Aaron.

Willie Mays, Han Aaron, Sadhara Oh, Shigeo Naghisma, and Stan Musial, along with Barry Bonds, Ichiro Suzuki, and Hidiki Matsui are the greatest ball players alive.

- Willie Mays, Han Aaron, Sadhara Oh, Shigeo Naghisma, and Stan Musial, along with Barry Bonds, Ichiro Suzuki, and Hidiki Matsui are the greatest ball players alive.

I think the last two may be a little bit of a stretch.

Well 1908, the last two are 2 of the greatest japanese players ever, or what I meant to say was Japanese people consider them some of the greatest ball players alive. Anyway back to the subject...

I'd rather have Sadaharu Oh. He's proably the greatest long ball hitter Japan will ever see.