Ichiro to announce retirement today
craig44
Posts: 11,254 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I wonder when we will see another Ichiro type player again. I consider him akin to a Rod Carew type.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
Cool moment this morning. I grew up watching ichiro. I was 8 when he came to the mlb. He’s one of those guys that I have fond memories of watching.
PSA HOF Baseball Postwar Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 80.51% Complete)
PSA Pro Football HOF Rookie Players Set Registry- (Currently 19.80% Complete)
PSA Basketball HOF Players Rookies Set Registry- (Currently 6.02% Complete)
I Thought he retired years ago lol
And he could hit that grain of rice about as far as he could hit a baseball.
And "ouch" to the comparison to Carew. Carew ranks between Tony Gwynn and Eddie Murray in runs added and Ichiro ranks between Johnny Pesky and Sixto Lezcano.
I meant style of hitter, not the results of his play.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Loved watching him play, remember how he was always stretching in the dugout.
This is a surprise as he wanted to play until age 50.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
he did what he did but never really appealed to me as a player and he had a unique style of batting, charging towards the field as he slapped the ball. I always wondered if he really knew where he was hitting or of if he just slapped and hoped for the best. using that style and playing the odds made him hard to defend.
Rod Carew to Ichiro is a poor comparison. Carew had superb bat control which is sorely lacking in the game today. Teams use the "Shift" because they know batters don't have control/skill/discipline at the plate anymore. it is reminiscent of childhood pick-up games where there aren't enough for a full Team, we were required to "call your field" and if you hit to the wrong field it was an automatic out.
if these MLB players would practice hitting to the opposite field when the "Shift" was on they could get Ichiro slap doubles all day long.
The Carew comparison has a lot of merit. As a Twins fan, I saw him quite a bit before he went to the Angels
Carew was particularly good at bunting and flaring the outside pitch over the shortstops head for a "doink" single. No, not the same as Ichiros goofy looking style, but both guys got a lot of "weak" singles.
I would say they both had great bat control.
I would rate Carew clearly as a better hitter, but not by a lot. Neither guy does much for me.
Carew also missed a LOT more games.
Ichiro had a great career in Japan before joining MLB. It is amazing he still got 3000 hits in MLB alone despite such a late start. He had good speed, decent arm, and good at putting the ball into play. He was simply a top of the batting order guy.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
"decent arm" - Ichiro was known for having a laser for an arm. There are videos all over of YouTube of him throwing guys out early in his career before people stopped running on him. Like this famous one where he'd been in the majors for less than two weeks:
I would agree that Ichiros arm was mach better than decent. I would say elite
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
carew is the greatest hitter from the 60's and 70's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Amazing bat control. No holes in that swing. Cannon arm. 1st Ballot Hall Of Famer.
Dave
1960's? NO. His first great year was 1969.
You have a case for the 1970's. It's a slam dunk, if you ignore SLG and OPS and focus ONLY on BA. He did have an excellent run 1973-78. Still only averaged 7 HR per year and could have drawn a few more BB. Quite similar to Ichiro in his approach to hitting.
Johnny Bench and Reggie Jackson were better in the 1960's, when you factor in ALL aspects of hitting. But for average, anyone who wins 6 batting titles over a decade is certainly one of the best.
Several guys who could be considered as good didn't play for the entire decade.
I watched him for most of the decade as a Twins fan. Guys with zero power just don't do it for me. Oliva, had he been healthy, was a vastly superior hitter. THAT guy could RAKE!
The Ichiro bashers (and I agree he wasn't the perfect lead-off guy) always fail to mention that the guy had a CANNON!
Carew was a little bit better of a hitter. Ichiro was a better defender with that arm, and stole more bases.
hitter dosent mean more homeruns
Do you consider Judge a better hitter than Altuve ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Hitter doesn't mean higher batting average either.
Judge/Altuve is a bad comparison. Judge has had one huge year and one good year. Altuve has had 6 straight good years with two being very good.
Homeruns are better than singles, doubles and triples. I am not in agreement with walks being as valuable to a guy like Judge, who is (probably) batting 4th, but he did have an awesome year in 2017, better than any of Altuve's. I think walks to a clean-up hitter distort his value.
I WATCHED Carew for ALL his "great" years and yes he got a lot of hits. MANY of them were bunts down the 3rd base line (he was an amazing bunter) or "flares" just over the Shortstop's head into short left field.
These kind of hits are not as productive as a line drive (think Tony Oliva) base hit. I think "doink" hits distort a "singles" hitters value.
I wouldn't say Carew was more valuable in the 1970's as a hitter than Bench or Jackson (and I couldn't stand Reggie, so this is hard to say).
Carew has many of the same characteristics as Ichiro (a great hitter as well). You have to decide where you put a value, and a home run has MORE value than 2 singles. You can talk to the stat guys to get the actual ratio.
Look at SLG along with BA. In the Carew/Jackson comparison, it looks to me like it equals them out a LOT.
I am not saying you are wrong really, except for the 1960's which must be a mistake on your part.
I will certainly grant you 1973-78, but Reggie was very close, even in those years.
we are not talking value , we are talking better hitter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
60's was a mistake ..sorry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
So a guy who hits .330 with all singles is better than a guy who hits .280 with 40 HR?
Why compare to other hitters?
Ichiro was a very unique player and a very talented one. Single season hit record is rather incredible as was his arm and range as a younger man. Hit for average, stole bases, ran the bases well, smart player, strong and accurate arm.
Solid baseball player.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Half the fun of these threads (for me anyway) is debating the players.
I would agree that Ichiro was a very talented player, but would say he was great, as opposed to "solid".
Was Carew a better hitter than Dick Allen in 1972?
JoeBanzai is absolutely correct in his assessment of a hitters value. I would say that walks are a very important aspect though. Dont underestimate them. the most important things a hitter can do are to get on base and hit with power.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
and yes, debating the players is the fun of the sports talk forum for me. if we all agreed it sure would be boring
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I agree that debate is fun but he was just so different than what you see in baseball today. His approach at the plate was not really comparable to his peers and his skill set (hits) is not appreciated by the prevailing wisdom in baseball today.
I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame because of his total abilities as a baseball player - not just as an impressive lead off hitter and base stealer - and his international stardom.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I do agree that Carew should be in the hall of fame. However, a great base stealer he was not. only 65% success. he ran into 187 outs attempting to steal. his steals were a net loss to the team. he would have been more valuable never attempting a steal with that percentage. a base stealer needs to be awfully close to 80% in order to be a net positive to his team.
I would say Willie Stargell was certainly a notch above Carew during the 70ś despite having a BA of .287 for the decade compared to Carews .343
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I find it interesting to note that for the decade of the 1970ś that Carew had more IBB than Reggie did 101 to 75. He nearly had as many as Stargell had at 133.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thank you!
I don't underestimate the BB. The best one is when the #9 batter draws one. Generally speaking the worst walk is when the #4 guy gets a pass. It matters where you are in the order, that's why the "slugger" hits 4th, highest probability of guys being on base, and why you don't want him to walk, nobody behind him to drive him around/in.
The #4 guy is usually the slugger, usually not a fast runner and the next batter usually has a huge drop in BA and SLG. We want the #4 guy to hit the ball. YES a BB is better than making an out MOST of the time. Sac fly being an exception.
The #9 guy has the best 4 hitters on the team coming up next and is usually a weak BA/SLG guy but is prolly a SS or 2B in the AL so he can often run well. Pitchers drawing a walk when batting #9 is the best of the best they simply can't hit anymore.
Put it this way; walking a "sure out" is stupid, walking a guy that can blast the ball 400+ feet makes much more sense and often is a good strategy.
I really can't believe the stat guys haven't already come up with a formula that proves this, it's pretty obvious.
Carew is overrated. He is definitely a HOFer, but he was a slap hitter (like Ichiro) and not much more, he had one year over 1.000 OPS and another over .9, that's just NOT better than Reggie or (good call) Willie. Also played about 1/2 his career at 1B.
Unless a single is as good as a double, triple or home run we ARE talking "value".
Carew did have a great eye at the plate. Might just as well walk him as pitch to him, he's only going to hit a single anyway, as I stated he hit a LOT of flares into left field and bunts for hits, those are not much more "valuable " than a walk. Plus he got the lions share of those walks in four years when he was at his best.
Entirely different mindset than in walking a slugger intentionally.
I'll never forget my Dad saying "here comes the old unintentional intentional walk" once when Killebrew came up. Four pitches nowhere near the strike zone. I think the IBB has more to do with 1B being "open" than any "fear" factor.
Its all we do here , just masses of hot air going to and fro or circling about , if you are going to start being logical or sensible then we might as well shut the forum down.
We are going to criticize some of these guys 50 years after they drop dead even though we never saw them play.
Judges best work was probably bevis and butthead . King of the hill was derivative , he had sold out by then.
You are ON FIRE my man!
The traditional batting order is also beginning to change with the rise of analytics. It is becoming much more common for a teams best hitter to now bat 2nd and even leadoff in order to get the best hitters more plate appearances during the season. notice that Aaron Judge, Mookie Betts and Mike Trout usually hit 2nd in the lineup now, and probably should be hitting leadoff.
the difference between a hitter in the cleanup spot to batting leadoff is about 48 PA per season. that is a fair amount of extra PA for your best hitter. Keep in mind that the cleanup hitter will usually only bat cleanup once per game, and that is if someone gets on base in the first. It is trending that the best hitter will bat leadoff second best hitter batting 2nd and so forth.
It is a shock to the traditionalists system to think of sluggers or teams best hitters hitting leadoff, but it is where the data is taking us. in reality, Ruth, Williams and Mantle all should have been leadoff hitters.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My thoughts weren't so much as to how many times a guy gets to the plate, but who's coming up next. If a guy walks he obviously isn't making the final out of an inning, so who comes up next should be important. No matter who comes up 4th in an inning.
Not sure if I am going to bat Killebrew lead off, although I have often wondered why a team without a "true" clean up hitter doesn't just pick the guy with the highest BA with runners in scoring position.
Example; the Twins a couple of years ago really had no one that really fit in the 4 spot. Joe Mauer no longer was a great hitter, but led the team (and the AL one year if memory serves) in BA/RISP. I figured bat him 4th and see if he can keep it up.
Back to my point. I would like to see BA and SLG numbers for each spot in the batting order. That might show some numeric evidence to support my BB theory.
I am a fan of analytics, but only to a point. You still need to factor in common sense baseball knowledge.
I do like the idea of NOT putting the worst hitter at the #9 spot.
I don’t think it is wise to ignore the data but at the same time it is wise always to apply it to the team that you have in place and be fluid.
As a Yankee fan, I’m a little bothered by Aaron Judge hitting second (especially with Gardner leading off right now). I feel like a good OBP man or two ahead of him (presently LeMahieu is a good option or maybe Torres 2nd) would afford the Yankees the opportunity for a big inning, Judge still gets a 1st inning AB with 0, 1 or 2 outs and potential runners on and guys like Gary Sanchez and Luke Voit behind him as Judge also has a knack for getting on and working the count.
Often times, the first inning is the BEST chance you have to get to a pitcher before he ‘settles in’. I totally get that over the course of a season you want to get your best hitter as many ABs as possible - that makes total sense. But if the difference is 30 ABs vs a few ‘big’ first innings where a solo shot is instead a 2-3 run blast?
I’m not sure how the math works out analytically but intuition leads me to think it a decent trade. The goal, of course, being team wins above individual statistical brilliance and this being a seeming point of convergence...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Absolutely!
My problem with analytics is that the numbers would certainly change, if you did something like put Ted Williams at lead off because he was so good at getting on base, he's probably going to walk even more, but his power numbers are going to drop and if you don't have a good guy(s) HITTING BEHIND him, he'll just be stranded on base.
The best scenario in my mind, is to find a lesser hitter that can still get on base and run a little bit, so that the guys who CAN hit the ball have someone on base when they come up.
The worst is to have your "best" hitter get walked and the following guys suck.
I saw it for years with my Twins. Walking Killebrew was not a good thing for us.
overrated ? underrated !!!!
there is a reason why the batting crown is named after him.
If Carew was a Yankee we wouldnt be having this conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
cant we just agree that Carew is the 4th best hitter of all time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
The best hitter of the 60's and 70's was either Hank Aaron or Carl Yastrzemski. Aaron was a better hitter than Yaz by a clear margin, but Yaz played all 20 of the years in question.
The best hitter of the 1970's was Joe Morgan, by a clear and convincing margin. There's a pack about half a mile behind him that includes Stargell, Reggie, Rose, Bobby Bonds, Reggie Smith, and Carew. The next pack includes Bobby Murcer, Cesar Cedeno and Bob Watson.
The gap from Joe Morgan down to Carew dwarfs the margin from Carew down to Murcer (strictly as hitters, and strictly in the 1970's).
Hahahahahahaha NO!
Yes it was Joe Morgan.
Thank you.
As usual dallasactuary is way off base. Morgan wasn't even close to being as good a hitter as Stargell during the 1970's.
This is just for starters, because this pretty much says it all.
7 times in the 70's Stargell's OPS was .900 or above. Morgan- 3 times.
Stargell's OPS was only in the .700's one time, and barely at .797. Morgans OPS was in the .700's 4 times, very pedestrian.
Let's don't even talk home runs or any other power stats, Morgan isn't even in the same league with Stargell.
So Dallas is so wrong on his statement Morgan was the best hitter of the 1970's that he loses any credibility he ever had.
In the 1970's Joe Morgans slugging percentage was in the .300's three times. That's slug. %. Stargell's - 0 times.
In fact Stargell's slugging % was in the .400's only 1 time. Above .500 9 times and above .600 twice.
This match was over quick, but thanks for playing dallasactuary.
I've lost track of how many times you've said this. The ironic part is that it's you who loses credibility every time you say it.
Anyway, their stats - the one's that matter the most - for the 1970's:
Offensive WAR: Morgan 66.1, Stargell 40.4
Win Probability Added: Morgan 47.2, Stargell 37.8
Batter Runs: Morgan 311, Stargell 298
Offensive Win Shares: Morgan 260, Stargell 212
Stargell was an excellent hitter in the 1970's; Joe Morgan was in a class by himself.
I believe the question was who was the best hitter of the 60ś and 70ś. I would still say Stargell has it over Morgan for the 70s
OWar still includes a positional adjustment. so it is not a strait ¨hitting¨ stat. Morgan gets an advantage for playing 2b.
While Morgan does have slightly more Rbat, he also 1300 more PA during the decade. this advantage also helps his OWar numbers.
OWar also uses baserunning in the formulas. I do not consider baserunning a ¨hitting¨ skill. this also gives Morgan an advantage.
The problem with using WPA is that it is dependent on how many ¨clutch¨ opportunities a player has. ¨it doesnt tell you how well a player performs, it tells you how important their performance was.¨
Using WPA as a player comparison is like choosing Terry Pendelton over Bonds in the 91 MVP because writers viewed Pendelton as ¨Clutchier¨. Bonds was the better player, but Pendelton was put in more important situations. as Morgan was a member of the machine, it seems as though he would have been in more important situations over the decade than Stargell. using WPA is similar to using RBI as a metric. it is situational and not even across the board.
Morgan is being given credit for position, baserunning and situation. I still say Stargell was better in the 70s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Thank you for a GREAT post!
If you narrow it down to "ball striking" then it's quite fair to say Stargell was better than Morgan.
If you consider offensive value (there's that "V" word again) Morgan was better.
I am inclined to get rid of any stat in this comparison that compares positions, but not so sure about baserunning.
Morgan added a lot to his teams run production/offense because of his running.
Brings the debate kind of full circle by saying (implying) that a hit is a hit is a hit, when we know a extra base hit is better than a single.
A lot of Morgan's singles were doubles because of his stolen bases...........no?
Not to mention his running ability caused problems for the defense.
Thank you for your kind words!
I consider a position player to have three general skills: hitting, baserunning and fielding. I know that scouts are a bit more specific in that they judge for 5 skills: hitting, hitting with power, baserunning, fielding and throwing. I personally lump fielding and throwing and hitting and hitting with power.
I certainly consider baserunning a different skill set than hitting. If I didnt, I would have to consider players like Vince Coleman and Carl Crawford as better hitters due to their success on the basepaths.
Keep in mind that Morgan accrued and extra 1237 PA throughout the decade. that is a huge advantage. 2 full seasons head start on Willie.
another factor is age. Stargell played the 70ś from age 30-40. Joe was 26-36. Morgan had more peak athletic seasons during the decade. not his fault, but a factor none the less.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
CAREW 6 BATTING TITLES
MORGEN WAR TITLES
CAREW the best hitter
Morgan the best Warrior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
Excellent post! Like you said, the question is who was the best hitter of the 70's.
I would trust your judgement a lot more than Dallas.
Dallas uses OPS and Slugging percentage only when it suits his argument.
If his player is completely whipped in those categories, he brings out new stats and says those are the important ones.
A simple rule of common sense maybe Dallas can use in the future.
If the player you think is the best hitter for any decade, had a slugging % in the .300's three times in the decade, then that player is not the best hitter of the decade.
Try to use a little common sense and you would see things like that.
Just trying to help, not be hurtful.
Part of being the best hitter for a long period of time is playing for that long period of time. You are using the fact that Morgan was more durable than Stargell as evidence that Stargell was better, and I think that's just wrong. If we are ignoring total contributions (including all the zeros for missed games) and just looking at averages for the games that were played then Schmidt was probably the best hitter of the 1970's, even though he missed several years entirely. Morgan's contributions on offense exceeded those of Stargell for the decade of the 1970's. If you are defining "best hitter" differently than that, then maybe we're both right.
All of your points are well taken with regard to the individual measurements you discussed, but that's why I listed all of them. You can nitpick OWar, Rbat and WPA individually, but claiming victory while losing all three is unlikely. In any event, Offensive Win Shares don't have any positional adjustment, and Morgan's lead there is about the same as it is in WPA. This tells me that the hypothetical problems with WPA don't apply in this specific case. And even throwing out OWar and Rbat, we still have Morgan winning two important cumulative measures and Stargell none. What is it that Stargell wins (cumulatively) that is better evidence than Win Shares and WPA? Or, again, are you defining "best" other than cumulatively? If the latter, how sure are you that Stargell was better than Schmidt, or Dick Allen?
You've got Darin agreeing with you. That's a more reliable indicator that you've missed something than any stat could ever be.