Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Monday, August 07, 2006

Jimmy Wynn

Eligible in 1983

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 07, 2006 at 01:04 AM | 149 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 25, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#2156456)
Sunnyday - not to sidetrack it off CF, but you mention Hoyt as a major mistake, and I've got him as a borderline candidate . . . I've also got Pennock as a mistake, but nothing major like Hunter, Bender, Marquard, Joss, Haines. I'm wondering what gives. Feel free to answer over on the pitching thread if you want.
   102. yest Posted: August 25, 2006 at 03:42 PM (#2156502)
Its "about". Sorry for the spelling correction. I understand english might not be your first language. I also understand that my posts are often poorly editted and I shouldn't be one to judge, but I've read that particular one too many times.

1. English is my first language but I can't spell any language

2. a lot of times I type abought (granted it's a mistake but it looks better) and spell check turns it into a bought
   103. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2006 at 03:59 PM (#2156526)
1. English is my first language but I can't spell any language

lol

Not laughing at you, yest, just with you. :-)

I'm a pretty decent speller myself, but when I'm rushing to post something here, then spell check becomes my friend. Of course, I can always change it behind the scenes if I catch it before anyone else does. :-)
   104. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 25, 2006 at 04:10 PM (#2156534)
2. a lot of times I type abought (granted it's a mistake but it looks better) and spell check turns it into a bought

I just always assumed you were spelling it with the Canadian pronunciation. [ducks as wagaman and brent---or is it daryn?---simultaneously pounce.]
   105. DavidFoss Posted: August 25, 2006 at 04:49 PM (#2156573)
No worries. I just figured someone should tell you so you can get your brain used to thinking that "about" looks better. I will admit that "a bought" looks like faux-Shakespeare or faux-Chaucer -- very high brow. :-)

My sister is an atrocious speller. She says that at work, she tries to write incredibly sloppy to mask it, but has trouble with emails. I guess there is no good font for that purpose. :-)
   106. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 25, 2006 at 05:44 PM (#2156621)
My sister is an atrocious speller.

So is my father. When writing up sales brochures or proposals for our business, I always have to clean it up. Not that I'm Lord Byron myself, but yikes!
   107. yest Posted: August 28, 2006 at 06:17 PM (#2159491)
Why exactly does Jimmy Wynn desrve a place on the ballot very good walker and good HR power and above average defence a decent runner and a terrible contact hitter for any era in any park???
   108. Chris Cobb Posted: August 28, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2159510)
Why exactly does Jimmy Wynn desrve a place on the ballot very good walker and good HR power and above average defence a decent runner and a terrible contact hitter for any era in any park???

Superior nickname?
   109. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 28, 2006 at 06:38 PM (#2159514)
I only care about contact when contact means runs. And I only care how about how many runs a guy created, not how many he could have created. If Wynn struck out 150 times in 600 PA but created 100 runs, I'm all for his swinging harder and making less contact. If he struck out 600 times in 600 PA and created 0 runs, I'm all against it. If he struck out 100 times in 600 PA and created 90 runs, I'm all against it compared to his striking out 150 times.

I personally think that contact is seen as having some kind of moral value that's linked to bogus notions of productiveness or efficiency in our (American) society. Disentangle one from the other, and it's just another out. If all those Ks were grounders to the mound that failed to advance a single runner or meant DPs would we care?

I'll answer that one. No.

In his park, era, and leagues, if he sacrifices power for contact and hits .270 with half his power, he's a much less valuable hitter. That's all there is to it. I care about what happened, not what coulda happened if he struck out less.
   110. yest Posted: August 28, 2006 at 06:54 PM (#2159530)
my point is not just that he was a terrible contact hitter (which is more then just not striking out it's also BA) but his power is less then that of Cepada, Hodges, Howard, Cash, Coleveto ext. who not only were better power hitters even after acounting for era and park but were better contact hitters and in some cases better walkers.
   111. DanG Posted: August 28, 2006 at 07:17 PM (#2159543)
You seem to be talking about Secondary Average more than anything. This is not Park Adjusted.
Top 15 in Career Secondary Average 1956-77, 7200+ plate appearances

.452 Joe Morgan
.448 Harmon Killebrew
.429 Willie McCovey
.419 Willie Mays
.405 Frank Robinson
.404 Dick Allen
.404 Jimmy Wynn
.394 Eddie Mathews
.392 Hank Aaron
.379 Norm Cash
.372 Rocky Colavito
.367 Willie Stargell
.360 Carl Yastrzemski
.349 Boog Powell
.347 Frank Howard
   112. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 28, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2159553)
NAME       OBP+ - AVG+(+)  REL ISO*
-------------------------------------
Wynn           50            64            
Cepeda         12            70
Hodges         14            67
F Howard       10            98            
Cash           31            84
Colavito       22            63
*adjusted to park 


In no cases were they better walkers, not even close, at least if "isolated adjusted OBP" is a marker for walking. You'd think it probably would be. Wynn is the second to worst power guy among them, however, he's pretty closely bunched among Rocky and Gil. But since strikeouts and power are positively correlated, I'd venture to say his lack of contact was not hurting his power at all. (I should note that I have no idea whether his home park had peculiar event distributions, tough on HRs but easier on AVG or whatever.) More important, he's the only guy on this list who plays a premium defensive position. And that, in a phrase, is probably the best argument for Wynn---a guy with corner outfield power, great on-base ability and who plays CF above averagely. Nice package, that.
   113. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 28, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2159572)
And while Wynn didn't play a good CF, he did play CF, whereas those other guys were corner guys.

And there is also Wynn's peak to consider. I wouldn't always look at career numbers but at inseason numbers instead.
   114. DavidFoss Posted: August 28, 2006 at 08:14 PM (#2159594)
NAME OBP+ - AVG+(+) REL ISO*

These two numbers are rigged to give Wynn an advantage -- to show how 'under-rated' he is.

If Wynn was a terrible contact hitter, that will show up in his raw OBP+ and SLG+ -- and it does. As much pop as he had and for how good his batting eye was, his OPS+ is 'only' 128, which is below everyone on that list besides Hodges. Even with all the talk of how under-rated he is, the Toy Cannon really needs that CF-adjustment to have any shot whatsoever.
   115. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 28, 2006 at 09:09 PM (#2159635)
These two numbers are rigged to give Wynn an advantage -- to show how 'under-rated' he is.

Whoa, no fair DavidF. Yest made two assertions, that Wynn's low contact rates hurt his power and that Wynn didn't walk much in comparison to the selected group. I cited those numbers to isolate the specific things yest mentioned, not to puff him up. And I made note that Wynn exceeded all of them in his walking and was not close to the best in power. I played fairly. Also note from the ballot thread that Wynn is not on my ballot, so I have no vested (or yested) interest in pushing him on the electorate.
   116. yest Posted: August 28, 2006 at 09:45 PM (#2159661)
I was including the fact that due to the fact that the other players were on better teams it ignores the places where they probobly would have been pitched around if they were on Houston

And while Wynn didn't play a good CF, he did play CF, whereas those other guys were corner guys.
Hodges play at first was still better then Wynns in Center even though center's a more impotant on the defensive spectrum
   117. DavidFoss Posted: August 28, 2006 at 09:55 PM (#2159666)
Whoa, no fair DavidF. Yest made two assertions, that Wynn's low contact rates hurt his power and that Wynn didn't walk much in comparison to the selected group. I cited those numbers to isolate the specific things yest mentioned, not to puff him up. And I made note that Wynn exceeded all of them in his walking and was not close to the best in power. I played fairly. Also note from the ballot thread that Wynn is not on my ballot, so I have no vested (or yested) interest in pushing him on the electorate.

Oops... I didn't mean to say that you were being unfair. I suppose I shouldn't have used the word 'rigged'. My apologies.

My only point here is that "terrible contact hitting" does show up in OBP+ and SLG+. No extra downward/upward adjustment is needed.

I'm not vested (or yested :-)) one way or the other with the Toy Cannon, but he seems to be a common name thrown out on other message boards and usenet in sabermetric/traditionalist debates because he's been so underrated by having a low batting average in a low scoring context. For example, Jim Rice vs Jimmy Wynn debates pop up on usenet periodically.

Its been at least ten years for most of when since we discovered that players were worth more or less "than we thought" based on batting average alone. While its fun to show the under-informed how valuable a guy with a .250 batting average can be, in the end its not necessary *that* important whether the OBP+/SLG+ come from primary or secondary averages.
   118. sunnyday2 Posted: August 28, 2006 at 10:14 PM (#2159671)
Contact is overrated.

(Signed) Mickey Mantle
   119. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 29, 2006 at 03:04 AM (#2159883)
Yest, do you have evidence that Gil Hodges play at 1B was more valuable than Wynn's in CF? I highly doubt that it was. Wynn played CF at a time when most CFers were defense first or at least very defensively proficient (beginning possibly since the time of Mays/mantle's prime as we talked about in other threads), 1B by Hodges time wasn't too different from 1B now I would presume.
   120. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 29, 2006 at 11:41 AM (#2160009)
Yest, do you have evidence that Gil Hodges play at 1B was more valuable than Wynn's in CF?

I think what he meant was that Hodges was greater than Wynn even with the fact that Jimmie played the tougher position. Not that I buy it, mind you. When you place their careers in context, they're basically similar hitters, except Wynn walked much more. Taking into account park and era factors for their BAs, they're league average hitters (with Hodges slightly better). IOW, Hodges was good, but Wynn was better.
   121. Al Peterson Posted: August 29, 2006 at 01:34 PM (#2160083)
Talking about CF bonuses I want to borrow from John's ballot for his Jimmy Wynn "best of" information.

Best ML center fielder for 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1974.

1972 Wynn is probably best right fielder (don't know?), definitely not a centerfielder by then. Cesar Cedeno had taken over the CF duties for the Astros. Also, in 1968 Wynn played 93 games at CF so he wasn't a full timer. Maybe best by Win Shares in 1968 but he accumulated some of that value at the corners.

For his career Wynn got 1181 games in CF - not as many as you'd think. He has 4 years over 140 games, then years splitting OF spots with game playing counts of 107, 104, 93, 87 in center.
   122. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 29, 2006 at 01:48 PM (#2160099)
That is what I meant John, that I don't buy that Hodges defensive value at 1B was greater than Wynn's defensive value in CF after taking into account how good each was at there respective positions. This MAY be true in the inside baseball era (though I think it is overblown there thanks to a certain math loving englishman) but it is certainly not true after WWII. I would think it would have to be something like Keith Hernandez was more valuable defensively than late career Bernie Williams or Jeromy Burnitz (maybe something a little better KH was pretty damn good) or something for it to be true.
   123. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 29, 2006 at 01:56 PM (#2160108)
(though I think it is overblown there thanks to a certain math loving englishman)

George Boole posts on this site?
   124. Mike Webber Posted: August 29, 2006 at 02:12 PM (#2160123)
Talking about CF bonuses I want to borrow from John's ballot for his Jimmy Wynn "best of" information.

Best ML center fielder for 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1974.


I think Al is correct here John. In 1972 he played 132 games in RF, just 12 in center. The others look all right, though in '68 he was about 1/3 - 2/3 LF/CF.
   125. OCF Posted: August 29, 2006 at 06:42 PM (#2160509)
To violate the temporal prime directive and use evidence not yet before us:

Jimmy Wynn: 1181 G in CF, 653 in RF/LF (split between the two corners). Career 128 OPS+; once had a 167 OPS+ year as a CF, but it sticks up out of his career.

Andre Dawson: 1027 G in CF, 1323 in RF/LF (nearly all in RF). Career 119 OPS+; once had a 157 OPS+ year as a CF but that was 1981 (strike-shortened).

Of course, there's about an order of magnitude difference in the walk rates, and plenty of other differences.
   126. sunnyday2 Posted: August 29, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2160533)
What is that for Dawson, an extra 500 games at ____ OPS+? 85?
   127. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: August 29, 2006 at 07:47 PM (#2160578)
For the record, Dawson does have an extra 94 SB with only 9 more CS and was a much better defensive CF Marc. Dawson was also HBP 84 more times, which cuts into the BB edge a little.

As far as peaks go, Dawson also had 4 top 10 MVP's (3 top 2, though the win was very undeserved) to Wynn's 1 5th place finish. Wynn only received votes 3 times in his career.
   128. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 29, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#2160616)
As far as peaks go, Dawson also had 4 top 10 MVP's (3 top 2, though the win was very undeserved) to Wynn's 1 5th place finish. Wynn only received votes 3 times in his career.

More info on this comparison, just to add a little kindling to the fire.

WS sees it as:

No MVPs for Dawson, but three top-five (or expanded equivalent) finishes in 1980, 1981, 1983.

No MVPs for Wynn, but five top-five (or expanded equivalent) finishes in 1965, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1974.

I'd call that closer to a Win for Wynn than not, despite Dawson's better performance in the BBWAA MVP voting.

WS sees Dawson as the best CF in 1978, 1980, 1981. Wynn best CF in 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1974, plus best RF in 1972. Another little win for Wynn.

My own little toy stat, Best in League Over Three-Year Interval, which attempts to answer Was he ever the best player in his league?, suggests that Wynn was within 10% of being considered the best player in the league in the periods 1967-1969 and 1968-1970 (the honors belonged to Aaron and McCovey respectively, and Wynn was joined in that level of nearness to the best players in 1969 by McCovey and in 1970 by Rose and Aaron). Dawson never quite got that close to being the best player in his league. His best was 1980-1983, but he couldn't quite get all that close to Mike Schmidt (78% of best player in league was his best finish).

I do also take a similar Best-in-league measurement by position. Wynn is the best CF in the NL in 1967-1969 and 1968-1970. Dawson is the best CF in his league every period 1977-1979 through 1981-1983 (that's five three-year periods), and Dawson's your best RF in league for 1982-1984 (I allow CF to bleed into RF for this measurement---though not vise verse). This one's a definite win for Dawson, though an accouting of the CFs in the league for each might be important. Wynn's competition was primarily Mays, W Davis, and Cedeno. Dawson caught Garry Maddox as his main competition with a little smidge of Dale Murphy's CF days.

just stirring the pot.... ; )
   129. sunnyday2 Posted: August 29, 2006 at 08:58 PM (#2160635)
You gotta admit that Schmidt in his prime (exactly contemporary with Dawson) is probably more impressive than anybody in Wynn's.

Joe and Doc appear to be looking at different MVP voting depending on what an "expanded equivalent" is. Top 20?
   130. jimd Posted: August 29, 2006 at 10:52 PM (#2160733)
George Boole posts on this site?

Uh-uh. Alfred North Whitehead.
   131. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: August 29, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#2160735)
Talking about CF bonuses I want to borrow from John's ballot for his Jimmy Wynn "best of" information.

Best ML center fielder for 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1974.

1972 Wynn is probably best right fielder (don't know?),


RF it is, Al. Sorry about that. I'll change it for the next election.

That is what I meant John, that I don't buy that Hodges defensive value at 1B was greater than Wynn's defensive value in CF after taking into account how good each was at there respective positions.

I agree, Mark. I don't see it either.
   132. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM (#2160773)
I doubt Dawson will make my top 60, his peak score is only an 8 in WS (WS>25), everyonein my top 50 has a 15, Wynn has a 39 (I have explained this manyt times before, even on this thread I believe). I think he was very overrated and I will take a big PASS.

Of course 8 is 8 more than Jake Beckley.

And Beckley is higher for me than Mickey Welch. So he may not be our worst pick.
   133. sunnyday2 Posted: August 29, 2006 at 11:48 PM (#2160776)
Are those normalized, j?
   134. OCF Posted: August 30, 2006 at 12:28 AM (#2160794)
Just to deal with the timeline: we do know about Dawson, and we've seen most of a peak from him. His career value is still very much unknown. There seems to be a rash of Chipper Jones for the HoF threads on BTF lately, and people have been arguing - even though Chipper's career value is unknown (but probably better known than Dawson's in 1984).

Dawson was 28 last year and had a marvelous year: 159 games played, OPS+ 141, 25-11 as a basestealer, 104 R and 113 RBI. He and Raines (133 runs scored) were quite a 1-2 punch. The best catcher anywhere in Gary Carter. Some other solid performers. But, as Bill James pointed out, also Doug Flynn. This winter Warren Cromartie is a free agent and likely to leave. Cromartie was OK in RF but a team ought be be able to replace that, right? [It turns out that they handled it fairly badly, moving Dawson from CF to RF, Raines from LF to CF, and having a cast of dozens play LF (several of whom also played 1B). Carter and Raines were great, Wallach was good and useful, Dawson was hurt, missed a bunch of games and was mediocre, and having Flynn (OPS+ 58) in the lineup wasn't enough for them, they also had to have Angel Salazar (OPS+ 9).]
   135. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 01:04 PM (#2161244)
You gotta admit that Schmidt in his prime (exactly contemporary with Dawson) is probably more impressive than anybody in Wynn's.

Well there were those Mays, McCovey, Allen, and Aaron guys from 1965-1971ish (depending on which one). They're pretty good and that's a big chunk of Wynn's career.

Joe and Doc appear to be looking at different MVP voting depending on what an "expanded equivalent" is. Top 20?

Yes that's correct. Joe looked at actual BBWAA voting. I was looking at WS totals of various sorts. My "expanded equivalent" goes like this:

6 teams: top 4 finishers
8 teams: top 5 finishers
10 teams: top 6 finishers
12 teams: top 8 finishers
14 teams: top 9 finishers
16 teams: top 10 finishers

The little jog from 6 to 8 that skips seven is a rounding thing. Close enough for me, but as always YMMV. So Wynn's peak/prime years all fall within the top 6 or top 8 rubric. Dawsons within the top 9 version.
   136. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: August 30, 2006 at 01:36 PM (#2161276)
Normalized to what sunny? They are adjusted to 162 games, I guess I am not taking into consideration the chance that it may be harder to have 30+ WS seasons in the expansion era, but that would effect both Wynn and Dawson. Honestly, Dawson's peak is just not good enough any way you stretch it.

And if Dawson's peak should be rounded upward an insane amount (which it would need) I do want to add that Rice, Parker, and Murphy have much higher peaks as well. The latter two may be on my ballot when they become eligible.
   137. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 02:34 PM (#2161343)
Dave Parker is going to be difficult.

On one hand, his career numbers don't look more or less compelling than Rice's. On the other hand, he was the best player in the NL for a couple or three years in the late 1970s, better than Schmidt. His career WS numbers look pretty good and he's got lots of markers like best at position, top-X WSMVP finishes or WSMVP wins, decent longevity, etc.... Dawson has some of that stuff, but he was never a player of Parker's caliber at their respective heights. And Parker also had several excellent seasons late in his career as well to round things out. I don't think Rice looks like that either. Maybe Murphy???

And then there's Ken Singleton....
   138. DavidFoss Posted: August 30, 2006 at 03:49 PM (#2161445)
And Parker also had several excellent seasons late in his career as well to round things out. I don't think Rice looks like that either.

Which ones? He had a great year in 1985, but otherwise his post-1979 high-OPS+ is 118.

Parker & Rice have pretty close career numbers in 1979. Both have a running career OPS+ of 142. Rice had 3400 PA, Parker 3550 PA (and two years older). Both went into a bit of a tailspin in the early 80s with a resurgent year or two mixed in later on. Parker's fall was harder and he hung on for 1000 extra PA which is why his career OPS+ is 7 points lower (121 to 128).

Of course, Parker is likely the better fielder (or at least Rice spent time at DH) and there is the issue with all of those GIDP's of Rice's that are not accounted for in his OPS+.

Anyhow, interesting borderline cases to come in the next 15 years or so.
   139. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: August 30, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#2161521)
Just noodling. Ken Singleton isn't the anti-Rice. But isn't he the converse-Rice or the contra-positive Rice or something like that?
   140. yest Posted: September 06, 2006 at 04:57 PM (#2169265)
Here’s the Split analysis I said I’ll do
unless I'm mistaking the argument for Wynn the despite his lack of HoM numbers his numbers were still HoM worthy because their hidden by his era and ballpark.
I can't due much with the era argument (except the obvious compare him to others in his era) but to find out how much his ballpark hurt him I'm taking his road rate numbers and applying it to his home AB and adding it to his road numbers and rounding it of to the nearest whole number to find his "true numbers" season by season while in Houston and LA I'm not changing his walk or HPB rates due to I doubt there's any reason physical (less windiness, or backgrounds that effected him (if I'm wrong on that please correct me with physical evidence not just statistical stats "proving it" but a reason why)) (BTW adjusting walk numbers will hurt him) and I don‘t want to get involve with PA and AB for skimpiness reasons let‘s just assume he walked the same rate why being in Houston or LA would bring that down from average. I'm not changing his at bat numbers or any season after 1975
I'm not including SH in the PA for his OBP

--------AB-----hits-------walks-------HBP-----2B-----3B--------HRs---BA-------OBP
1963--250----55----------30----------0-------9--------4---------4-----220------304
1964--219----57----------24----------1-------10------0---------8------260------336
1965--564----172---------84----------5-------27------6---------31----305------400
1966--418----119---------41----------1-------32------0---------17----285------350
1967--594----141---------74----------2-------18------2---------44----237------324
1968--542----136---------90----------5-------16------8---------33----251------363
1969--495----116---------148---------3--------8------0---------34----234------413
1970--554----150---------106---------1-------26------0---------26----271------389
1971--404----84----------56-----------2-------18------0---------10----208------307
1972--542----137---------103---------2-------20------2---------22----253------374
1973--481----109---------91----------4--------5-------5---------21----227------354
1974--535----145---------108---------0-------20------6---------28----271------387
1975--412----105---------110---------1-------22------0---------18----255------413
1976--449----93----------127---------0-------19------1---------17-----207------377
1977--194----34----------32----------0--------5-------2---------1------175------289
career-6653-1653-------1224--------27-----255-----36-------314-----248------367

here’s is actual number followed by his adjusted numbers
--------AB-----hits-------walks-------HBP-----2B------3B-------HRs----BA------OBP
career-6653-1665-------1224--------27-----285-----39-------291-----250------369
career-6653-1653-------1224--------27-----255-----36-------314-----248------367

with a neutral context from 1963-75 does this look like a HoMer (and this would be advantageous to Wynn because if he played in a neutral park he would have had to play some games in his real home park but here all I did was take out 1 bad park out of his number)
   141. yest Posted: October 04, 2006 at 03:25 AM (#2196955)
bump
   142. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 04, 2006 at 11:29 AM (#2197037)
despite his lack of HoM numbers

In your opinion, you mean. The vast majority of us here are not as hung up on BA as you are and place far greater weight on power than you appear to. :-)
   143. Cblau Posted: December 07, 2006 at 04:37 AM (#2253728)
I'm a little baffled by some of the comments about Wynn in the 1991 ballot thread. Not having him on the ballot is one thing, but I'm seeing things like "Not impressed" and "Not in my top 75" and "I just don't get it." One of these voters has Hugh Duffy second on his ballot and says Duffy was "an amazing hitter." Here are Wynn and a few other CF candidates. "Peak" is simple average of 3 best OPS+. "Ï" is percentage of defensive games played in CF (actually ignoring any IF games except for Oliver.)

Name                     OPS+    PA  Peak &#xCF;
Jim Wynn                 128    8010  158  65       
George Van Haltren       121    8979  138  75
Hugh Duffy               122    7827  150  40
Edd Roush                126    8156  153  95                       
Al Oliver                121    9778  141  40 


That's without discounting Duffy's 1891 AA season. How could someone think Duffy was an amazing hitter and not have Wynn in his top 75? I could see having Duffy higher; his career was longer after adjusting for schedule, and it's possible (although we can't be sure) that his fielding was better. But still. Wynn's a bit more of a peak/prime candidate than these others, but the differences among them aren't so great.
   144. Cblau Posted: December 07, 2006 at 04:39 AM (#2253733)
Well, it came out ok, except for what is supposed to be a percentage sign (twice).
   145. rawagman Posted: December 07, 2006 at 07:38 AM (#2253928)
Cblau - this seems directed at me, so I'll respond.
First, in defense of Wynn, I think I overreacted to what felt, for me, to be an overrating of him in his first year of eligibility and I do plan on taking a fresher look at him after this election.
That, and the fact that I forgot to slot Amos Otis among all player, even though I have done so among CFs, leads me to beleive they were both similar and probably will show up next 'year' in my late 30's or early 40's.
I highly value consistency in players and I beleive Duffy had it in spades. I look at peak as a function of both OPS+ and ink (not only, but much more than other factors) and Duffy wins there. Season length adjustment gives Duffy an edge there. I also recently posted a study I made on Duffy's defensive positioning on his own thread, which prooves (admittedly, to my own satisfaction) that even when he was technically playing as his team's LF/RF, he was functioning as their CF.
Yes, the seperation between them is very likely less than the 80-100 slots they were seperated by this year. But an extra season and much more consistent dominance over direct rivals counts for something in my book.
Bear in mind that I do not judge dominance as dominance over position, but rather dominance with bat. I factor in defense seperately.
   146. Rob_Wood Posted: December 07, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#2254282)
Generally speaking a player who walks a lot may have many strikeouts. Clearly, if you are going deep into counts (which can yield the good outcome of a walk) you risk the bad outcome of a strikeout. The value of a walk already includes a decrement for a higher strikeout rate. So I think it is fair to only dock a high-strikeout high-walk player for his high strikeouts over and above the higher rate that is associated with the higher walks.
   147. Paul Wendt Posted: February 05, 2008 at 02:48 AM (#2683717)
From the preceding page,
96. Inquisitor Posted: August 25, 2006 at 06:50 AM (#2156296)
What the hell happened to him in 1971?

123 Games Played
72 OPS+



2008-02-04 in "Ballot Thread: Group 2" and earlier in 1983 Ballot, OCF wrote
9. Jimmy Wynn [1983] An unstable, short career, and an interrupted prime. A HoMer shouldn't have a year like Wynn's 1971 right in the heart of his career.


Here is someone's explanation of Wynn's 1971 season. The context is calculating consecutive-season achievements such as the maximum 5-consecutive Win Shares, in turn to prepare a Keltner List for Wynn.
explaining away Jim Wynn 1971?

What do others think?
   148. DL from MN Posted: February 05, 2008 at 07:12 PM (#2684168)
I think I'm glad I married my wife and not his.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Randy Jones
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5052 seconds
49 querie(s) executed