Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, June 01, 2014

Moura: Sabermetrics: Puig nearly in league of his own

Hey, WAR Puig!

Here is a list of baseball players since 1901 who had inarguably better debut years in the majors than Dodgers right fielder Yasiel Puig.

1.

2.

3.

Here is a complete list of baseball players since 1901 who had arguably better debut years in the majors than Puig:

Frank Thomas, Fred Lynn and Johnny Mize.

It’s that short.

On Monday, Puig will complete his first full year in the major leagues, having been called up from Double-A Chattanooga on June 3, 2013.

In the last 363 days, he has managed to establish himself as the Dodgers’ best hitter, arguably their best defender and probably the most talked-about player in baseball.

All of that can be discerned by the eye — or ear — test. But sabermetrics show us how Puig’s performance compares historically.

There is a big problem with examining historical statistics solely as presented on the back of baseball cards: a lack of context. A below-average season in 1950 looks the same as a good season in 1943. An above-average season in 2000 looks like a dominant one in 2014.

Luckily, there exist several metrics that put individual seasons on fair scales, for both the different stadiums and leagues and for differing run environments over the years.

Repoz Posted: June 01, 2014 at 08:46 AM | 45 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, sabermetrics

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.

   1. bobm Posted: June 01, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4716772)
A nice introduction to sabermetrics for probably many newspaper readers.

FTFA:

OPS+ and ERA+ are easy to understand. A 100 in either category is always the average. A 120 means the hitter or pitcher was 20 percent better than the average player — no small feat. [...]

Yes, OPS+ is not perfect, for OPS itself is flawed. Its simple calculation values OBP and SLG the same, even though one added point of OBP has been proved to be worth much more than an added point of SLG.


FTFY - IIRC OPS+ double counts, so 120 is 10% better.

   2. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: June 01, 2014 at 09:08 AM (#4716773)
Here is a list of baseball players since 1901 who had inarguably better debut years in the majors than Dodgers right fielder Yasiel Puig.


Highest WAR, rookie season, since 1901. Puig rankes 19th. (It's not even the best rookie season of the 2010s; he's 4th, behind Heyward, Harper and Austin Jackson.)

"But Puig only played 104 games!" I hear you cry. OK, let's limit the list to players with 104 games or less. Puig's on top, but not "inarguably better" than Aviles or Span, or even Wade Boggs. (And I'll take Willie McCovey's 1959 all day long.)
   3. john_halfz Posted: June 01, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4716775)
My preseason prediction of 6 WAR, with which one or two commenters took issue, may have been conservative. Puig is a monster. I wonder how well he'll have to do to convince Bill Plaschke that he's not ruining the Dodgers.
   4. McCoy Posted: June 01, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4716776)
FTFY - IIRC OPS+ double counts, so 120 is 10% better.

You cannot get a % using OPS+. OPS+ as we all know uses what one did versus the league average OBP and the league average SLG. We have no way of knowing by how much in each category solely by looking at OPS+.

You could probably say that a 120 OPS+ is roughly 20% better in producing runs than a 100 OPS+ hitter.
   5. McCoy Posted: June 01, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4716777)
Highest WAR, rookie season, since 1901. Puig rankes 19th. (It's not even the best rookie season of the 2010s; he's 4th, behind Heyward, Harper and Austin Jackson.)

"But Puig only played 104 games!" I hear you cry. OK, let's limit the list to players with 104 games or less. Puig's on top, but not "inarguably better" than Aviles or Span, or even Wade Boggs. (And I'll take Willie McCovey's 1959 all day long.)


He ain't talking seasons but a year's worth of games-365 days.
   6. peewee Posted: June 01, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4716810)
A 120 ERA+ doesn't mean the pitcher was 20% better than average either. It means the league was 20% worse. He was around 17% better. It doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it will massively overstate great seasons (or top relievers). A 200 ERA+ is only 50% better than league average, not twice as good.
   7. valuearbitrageur Posted: June 01, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4716813)
I'm not going to waste my time doing the math on his first 155 games, but Mike Trout hit 35 HR, had 75 XBH, and was 53/57 in stolen bases in his first 179 games. Ignoring positional adjustments,in total he was 65 runs above average on offense and 23 runs above average on defense, 98 total.

So far Puig is 51 runs above average on offense and 7 on defense in his first 155 games, or 68 total. He's still 30 runs behind Trout, so he ain't catching up by game 179 and clearly has been nowhere near as good as Trout, without even considering Trout played centerfield and Puig doesn't.

But I don't expect the author to have realized that, given Trout plays so far away that he's probably never heard of him.
   8. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 01, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4716817)
Puig has been very, very good to be sure. But this new concept of "Debut Year" seems to be contrived specifically to favor him. Puig, in his first 155 games, has an OPS+ of 171 and a WAR of 7.5 Good for him. That's outstanding. Joe Jackson, over his first 175 games had an OPS+ of 186 and a WAR of 10.0. But it took Jackson a little over 3 calendar years to accomplish that. Ignoring his two 5 games seasons at ages 20 and 21, Jackson had a 196 OPS+ and a10.5 WAR over roughly his calendar year from ages 22-23, just like Puig.
   9. Srul Itza At Home Posted: June 01, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4716876)
Leaving aside the specific problems with the article, Puig has indeed been very good.

So where are all the Puig naysayers from this site who assured us that his first year was just a fluke and he was heading for a down year? Hmmm?
   10. Dale Sams Posted: June 01, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4716892)
Brandon Moss would like to remind everyone that he has a .927 OPS in the last 325 days. Not Puigs .968, but still.
   11. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: June 01, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4716933)
Sam assured me he was the Cuban Jeff Francouer, so I'm sticking with that evaluation.
   12. McCoy Posted: June 01, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4716963)
Trout had gotten into 103 games through his first 365 days since getting called up in the majors. .302/.361/.501
   13. McCoy Posted: June 01, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4716964)
.306/.370/.527 through his first 155 games and .309/.374/.531 through his first 162 games.
   14. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: June 01, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4717011)
Puig has been very, very good to be sure. But this new concept of "Debut Year" seems to be contrived specifically to favor him. Puig, in his first 155 games, has an OPS+ of 171 and a WAR of 7.5 Good for him. That's outstanding. Joe Jackson, over his first 175 games had an OPS+ of 186 and a WAR of 10.0. But it took Jackson a little over 3 calendar years to accomplish that. Ignoring his two 5 games seasons at ages 20 and 21, Jackson had a 196 OPS+ and a10.5 WAR over roughly his calendar year from ages 22-23, just like Puig.


I don't think anyone knows EXACTLY how to account for timelining, but it sure seems like those 100 years swing the advantage to Puigin this particular instance.
   15. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 01, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4717013)
I don't think anyone knows EXACTLY how to account for timelining, but it sure seems like those 100 years swing the advantage to Puigin this particular instance.


No argument. That doesn't negate the fact that the "first calender year" metric is bullshit. The greatest young player in history is playing right now, and it isn't Puig, regardless of what this new contrived stat says.
   16. Walt Davis Posted: June 01, 2014 at 07:34 PM (#4717018)
Yes, OPS+ is not perfect, for OPS itself is flawed. Its simple calculation values OBP and SLG the same

This is also not right. Or awkwardly worded. By OPS, 1 point of OBP is "worth" the same as 1 of SLG. By OPS+, a point of OBP is worth lgSLG/lgOBP points reletive to a point of SLG ... that ratio is usually ranges from about 1.2 to 1.3 if I remember right.


Leaving aside calendar year issues, by OPS+, Puig is on track for an historic age 23 season. His 193 OPS+ currently trails only Williams and Cobb, tied with Jackson, just ahead of Ruth. He's 6 points ahead of Pujols, 13 ahead of Thomas. Griffey, Canseco, Juan Gone and Sheff are down around 170, so even a 150ish OPS+ for the rest of the season still leaves him in impressive company.
   17. Cooper Nielson Posted: June 01, 2014 at 10:49 PM (#4717096)
But this new concept of "Debut Year" seems to be contrived specifically to favor him.

That doesn't negate the fact that the "first calender year" metric is ########.


Why does everyone have such a big problem with this? A "calendar year" is a pretty universal, scientific concept. MLB has one full season every calendar year. Puig was called up in the middle of the 2013 season so he only played about 60% of it. That's obviously going to hurt him when comparing his "rookie season" to others, as shown in #2's table. This is just an alternative way to visualize what Puig has done, so far, in "full-season" terms. Change it to "first 162 team games" if you prefer.
   18. cardsfanboy Posted: June 01, 2014 at 11:06 PM (#4717101)
Why does everyone have such a big problem with this? A "calendar year" is a pretty universal, scientific concept. MLB has one full season every calendar year. Puig was called up in the middle of the 2013 season so he only played about 60% of it. That's obviously going to hurt him when comparing his "rookie season" to others, as shown in #2's table. This is just an alternative way to visualize what Puig has done, so far, in "full-season" terms. Change it to "first 162 team games" if you prefer.


Because it's selective towards the end results.


anytime someone creates a situation in which the the end result is to clearly over value "their guy" with regards to selective end points is just something asking to be torn apart.
   19. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 01, 2014 at 11:53 PM (#4717124)
Because it's selective towards the end results.
anytime someone creates a situation in which the the end result is to clearly over value "their guy" with regards to selective end points is just something asking to be torn apart.

Oh bullpoppy--enjoy Puig, you guys. It's this kind of discussion that gives sabes a bad name. Puig is a GREAT and exciting young player--it doesn't matter if he's the best, 4th best, the 22nd best in his first 162 games. Jeez....
   20. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 12:10 AM (#4717133)
Nobody is not enjoying him, but can't he be exactly what he is, instead of trying to make him the greatest of all time?

It's not the sabes pulliing out these bullpoppy arguments, they are just defending the world from the onslaught of the barbarians and ignorance.

   21. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 02, 2014 at 12:19 AM (#4717135)
Then ignore stupid claims. Unless you're this guy
   22. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 12:30 AM (#4717136)
Then ignore stupid claims.


That attitude allowed Fox News to become number one, and for rampant idiocy to take place in regards to Global Warming, vaccines, Evolution, gmo's and Obama's birth place...etc. I would rather be that guy.


Puig is a great player. But creating something that nobody in the history of baseball has ever talked about, just to make him appear "best" is ridiculous. As Walt pointed out, he's on pace for one of the greatest age 23 seasons of all time, that alone should be enough to make this writer happy, but no, he had to literally create something that nobody in baseball history has ever talked about before.
(It's like the Abreu joining the sacred 900/400 club, which again, nobody has ever talked about before)
   23. PreservedFish Posted: June 02, 2014 at 12:35 AM (#4717137)
Puig is a great player. But creating something that nobody in the history of baseball has ever talked about, just to make him appear "best" is ridiculous.


365 days is not arbitrary. That's how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun. Or something like that. Science knows.
   24. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 02, 2014 at 01:14 AM (#4717142)
I don't think it's the use of 365 days that I find troublesome - it's the mix and match nature of how he gets there. The writer's claiming Puig is better than anyone other than Frank (stricly by OPS+), but then suggesting if you take defense into the mix, then he might be the best ever.

But if you take defense into the mix, then you're also bringing in Trout (and probably many others) into the conversation, none of whom it appears the writer considers.

On top of that is the Joe Jackson issue, where I guess the writer is looking at consecutive 365 days since call-up, rather than 365 total days as a big leaguer, which may eliminate some guys from consideration that otherwise would top him.



   25. bjhanke Posted: June 02, 2014 at 03:09 AM (#4717150)
Walt (#16) - So THAT's what the "+" in OPS+ does - or, at least, it's part of what the "+" does. I've never been able to figure that out. It makes sense. Thanks, even though I know you weren't posting up for my personal edification on that issue. - Brock Hanke
   26. JE (Jason) Posted: June 02, 2014 at 06:27 AM (#4717155)
That attitude allowed Fox News to become number one, and for rampant idiocy to take place in regards to Global Warming, vaccines, Evolution, gmo's and Obama's birth place...etc. I would rather be that guy.

When put on the defensive on a baseball subject, CFB, you often respond with biting criticism against ... conservatives. It's weak sauce. (Also, have you ever tried "OTP?")
   27. plim Posted: June 02, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4717193)
Albert Pujols says hi.

his OPS+ may not be as high but that's more a factor of the league ops in 2001 (.756) being higher than the last two years (.703 last year and .701 so far this year) than park factors (100/99 for 2001 stl, 97/96 for la), if you believe pujols was clean.

Pujols 2001: .329/.403/.610/157, 112 r, 194 H, 47 2b, 4 3b, 37 hr, 130 rbi,
Puig debut: .329/.407/.563/171, 98 r, 191 h, 36 2b, 5 3b, 30 hr, 82 rbi
   28. tfbg9 Posted: June 02, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4717470)
It's weak sauce.


Yep. Andy does this all the time as well, and his forced jokes fall just as flat. Stick to baseball. Nobody gives a two shits about your ####### politics.
   29. PreservedFish Posted: June 02, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4717484)
When put on the defensive on a baseball subject, CFB, you often respond with biting criticism against ... conservatives. It's weak sauce. (Also, have you ever tried "OTP?")


To be fair, that wasn't really an anti-conservatives comment. Vaccines and GMOs are issues for liberal nutters.
   30. SandyRiver Posted: June 02, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4717571)
Leaving aside calendar year issues, by OPS+, Puig is on track for an historic age 23 season. His 193 OPS+ currently trails only Williams and Cobb, tied with Jackson, just ahead of Ruth. He's 6 points ahead of Pujols, 13 ahead of Thomas. Griffey, Canseco, Juan Gone and Sheff are down around 170, so even a 150ish OPS+ for the rest of the season still leaves him in impressive company.


Probably being too picky here, but I don't think Ruth belongs in the comparison, as he was still a part-timer as a position player in his age 23 season. Now if Puig can match the Babe 24 (or better yet 25), now you're talking!
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4717717)
Probably being too picky here, but I don't think Ruth belongs in the comparison, as he was still a part-timer as a position player in his age 23 season. Now if Puig can match the Babe 24 (or better yet 25), now you're talking!


Considering it's two months into the season, and that I can find about half a dozen guys who at age 23 had equal or better first half's of the year, I don't think it's being too picky.

age 23 players with higher ops than Puig in the first half of the season...don't have ops+ as available data(without going through them individually, when you select sOps in pi you don't get any records)

Reggie Jackson, Ted Williams, Arky Vaughan, Albert Pujols, Willie Mays, Eddie Mathews, Dale Murphy, Babe Ruth, Mark McGwire, Mickey Mantle.

Impressive company and if he makes it to the all-star break with over 1.000 ops, he'll have one of the top 20 offensive first halfs for a 23 year old of all time. (others currently below him, but over 1.000 for the first half of their age 23 season includes Hank Aaron, Arod, Babe Herman, Manny Ramirez, Fred Lynn, Juan Gonzalez, Kal Daniels, Troy Glaus, Harmon Killebrew, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Griffey jr, Lou Gehrigh, Ryan Klesko---note again, not era adjusted so ops+ he probably is doing better)
   32. Srul Itza Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4717720)
That attitude allowed Fox News to become number one, and for rampant idiocy to take place in regards to Global Warming . . . .


And yet last night, Fox (which I assume is somehow related to Fox News) ran a one-hour long infomercial asserting the existence of anthropogenic climate change, responding to every criticism of that view, and discussing ways to deal with the problem.

They called it "Cosmos".
   33. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4717725)
But creating something that nobody in the history of baseball has ever talked about, just to make him appear "best" is ridiculous.

It seems to have become a mission here to make sure no player is over-praised, but statistics have always been re-arranged in just about every conceivable fashion in a quest to see how well someone has played. How often have we heard about what a player did after the All-Star break and the start of the next season? It's a lot easier to see what someone has done in a calendar year now, but I'm pretty sure folks were always impressed when mid-season call-ups started at a high level and continued even stronger the following season.
   34. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 08:17 PM (#4717745)
How often have we heard about what a player did after the All-Star break and the start of the next season?


All the time, it's the primary thing I look at when considering voting for the All-star game as it is much better way to look at it than how well they did for two months to start the season.


They called it "Cosmos".

Great episode.

   35. Cooper Nielson Posted: June 02, 2014 at 09:36 PM (#4717783)
Puig is a great player. But creating something that nobody in the history of baseball has ever talked about, just to make him appear "best" is ridiculous. As Walt pointed out, he's on pace for one of the greatest age 23 seasons of all time, that alone should be enough to make this writer happy, but no, he had to literally create something that nobody in baseball history has ever talked about before.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time in baseball history someone has talked about the first "complete" year/season of a guy who was called up in June. People have talked about what Tony Gwynn hit over 162 consecutive games spanning two seasons. People have talked about what players have done before their 21st birthday. We're baseball fans; we talk about everything.

How often have we heard about what a player did after the All-Star break and the start of the next season?

All the time, it's the primary thing I look at when considering voting for the All-star game as it is much better way to look at it than how well they did for two months to start the season.


What a contrived and arbitrary idea!
   36. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4717790)
What a contrived and arbitrary idea!


And yet I'm not using this endpoint to promote a bogus argument about best of all time or some other garbage.

Nobody has talked about first 365 days in a career as a sign of greatness, not that I have ever seen anywhere. We've seen age arguments, we've seen first or first two season arguments, but I've never seen anyone try to pull first 365 day arguments in the majors. I mean they completely ignored Ichiro's first year for whatever reason 7.7 war beats 7.5 war. etc...

Basically the writer is cherry picking end points, arguments and ignoring counter arguments.
   37. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 02, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4717799)
Basically the writer is cherry picking end points, arguments and ignoring counter arguments.

Isn't the writer citing all of Puig's MLB experience? Just using the 365 days as a convenient comparison to others who weren't mi-season call-ups? Don't see any problem.
   38. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 02, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4717808)
Isn't the writer citing all of Puig's MLB experience? Just using the 365 days as a convenient comparison to others who weren't mi-season call-ups? Don't see any problem.


the problem is, he's not talking about a players first 162 games, or his first 365 days on a MLB roster. He's limiting the comparisons to what a player has done in the 365 days since he first debuted. That's what's arbitrary. Joe Jackson had one of the greatest first 162 games to start to a baseball career, but he's not in the top 10,000 in this metric because he didn't hit 162 games until 3 years after his debut.
   39. Cooper Nielson Posted: June 02, 2014 at 10:38 PM (#4717822)
but I've never seen anyone try to pull first 365 day arguments in the majors.

...and now you have!

Come on, these are classic baseball-fan arguments, they're supposed to be fun. If we are, by law, only allowed to look at WAR over discrete seasons (whether the "201x" season or a player's "age-2x" season) then there's no point in debating any of this. We simply ask bobm to run the data from Play Index. And then what are we here for?

I see (at least) 3 reasonable ways to compare Puig to his peers in terms of "best starts" (and I'm just thinking about the timeframe here, you can choose your own metric):

1. Best rookie season, i.e., best full season which is the season wherein the player passed 130 career AB (I always wondered why this was AB and not PA). But this is unfair to guys who get called up in the middle of the season, like Puig. (Or, in Trout's case, it allows us to ignore his .672 OPS over 123 AB in his first call-up.) And it also compares players of vastly different ages (Trout vs. Ryan Howard) and/or experience (Ichiro).

2. Best start through x days/games (team or player games). This levels the playing field, so to speak, by at least providing comparable sample sizes. There's still the issue of comparing players of different ages, and there are cases where games vs. days are very different based on roster status and playing time. (In Puig's case, days, team games, and player games are pretty similar.)

3. Best career up to a certain age. This might be the most fair, but it does penalize players who are born in the offseason. A player who turns 23 on Oct. 1 will likely look better "through age 23" than a player who turns 23 on March 30. And, really, this seems to be the most "contrived" and "arbitrary" of them all, as people's birthdays are mostly random (and sometimes actually "change").
   40. cardsfanboy Posted: June 02, 2014 at 11:23 PM (#4717852)
Come on, these are classic baseball-fan arguments, they're supposed to be fun. If we are, by law, only allowed to look at WAR over discrete seasons (whether the "201x" season or a player's "age-2x" season) then there's no point in debating any of this. We simply ask bobm to run the data from Play Index. And then what are we here for?


Yet this guy managed to miss so many names that it pretty much invalidates his entire argument.

He limits it to Fred Lynn, Frank Thomas and Johnny Mize solely because of their ops+. He doesn't give their ops+ because he would have had to do math, he acts like ops+ is the end all, be all to the argument, and is condescending in the way he puts it by flat out declaring

Here is a list of baseball players since 1901 who had inarguably better debut years in the majors than Dodgers right fielder Yasiel Puig.
1.
2.
3.

Here is a complete list of baseball players since 1901 who had arguably better debut years in the majors than Puig:
Frank Thomas, Fred Lynn and Johnny Mize.


Ichiro had a better first 365 days, and that is an inarguable point imho. But arguably you could include Ted Williams, Shoeless Joe (as pointed out), Mike Trout(who misses the arbitrary set up he has because he played a little in 2011) Albert Pujols, Mark McGwire, and a few others.

But it's the condescending way that he words it, and the utter lack of willing to do the math, that really grates on me.
   41. Cooper Nielson Posted: June 03, 2014 at 12:07 AM (#4717865)
Ichiro had a better first 365 days, and that is an inarguable point imho.

If something is "imho" can it also be "inarguable"?

He limits it to Fred Lynn, Frank Thomas and Johnny Mize solely because of their ops+. He doesn't give their ops+ because he would have had to do math

Not sure what you're talking about, he gives the OPS+ for each of them:

Only Thomas, then a 22-year-old White Sox first baseman/designated hitter, beat Puig with a 177 OPS+ over his first calendar year in the majors. The other players to come close were Boston’s Lynn in 1974, with 169, and St. Louis’ Mize in 1936 with 162.

I'm also not getting the "condescending" vibe. Sounds more fanboy-ish to me. Anyway, the author seems to have gotten you riled up, which I suppose is what he intended to do.

I think the fact that he chose a "calendar year" to run the comparison is the least of his problems, and is, arguably, as reasonable as any other timeframe. That's all I'm saying.

Limiting the value comparison to OPS+ seems to be a bigger issue (come to think of it, weren't Dwight Gooden and Mark Fidrych "baseball players" too?) and more worthy of your scorn.
   42. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 03, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4718001)
You could probably say that a 120 OPS+ is roughly 20% better in producing runs than a 100 OPS+ hitter.


That's roughly true.

   43. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 03, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4718011)
Ichiro had a better first 365 days, and that is an inarguable point imho.


Puig: .326/.405/.559 BBRef WAR 7.6, Fangraphs 7.1

Ichiro: .350/.381/.457 BBREf WAR 7.7, Fangraphs 6.0

meh, I'd go with Fred Lynn
   44. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 03, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4718029)
Looks to me like this is a garden variety case of a MSM writer trying to fill space with something that might be interesting to his casual fan readers, and maybe to stir up a bit of controversy. Looks like he's at least succeeded in that latter respect. Of course it's a stupid stat, but I've seen plenty of dumber ones.

meh, I'd go with Fred Lynn

I'd go with Lynn or Trout, but somehow I think I could settle for Puig if you'll throw in his salary along with it.
   45. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 03, 2014 at 12:54 PM (#4718055)
Also, Dick Allen, 8.8 WAR rookie year, the year before played 10 games in September, 25 PAs, .292/.280/.458, Sept. 3 to Sept. 28

He doesn't get that September cup of coffee he blows Puig away.

Mitchell Page...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-14-2014
(114 - 9:59pm, Sep 14)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(183 - 9:53pm, Sep 14)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(249 - 9:35pm, Sep 14)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(148 - 9:33pm, Sep 14)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogKapler: Baseball’s next big competitive edge
(20 - 9:31pm, Sep 14)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8028 - 9:23pm, Sep 14)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(39 - 9:17pm, Sep 14)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogChris Sale’s Season for the Ages
(19 - 9:09pm, Sep 14)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogFraley: Millions in lost revenue from ticket sales will impact Rangers payroll | Dallas Morning News
(26 - 8:22pm, Sep 14)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(10 - 8:10pm, Sep 14)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe skills Rangers' Jon Daniels wants in new manager/partner - does Tim Bogar measure up? | Dallas Morning News
(3 - 7:39pm, Sep 14)
Last: Rough Carrigan

NewsblogMiami man charged with smuggling Cuban baseball star to U.S.
(1 - 6:35pm, Sep 14)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2379 - 6:14pm, Sep 14)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(237 - 6:00pm, Sep 14)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogRon Washington Departed Over Legal Issues
(70 - 3:57pm, Sep 14)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

Page rendered in 0.6079 seconds
52 querie(s) executed