User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4413 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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. Kyle S Posted: December 20, 2005 at 03:30 PM (#1786077)The next time I hear "Edgardo Alfonzo for MVP!" I'm going to hit them with a dose of hot, sweet Lederer. "Rich Lederer just PWNED your Toby Hall infatuation, b!+cH! How do you like THAT?" Revenge will be mine.
The Twins think Shannon Stewart is just a fine lead-off hitter. No wonder they were interested in Joe Randa.
actually, that's exactly the OPPOSITE of what people said at the time
I nominate the all-time OOPS keystone combo of Aparicio & Richardson
(full disclosure: I trhought both of them were good offensive players at the time)
We're killing Bobby Richardson?
Well, I hope before Glenn goes, he'll come up here so we can give him a big hug and a kiss, because that's the kind of guy he is.
I will concede Glenn Beckert, much as I loved him growing up. Don Kessinger and Beckert were a great top-of-the-order disaster.
I am a bit puzzled to see Al Dark on the all-time list, though. For about five years with the Giants, Dark was a truly excellent bat at shortstop, a .300 hitter with impressive power. Perhaps the rest of his career drags down his overall numbers. But it's hard to say he was in any sense overrated in his prime.
We're killing Bobby Richardson?
no, that's in Soviet Russia
OK, gotcha.
But while Moreno was plain awful, he was indeed overrated (though I understand he doesn't qualify for your list). He was considered a star, and signed a big free agent contract in 1982 accordingly.
Also, I'm very curious to know where Dick Groat came out by this measure.
AVG OBP SLG Groat .286 .330 .366 League .265 .330 .406Surprisingly, low average guy is more productive. Although it's close, IIRC. There was a Primate Study written up 1-2 years ago that did the math.
Bob Dernier's batting average is too low. Dang.
So....who's lying in the other direction?
(base stealers will be overrepresented on OOPS teams becuz of the belief than SB are valuable)
Dave Cash's OBP is 2 points higher than lig average, so he misses out
Rich, messing around on my lunch break I've been looking at a different metric to measure what you're talking about - batting average as a percentage of OPS. I haven't adjusted it for league average yet, but looking at the results I get, it appears to do the job in terms of identifying guys whose value is NOT their batting average - check out the bottom of my list:
EmilVerban
HalLanier
FelixFermin
JohnnyCooney
TommyThevenow
GlennBeckert
TimFoli
SandyAlomar Sr.
MauryWills
DougFlynn
DuaneKuiper
JesusAlou
OzzieGuillen
LloydWaner
ReySanchez
MattyAlou
BuddyHassett
JuanPierre
JerryRemy
RafaelBelliard
BurgessWhitehead
Lots of crappy hitters.
...and a HOFer (Lloyd Waner) to boot!
Luis Aparicio and Red Schoendienst were the Hall of Famers who showed up on my All-Time list of OOPs.
Overrated doesn't necesarily mean bad- Steve Garvey was overrated- but he was still a good hitter (in his prime- not his post LA daze).
All else being relatively equal the 310/390/500 guy will be perceived by the large majority of fans and sportwriters as being much better than the 260/390/500
Mostly. But Matty Alou stands out. He was a fine hitter for a few seasons in mid-career, but his numbers are driven down by lousy years fore and aft. Actually his career OBP is pretty good, so he wouldn't make the OOPS list.
more to the point, the 310/330/370 guy will also be considered better
25 years ago a large majority would have- I'm not sure of that anymore.
The 310/330/370 guy would probably need 40+ steals before a majority would think he's better than the 260/390/500 guy...
Surprisingly, low average guy is more productive. Although it's close, IIRC. There was a Primate Study written up 1-2 years ago that did the math.
Can someone either explain that or link me to the study? I do math for a living & I'm having trouble greasping that one.
25 years ago a large majority would have- I'm not sure of that anymore.
I was thinking more like 40 years ago--we were (well, I was) back in the dark ages
The 310/330/370 guy would probably need 40+ steals before a majority would think he's better
I present to you Aparicio, Wills,Campy, and Vince Coleman
Surprisingly, low average guy is more productive. Although it's close, IIRC. There was a Primate Study written up 1-2 years ago that did the math.</blockquote>
Would the gist of that study be that to have an equal slugging average, low average guy has more extra-base hits and his fewer hits are made up with more walks (giving equal OBP)?
Just a seat of the pants guess.
The basic math is that, if you have the same OBP and the same SLG, then the higher BA guy has more singles but less walks and also less extra-base hits. The benefit of singles over walks is less than the benefit of extra-base hits over singles.
I've seen examples worked out that make up two hypothetical batting lines and do a LW or RC comparison, but I'm too lazy to figure one out right now. Hopefully, somebody else will for you.
Can someone link to the study that would show Player B to be more valuable? I thought a single was better than a walk.
I used tango's average linear weights from 99 - 02 where bb=.33, 1b =.474, 2b=.764, hr=1.409
take two guys, one hits .333/.400/.511, the other hits .277/.400/.511
one has 500 pa, 450 ab, 300 outs, 50 walks, 110 1b, 20 2b, 20 hr
other has 500 pa, 415 ab, 300 outs, 85 bb, 68 1b, 22 2b, 25 hr.
the first line is worth 112.10 runs using linear weights
second line is worth 112.31 runs using same weights
it don't make a whole lot of difference.
(2*BAVG)/OPS
or
OPS - (2*BAVG)
In the first formula the league average is usually around .700. Players above .700 are more dependent on their BAVG.
In the second formula the league average hovers near .220; players with lower rates rely more heavily upon their BAVG than guys above .220.
Actually, Wills' career OBP was better than league average. His career SB% was 73.8, and it was higher in his peak seasons. While his CS would lower his effective OBP to about average. His base stealing probably had value comparable to an extra 40 or 50 points of slugging. He was, for the most part, a very valuable offensive player.
In his best seasons, he certainly was. It's also an important consideration that through much of his career, he was competing in an environment (especially at Dodger Stadium) in which a single run meant proportionally more than it has in most other environments. He was good at creating single runs, in a space in which single runs had a lot of value.
And maybe it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that Wills and Aparicio (and to a lesser extent Campaneris) contributed a ton of defensive value.
So, the lower batting average teams score an average of 1.18 more runs (0.18%) than their high batting average counterparts. I think we could safely call that a wash.
In his best seasons, he certainly was
hmmm.. his OPS+ (park adjusted) is 88 lifetime, and 111 in his best season
only 2 seasons above 100
in his MVP year, his OPS+ was 99
he belongs in the OOPS Hall of Fame because, AT THE TIME, he was considered an overarchingly valuable offensive player
and he wasn't
only 2 seasons above 100
in his MVP year, his OPS+ was 99
OPS is a terrific stat, a handy, easy-to-figure thing that sums up lots of stuff in a tidy little package. OPS+ is great for the same reasons.
But OPS+ isn't perfect. It has a couple of flaws, one minor in this context, one fairly major. The minor one is that, by giving OBP and SLG equal weight, OPS has the effect of slightly overrating guys with a heavy SLG component, and underrating guys with a heavy OBP component. Obviously Wills would be one of your extremely heavy-OBP-component guys, so OPS (and OPS+) undervalues him accordingly.
More importantly in the case of Wills, OPS ignores baserunning, which was of course a significant part of the value Wills created, in stolen bases, in errors created in attempting stolen bases, and in GIDPs avoided. All of that was real offensive value, that OPS ignores.
Wills was a better offensive player than a strict reading of OPS or OPS+ indicates. Further consider the positional adjustment, and his value becomes even more apparent.
He wasn't great, but in his best years, he was a very valuable offensive player.
Yes, he was very overrated, but that doesn't mean he wasn't actually quite good.
Of course, I could be wrong.
so he's Steve Garvey , Senior
(hopefully not a war criminal child molester)
I have to admit that some of my dislike for Wills is based on
1. he's an a-hole
2. he was a worse manager than Ray Knight (put together)
3. I had to listen to the daily count up to the 100 stolen base " barrier" (yes, they actually called it that), at a time when the Dodgers were busy blowing the lead to the Giants (no, that wasn't Wills' fault)
4. his MVP in 1962 is hilaripus when you compare his contributions to Mays' that year (or even Frank Robinson)
Intentional or not, RDF.
Other things being equal, of course, which in practice they rarely are.
Intuitively, I understand what you're saying. It's always seemed to me that patient, low-average, high-power hitters are more slumpy and streaky than impatient, high-average, low-power guys. But analytically, does it really matter? Or to put it another way, the former types are so much better when they're going well than the latter types can ever be, that putting up with their slumps is likely well worth it in the end.
Or Hank Aaron. It was hilaripus, but that wasn't Wills's fault, either.
This is the "why Oakland didn't win the world series under Billy Beane" theory. I personally don't buy it, but a lot of people do.
Let's take a look at Runs Created Above Position to provide context for positional value.
Wills ranked fourth in the league RCAP. And this says nothing about baserunning or defense. His baserunnning that year was phenomenal. He stole 104 bases and was only caught 13 times. If you double his CS and net that sum against his SB, you can see that Wills added about 78 extra bases. He had an incredible success rate at stealing third and put himself in position to score on all types of hits as well as outs.
As far as defense goes, Wills won a Gold Glove in 1962. The advanced fielding metrics of today might not back up that award, but these stats are not based on play-by-play data from those years and can give misleading readings from time to time.
Robinson, Aaron, and Mays may have all been more valuable offensively, but Wills was most definitely a defensible selection as MVP that year.
And drew a lot of errant throws, which don't get counted in the SB column but they are extra bases nonetheless.
Win Shares, which does attempt to incorporate baserunning, defense, and positional adjustment, sees it this way:
Mays 41
Robinson 41
Aaron 34
Wills 32
Overall I think Wills's case isn't as ridiculous as it might look on the surface, but it's still a major stretch. Especially given that it was his team coming from behind at the wire to beat Wills's, which died down the stretch, I think the best choice is pretty clearly Mays.
Mays 34.1 6.7
Robinson 36.3 4.5
Aaron 30.1 4.0
Wills 25.6 6.5
Its also context dependent. You are now doing microcalculations, so it matters all the more. Which is better, 4 singles with the bases loaded each time, or a HR and 3 walks all with the bases empty and 2 outs. (I get the non walker by a little under 5 runs 6.12 to 1.39).
If the guys are that similar, we are probably talking about a very small number of hits/walks.
But really, the stats on this page show that BA is essentially meaningless; there's no significant difference between .260/.390/.500 and .310/.390/.500, so I just don't ever even look at batting average anymore. I can't tell you who the ".300" hitters are in today's MLB, only what range hitters' OBPs and SLGs are in.
No, its a skill. Who told you that a person's batting average was random.
No it doesn't. Having a high batting average does not mean anything about how many outs you make. You can't look at batting average alone and determine that. And I doubt you have many people that aren't going to have batting average be the major contributor to the time someone got on base. If that wasn't true, they would be easy to get out, and make many more outs.
Ideally, if you could, you would put the ball over the fencing in the outfield. Notwithstanding that, you can't go to the plate looking for a walk. You have to have the skill to get a hit. Being patient is about finding your pitch, its not about walking.
If you can't put the ball in play, or you choose not to put the ball in play when you get pitches in the zone, you are going to make a ton of outs via the whiff.
Fun fact about the 1962 NL pennant race. In the Dodgers last 60 games, Willis stole 54 bases in 60 attemtps. Daaaaaamn!
No, I didn't express myself well ... my idea was only that you might want to have a very good singles hitter in addition to a Brian Downing. One might be as streaky as the other. But one might streak while the other slumped, depending on the pitchers and defense they faced ...
So your attack is more diverse, IOW.
Bill James mentioned something like this in his old Historical Abstract; building a platoon along these lines. What type of guys do well against Carlos Silva, BTW?
It works at the level too. Its the difference between BJ Surhoff and Jack Crust, or Adam Dunn and Vlad Guerrero.
This is the "why Oakland didn't win the world series under Billy Beane" theory
Well, hardly. Any team that sticks with Terrence Long for four years is putting some of its chips on singles-hitting ...
Sure; for instance, Jim Wynn -- the Ur-saber-hitter -- was 153/242/306 lifetime against Tom Seaver. Matty Alou was 359/419/487 against Seaver. Now there could be lots of reasons for that: R/L platoon differential; or small sample size (85-95 PA); or who knows. But it could be that against a phenomenal power pitcher with great control, one way to get results is to choke up and slap it to the opposite field. I don't have any dogmatic point. Just a whimsical observation :)
The geometric multiplication of leverage gained by extra alternatives on the bench is the major reason I believe that extra pitchers in the bullpen contribute diminishing returns when compared with their position player counterparts.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main