@craig44 said:
For best hitter of the decade, I still say it's stargell. No baserunning, no positional adjustment. Just what happens in the batters box. Gotta be Willie
Agreed.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Darin said:
I guess nobody does come up as a better hitter than Stargell in the 70's.
Stargell had an OPS+ of 156 for the decade. Reggie was pretty good with an OPS+ of 148. Morgan was at 140.
Looks like Willie blew everyone away with a SLG. % of .555, Reggie was at .508, Morgan 100 points behind at .455
So I guess as far as hitting Stargell was clearly superior to everyone in the 70's.
Question for you. Who was the better hitter:
Schmidt: OPS+ of 147, SLG of .527
Brett: OPS+ of 135, SLG of .487
You just stated very clearly that these two stats, and these two stats alone, were sufficient to "clearly" determine the best hitter, but I could swear that there was a thread recently where you argued for Brett. It's almost as if you're just making stuff up and have no idea what you're talking about.
You got me. Now I understand why you, and indeed every single person on this forum, views me with an uncomfortable mix of amusement and pity. But rather than be a man about it, I am going to ignore the question you asked me and instead ask you a question that you've already answered. I'm hoping that by changing the subject some of the less bright members of the forum won't notice what a fool I've made of myself. I don't know what they odds are that there's anyone as dumb as me, but what other choice do I have? So anyway,
Who was the best hitter of the 70's? Schmidt, Stargell, Reggie,(Jackson or Smith?)
Because it sure wasn't Joe Morgan.
As you so eloquently pointed out, I already answered that question. It was Joe Morgan.
And I'll try again, who was the better hitter, Brett or Schmidt?
George Brett.
This is the second time in a few days you've tried to humiliate and embarrass me on a public forum.
When you say to someone that everyone is laughing at him and continue to call him dumb just for voicing
an opinion, then you're really not worth responding to.
I'm done with you and skin, would rather associate with people who aren't so miserable.
Take your childish jokes and get lost.
Listen man, if you truly feel bad...then I will lay off. Its not that important.
@craig44 said:
For best hitter of the decade, I still say it's stargell. No baserunning, no positional adjustment. Just what happens in the batters box. Gotta be Willie
Agreed.
Willie was a great hitter in the 70's, no doubt; but he was only a great hitter when he was actually at the plate and not in the dugout or on the IL. Joe Morgan actually came to the plate 25% more often than Stargell did, and the results were this:
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
On average, Morgan wins these four stats - the four best measures you could use to define "best hitter" - by 29%. Some of them include baserunning so that's overstating Morgan's lead over Stargell as just a hitter, but take out baserunning and Morgan still wins easily, but by less than his 25% plate appearance margin. So, if the question is "who do you want at the plate for one at bat or one game at a random point in the 1970's?" then Stargell is a perfectly legitimate choice. But if the question is asking who was the best hitter over the entire decade - the way I interpreted it - then Morgan is the only correct answer.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If we're talking about the entire decade's accomplishments, the answer is Aaron, with a small but clear lead over Mays. If we're going the Stargell route and ignoring all the games not played during the decade, then Dick Allen is a legitimate choice.
The greatest hitting season of the 1960's was either Yaz 1967, Robinson 1966, Jackson 1969, Mantle 1961, or Cash 1961; at least, a decent argument could be made for any of these. I'd go with Yaz, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
For best hitter of the decade, I still say it's stargell. No baserunning, no positional adjustment. Just what happens in the batters box. Gotta be Willie
Agreed.
Willie was a great hitter in the 70's, no doubt; but he was only a great hitter when he was actually at the plate and not in the dugout or on the IL. Joe Morgan actually came to the plate 25% more often than Stargell did, and the results were this:
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
On average, Morgan wins these four stats - the four best measures you could use to define "best hitter" - by 29%. Some of them include baserunning so that's overstating Morgan's lead over Stargell as just a hitter, but take out baserunning and Morgan still wins easily, but by less than his 25% plate appearance margin. So, if the question is "who do you want at the plate for one at bat or one game at a random point in the 1970's?" then Stargell is a perfectly legitimate choice. But if the question is asking who was the best hitter over the entire decade - the way I interpreted it - then Morgan is the only correct answer.
So you prefer compilers? Frank tanana over koufax?
Don't forget, morgan threw up a few stinkers there in the 70's. So it wasn't all quality from joe, even though he was the younger player. I have previously debunked your provided metrics other than win shares in this thread so I will not go over that again. He is getting a positional adjustment and points added for base running. As for a batter standing in the box, Joe is simply not as good as Willie. Stargell got on base at nearly the same clip, and hit with considerably more power. Are those not the two most important skills for a hitter?
So you prefer compilers? Frank tanana over koufax?
Don't forget, morgan threw up a few stinkers there in the 70's. So it wasn't all quality from joe, even though he was the younger player. I have previously debunked your provided metrics other than win shares in this thread so I will not go over that again. He is getting a positional adjustment and points added for base running. As for a batter standing in the box, Joe is simply not as good as Willie. Stargell got on base at nearly the same clip, and hit with considerably more power. Are those not the two most important skills for a hitter?
I have never heard "compiler" applied to what a player accomplished during the best decade of his career, because that's not what the word means. Playing high quality baseball is better than not playing baseball at all; you need to disagree with that statement for "compiler" to apply to Joe Morgan vs. Willie Stargell in the 1970's. Over the last 15 years of his career, Tanana was an average pitcher; he compiled strikeouts and innings and such, but he didn't compile much of anything worthwhile for a comparison to Koufax. Silly analogy.
Morgan had exactly zero seasons that any reasonable person could characterize as a "stinker" during the 1970's. He had a few seasons far below his own standard, and in a comparison to Stargell you should match those up against the three seasons worth of games that Stargell didn't play at all. If you want to call those "seasons" of Stargell's "stinkers" I won't argue with you. If you want to say that Stargell not playing was "better" than Morgan playing above average baseball - wait, that's what you are saying - then we're back to silly.
You raised some valid questions about the metrics I cited; you "debunked" none of them. Of the four that I cited, only offensive WAR gives a positional adjustment, so you can stop worrying so much about that. WAR and Win Shares do include baserunning, but batter runs and WPA don't, so you can stop worrying so much about that, too. More to the point, I cited four stats, two of which you have not even validly objected to, that show Morgan being a better hitter than Stargell for the decade. You have provide zero to support Stargell; what you've provided are rate stats, and unless you're going to argue that Gates Brown was the "best hitter" of 1968, you need to somehow account for Stargell missing nearly 400 games.
And in response to your last question, I'll say it again: when Stargell was playing, he was a great hitter and a reasonable argument can be made that he was the best. When Stargell wasn't playing, he hit as well as I did and as well as my grandmother did. You are either pretending that he played every game, or you're arguing that Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. Either way, we disagree.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
dallas, Do you not agree that the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power?
This one is really simple. Pops slugged significantly better than morgan. 100 points better. Morgan got on base 30 points more than stargell.
Let's not get all crazy with the number of games stargell missed. Morgan missed almost 200 games in the 70s. All told, morgan played about 20 games more per season. Most of that was due to stargell missing 100 games in 1977. It is not as though we don't have a significant sample size with which to gauge these two players.
Let's go over your metrics again. Wpa is situation dependant. A team oriented stat.
OWar and Bruns are compiled stats. About quantity. And throw in a positional adjustment and credit for base running lessens the value of these metrics for specifically hitting.
As I said before, I am not familiar enough with offensive win share to debate it. It is a compiled stat though.
Morgan's 1978 and 1979 seasons may not have been stinkers, but they were very average.
When two players play a comparable number of games, rate stats are the way to go to see who was more effective. You are seldom going to find two players who played the same number of games over a 10 year period for comparison. The goal is to make sure both have a significant data set and I think both of these players do.
The answer is your BOTH right.
Both players were fantastic and VERY different skill sets.
If you wanted to argue for Stargell, you simply point out he was a better "Ball Striker", his hits were monsters.
Morgan could hit it a bit too, but his offensive production was greatly enhanced by his speed on the bases. A walk and a SB might not be as good as a double, but it's very good.
I'm looking at the 1960's now, here's the guys I looked at;
Aaron
Allen
Banks
Clemente
Killebrew
Mantle
Mays
McCovey
Robinson
Yastrzemski
I compared PA, HR, BB, BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB, TB+BB, Runs, RBI, oWAR, WPA, BtRuns, and Offensive Winning % (Win Shares?). Now I remember why I didn't become an accountant. Some of these numbers seem to contradict each other.
My numbers might not be perfect, I was about ready to kill myself at several points. ;-)
Eliminated Dick Allen because he only played 6 full years in the decade. He WAS a STUD.
Eliminated Ernie Banks before I got very far, obvious he wasn't as good as the others.
Clemente and Yaz were the next to go, as hitters they simply didn't cut it. Both of these guys would benefit if we included defense, but we're not.
Yaz did NOT have the best year of the decade either, Mickey Mantle's 1961 was better and Frank Robinson was as well in 1966. More on them later.
McCovey barely made it to 5000 At Bats for the decade, and that hurt him, he was the worst of the best.
Mantle was ruined in Baltimore when he ran into the fence, in his 9 years he had the highest OPS of any player here!
He probably wins the 1950's anyway, so I said goodby to Mr. Mantle. Give him an average 1965 and 1966 and he might be in the top three, or even #1. He did only play 9 years (as did Yaz), but it was the end of an unbelievable hitting run.
Before continuing, I just HAD to figure Killebrew's numbers two ways; straight up, and by eliminating 1968 and adding an "average" year. Being hurt in the AS game REALLY affected his overall numbers, 1968 was not Harmon Killebrew, and he's my guy.
Killebrew and Mays were next and they actually rated pretty even in a lot of areas, if you adjust Killebrews numbers he beats Willie in a LOT of categories. Killer was #1 in HR and BB for the decade (all players in MLB, not just Mays), was equal to Mays in SLG (adjusted), and better (straight up) in OBP. In OWAR. Willie beats Harmon handily (and everyone else too, SB a factor here?) BUT they are about the same in OW% straight up, and Killer wins if adjusted.
A wise man recently said "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power" Killebrew was the best at hitting with power and BB, only Frank and Mickey had higher OBP, NOT "adjusting" Killebrew's numbers............thanks Craig44 ;-)
The last two I had were Aaron and Robinson and Frank beats Hank in several important categories. OBP, OPS and OPS+ and OW%.
They are virtually tied in several; BA, Runs, RBI and BtRuns.
Aaron wins it (for me) by playing in 450 more games, hitting 60 more HR almost 300 more TB and a higher SLG.
Robinson might have significantly better numbers if you figure RBI and Runs scored per at bat, but that would be giving him things he didn't achieve, he never really had a "bad" year or serious injury, he just played in less games. Every game your big guy misses hurts the team.
Aaron was also great EVERY year of the decade.
Aaron, Robinson, Mays, Killebrew are my top four, in that order. Not much difference between 1 and 2. Not much between 3 and 4.
Not sure how to rate the rest, I'll take a stab at it;
Mantle
McCovey
Clemente
Yaz
Banks
Allen
I'm not doing this kind of thing again. I really don't know how you guys do this, but hat's off to those who do.
I welcome any thoughts om my methods and conclusions. Remember I might have made some math errors. Feel free to destroy me!
;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If we're talking about the entire decade's accomplishments, the answer is Aaron, with a small but clear lead over Mays. If we're going the Stargell route and ignoring all the games not played during the decade, then Dick Allen is a legitimate choice.
The greatest hitting season of the 1960's was either Yaz 1967, Robinson 1966, Jackson 1969, Mantle 1961, or Cash 1961; at least, a decent argument could be made for any of these. I'd go with Yaz, though.
I forgot about Cash's 1961. Harmon was quite good in 61 as well. Killer was about even with Reggie in 69, but I DON"T want to argue about that!
:-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
The answer is your BOTH right.
Both players were fantastic and VERY different skill sets.
If you wanted to argue for Stargell, you simply point out he was a better "Ball Striker", his hits were monsters.
Morgan could hit it a bit too, but his offensive production was greatly enhanced by his speed on the bases. A walk and a SB might not be as good as a double, but it's very good.
I'm looking at the 1960's now, here's the guys I looked at;
Aaron
Allen
Banks
Clemente
Killebrew
Mantle
Mays
McCovey
Robinson
Yastrzemski
I compared PA, HR, BB, BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB, TB+BB, Runs, RBI, oWAR, WPA, BtRuns, and Offensive Winning % (Win Shares?). Now I remember why I didn't become an accountant. Some of these numbers seem to contradict each other.
My numbers might not be perfect, I was about ready to kill myself at several points. ;-)
Eliminated Dick Allen because he only played 6 full years in the decade. He WAS a STUD.
Eliminated Ernie Banks before I got very far, obvious he wasn't as good as the others.
Clemente and Yaz were the next to go, as hitters they simply didn't cut it. Both of these guys would benefit if we included defense, but we're not.
Yaz did NOT have the best year of the decade either, Mickey Mantle's 1961 was better and Frank Robinson was as well in 1966. More on them later.
McCovey barely made it to 5000 At Bats for the decade, and that hurt him, he was the worst of the best.
Mantle was ruined in Baltimore when he ran into the fence, in his 9 years he had the highest OPS of any player here!
He probably wins the 1950's anyway, so I said goodby to Mr. Mantle. Give him an average 1965 and 1966 and he might be in the top three, or even #1. He did only play 9 years (as did Yaz), but it was the end of an unbelievable hitting run.
Before continuing, I just HAD to figure Killebrew's numbers two ways; straight up, and by eliminating 1968 and adding an "average" year. Being hurt in the AS game REALLY affected his overall numbers, 1968 was not Harmon Killebrew, and he's my guy.
Killebrew and Mays were next and they actually rated pretty even in a lot of areas, if you adjust Killebrews numbers he beats Willie in a LOT of categories. Killer was #1 in HR and BB for the decade (all players in MLB, not just Mays), was equal to Mays in SLG (adjusted), and better (straight up) in OBP. In OWAR. Willie beats Harmon handily (and everyone else too, SB a factor here?) BUT they are about the same in OW% straight up, and Killer wins if adjusted.
A wise man recently said "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power" Killebrew was the best at hitting with power and BB, only Frank and Mickey had higher OBP, NOT "adjusting" Killebrew's numbers............thanks Craig44 ;-)
The last two I had were Aaron and Robinson and Frank beats Hank in several important categories. OBP, OPS and OPS+ and OW%.
They are virtually tied in several; BA, Runs, RBI and BtRuns.
Aaron wins it (for me) by playing in 450 more games, hitting 60 more HR almost 300 more TB and a higher SLG.
Robinson might have significantly better numbers if you figure RBI and Runs scored per at bat, but that would be giving him things he didn't achieve, he never really had a "bad" year or serious injury, he just played in less games. Every game your big guy misses hurts the team.
Aaron was also great EVERY year of the decade.
Aaron, Robinson, Mays, Killebrew are my top four, in that order. Not much difference between 1 and 2. Not much between 3 and 4.
Not sure how to rate the rest, I'll take a stab at it;
Mantle
McCovey
Clemente
Yaz
Banks
Allen
I'm not doing this kind of thing again. I really don't know how you guys do this, but hat's off to those who do.
I welcome any thoughts om my methods and conclusions. Remember I might have made some math errors. Feel free to destroy me!
;-)
Very well reasoned list joebonzai. I am inclined to agree that Aaron was the man for the 1960s
@dallasactuary said:
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
@dallasactuary said:
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
dallas' first name is Joe too?
No wonder he's so smaaaaat! ;-)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
How about Jim Rice vs Ken Phelps in the 1980's?
Rice .348 OB% and .471 SLG%
PHELPS .380 OB% and .500 SLG percentage
At some point, the number of games DO count. Phelps had 2,144 plate appearances so that is enough of a sample to show his ability.
I don't know exactly how much Stargell sat vs lefties when he could have started...don't feel like looking...but I know he did that a little more in the late 70's.
I know George Brett sat 10% more games vs lefties as opposed to righties...and that helps elevate his percentages...and hurts his team. He even sat vs lefties at the end of the year so he could win a batting title. So his .330 average that year looks a little more hollow as a result, and he would NOT be as good as someone else hitting .329 with more at bats(and all else being equal).
What does Stargell SLG% look like vs a full compliment of at bats vs left handed pitchers? It gets worse. Not enough to drop it too far, but in close calls, enough to make a difference when comparing to someone else.
@craig44 said:
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
And Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. I've asked you to confirm that several times, and I honestly don't know why you keep avoiding that question.
Anyway, a consistently well-rested Stargell did have hitting skills comparable (in value) to Morgan's when he was fit to play. I don't mind at all if you see Stargell as "better" in that sense.
But if you're a manager or GM and you have the opportunity to have either Joe Morgan or Willie Stargell on your team for the decade of the 70's - even ignoring fielding and baserunning - you'd be a fool if you didn't take Morgan. Because Morgan, solely with his hitting, was more valuable than Stargell for those years. It hadn't occurred to me to define "best hitter" any other way than this when the question was first posed, but if you define it the way you have then Stargell is a valid choice.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
@dallasactuary said:
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
I'll answer with what I think.
Part of being a good anything is being in the game.
Stargell "qualified" for league leader status 6 times out of 10. Morgan qualified 10 out of 10.
Willie came very close 2 more times. A person arguing against Willie could say those 4 years should then be wiped out. I wouldn't go there, but the argument could be made.
OPS+ says he was as good in 1977 as he was in 1975 and that's what I don't like about the "+" .
He was "better" than Morgan 145 to 138 that year (1977) yet had 102 TB and Morgan had 249.
Who was the better hitter that year? I'll take Morgan even though Willie beat him in SLG and OPS.
The decision is easy for that year (to me), but you can't deny that Morgan played in a lot more games in the decade and that should raise his hitting cred simply because he played and Willie did not.
I would certainly say that Stargell is a vastly superior "ballstriker" going head to head with Morgan...........but he loses every time Joe shows up and he doesn't. That HAS to count for something.
You could actually say that it hurts the team MORE when Willie sits than when Joe does.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
And Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. I've asked you to confirm that several times, and I honestly don't know why you keep avoiding that question.
Anyway, a consistently well-rested Stargell did have hitting skills comparable (in value) to Morgan's when he was fit to play. I don't mind at all if you see Stargell as "better" in that sense.
But if you're a manager or GM and you have the opportunity to have either Joe Morgan or Willie Stargell on your team for the decade of the 70's - even ignoring fielding and baserunning - you'd be a fool if you didn't take Morgan. Because Morgan, solely with his hitting, was more valuable than Stargell for those years. It hadn't occurred to me to define "best hitter" any other way than this when the question was first posed, but if you define it the way you have then Stargell is a valid choice.
Did gates Brown have enough PA to qualify for league leader status? Nope. Well, I guess he doesn't have enough for me to qualify him for best hitter of 1968. I guess if it's a good enough standard for MLB, it's good enough for me.
@craig44 said:
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
And Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. I've asked you to confirm that several times, and I honestly don't know why you keep avoiding that question.
Anyway, a consistently well-rested Stargell did have hitting skills comparable (in value) to Morgan's when he was fit to play. I don't mind at all if you see Stargell as "better" in that sense.
But if you're a manager or GM and you have the opportunity to have either Joe Morgan or Willie Stargell on your team for the decade of the 70's - even ignoring fielding and baserunning - you'd be a fool if you didn't take Morgan. Because Morgan, solely with his hitting, was more valuable than Stargell for those years. It hadn't occurred to me to define "best hitter" any other way than this when the question was first posed, but if you define it the way you have then Stargell is a valid choice.
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
@craig44 said:
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
You're trying to have it both ways and the result isn't really even an argument. What specific hitting skill did anyone have in 1968 that was better than Gates Brown? How much someone plays is part of your argument when it suits the conclusion you want to reach, and it's not when it's inconvenient. I'm not going to play anymore.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
You're trying to have it both ways and the result isn't really even an argument. What specific hitting skill did anyone have in 1968 that was better than Gates Brown? How much someone plays is part of your argument when it suits the conclusion you want to reach, and it's not when it's inconvenient. I'm not going to play anymore.
I told you the standard i was using for this debate, the PA necessary for qualification for league leader status. Don't know how I am trying to have it both ways? You are speaking in hyperbole when asking about gates brown. I could say the same about a player who went 3-3 with 2 hr in a game. That he was the greatest for a season.
@craig44 said:
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
You're trying to have it both ways and the result isn't really even an argument. What specific hitting skill did anyone have in 1968 that was better than Gates Brown? How much someone plays is part of your argument when it suits the conclusion you want to reach, and it's not when it's inconvenient. I'm not going to play anymore.
You also refused to address the question Dallas. I find you tend to do that when you come up short in a debate.
I told you the standard i was using for this debate, the PA necessary for qualification for league leader status.
Now I am confused. In this case Willie missed 40% of the decade.
I'll also answer one of your questions. You said earlier that the two things that are best about a hitter "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power"
Morgan led the league in OBP 4 times and SLG 1 time. Stargell led in SLG 1 time even though he was a better slugger.
Joe was better in one of your skills than Willie.
I'm still calling it a draw, hitting wise. If we're picking teams, I'll take whoever you don't and be fine with it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
You're trying to have it both ways and the result isn't really even an argument. What specific hitting skill did anyone have in 1968 that was better than Gates Brown? How much someone plays is part of your argument when it suits the conclusion you want to reach, and it's not when it's inconvenient. I'm not going to play anymore.
You also refused to address the question Dallas. I find you tend to do that when you come up short in a debate.
On the contrary, I answered those questions (three times, I think). But those questions ignore games played, and translate to higher OPS+ = "better". And to be fair, you answered my question, too, by saying that 502 plate appearances = 650 plate appearances, and 104 plate appearances = 501 plate appearances. Since your response makes no sense, but is absolutely essential to your conclusion, I have nowhere to go from there. Oddly, you made essentially the opposite argument in the 1969 Cy Young thread, recognizing the huge additional value of Gibson's additional innings pitched; at least, I recall no mention of 162 innings being the threshold beyond which additional innings have no value - the argument you are now making in this thread. Like I said, I give up.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I told you the standard i was using for this debate, the PA necessary for qualification for league leader status.
Now I am confused. In this case Willie missed 40% of the decade.
I'll also answer one of your questions. You said earlier that the two things that are best about a hitter "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power"
Morgan led the league in OBP 4 times and SLG 1 time. Stargell led in SLG 1 time even though he was a better slugger.
Joe was better in one of your skills than Willie.
I'm still calling it a draw, hitting wise. If we're picking teams, I'll take whoever you don't and be fine with it.
Stargell missed 365 games in the decade. 100 of those in one season. He missed 22.5% of his team's games. He
Averaged 508 PA a season for the entire decade.
I am comparing them directly to each other cumulatively, not season by season and not to their peers. For the decade:
OBP: Morgan, .404, Stargell, .374
SLG: Morgan, .455 , Stargell, .555
Stargell missed 365 games in the decade. 100 of those in one season. He missed 22.5% of his team's games. He
Averaged 508 PA a season for the entire decade.
I am comparing them directly to each other cumulatively, not season by season and not to their peers. For the decade:
OBP: Morgan, .404, Stargell, .374
SLG: Morgan, .455 , Stargell, .555
He missed almost 25% of the games?
That seems like a lot.
Killebrew had two major injuries, one ending his season at the all-star game (1968) and he still managed 604 PA per year.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I told you the standard i was using for this debate, the PA necessary for qualification for league leader status.
Now I am confused. In this case Willie missed 40% of the decade.
I'll also answer one of your questions. You said earlier that the two things that are best about a hitter "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power"
Morgan led the league in OBP 4 times and SLG 1 time. Stargell led in SLG 1 time even though he was a better slugger.
Joe was better in one of your skills than Willie.
I'm still calling it a draw, hitting wise. If we're picking teams, I'll take whoever you don't and be fine with it.
Stargell missed 365 games in the decade. 100 of those in one season. He missed 22.5% of his team's games. He
Averaged 508 PA a season for the entire decade.
I am comparing them directly to each other cumulatively, not season by season and not to their peers. For the decade:
OBP: Morgan, .404, Stargell, .374
SLG: Morgan, .455 , Stargell, .555
Plate appearances matter, especially when sitting more vs LHP. Dodging lefties is a better word.
In 1978 Stargell had a .949 OPS......which was his third best OPS of the decade.
But he sat a lot vs lefties.
If you add an extra 69 plate appearances vs lefties, at the rate he hit lefties at this stage of his career...
His season total OPS is .906
That is only adding 69 more plate appearances. If I dig deeper, that number is going to be higher.
Dave Parker that same year had 254 plate appearances vs lefties and Stargell only 138....and Parker sat 14 games himself.
So that number of 69 is waaaay low. It is more like you have to add an extra 125 or more plate appearances if you want to compare Stargell to a full time player.....
Stargell's true ability, playing day in and day out, at that stage of his career, is more like an .850 OPS, not .949.
Stargell last five years of the decade he averaged 110 games per year, and 433 plate appearances...and 143 OPS+
If plate appearances don't matter,
Then wouldn't Ken Phelps in his five year stretch where he averaged 105 games 378 plate appearances...with a 149 OPS+....
Make him better than Stargell there?
OR
1986-1988 Ken Phelps OPS+ 153
1986-1988 Don Mattingly OPS+ 146
Phelps averaged 412 plate appearances per yet during that stretch....a pretty beefy sample.
It always comes back to ken Phelps
Everyone should know the Ken Phelps factor.
Being able to play 160 games a year is not only a reflection of value, it is also a reflection of ability, because you don't take games off that would otherwise hurt your percentages....whereas other plays DO take games off to save their percentages AND hurt their team(Stargell is one of them for a part of his career. McCovey too even more so).
@Darin said:
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.
You guys, lets not forget that Darin's methods have Rich Dauer as a superior hitter than Harmon Killebrew, because when Dauer swung the bat he struck the ball more often and resulted in a higher batting average.
It sounds like this lawyer guy is just as bright...and probably the same clown that got destroyed in the Brett Schmidt debates, where only those two clowns still clung to the notion of Brett being anywhere close to Schmidt...and ironically, their very own methods in that debate vaulted seven other third baseman as better than Brett...lmao. Priceless.
Comments
Agreed.
Ready to do the 1960's?
I know that captain carl had the best single season for the decade of the 60's
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would agree with Carl's 1967 being the peak as an individual relative to the rest of baseball.
For the entire decade, I think I'd go with Hank Aaron. 375 homers and a whole host of other great numbers.
Listen man, if you truly feel bad...then I will lay off. Its not that important.
Willie was a great hitter in the 70's, no doubt; but he was only a great hitter when he was actually at the plate and not in the dugout or on the IL. Joe Morgan actually came to the plate 25% more often than Stargell did, and the results were this:
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
On average, Morgan wins these four stats - the four best measures you could use to define "best hitter" - by 29%. Some of them include baserunning so that's overstating Morgan's lead over Stargell as just a hitter, but take out baserunning and Morgan still wins easily, but by less than his 25% plate appearance margin. So, if the question is "who do you want at the plate for one at bat or one game at a random point in the 1970's?" then Stargell is a perfectly legitimate choice. But if the question is asking who was the best hitter over the entire decade - the way I interpreted it - then Morgan is the only correct answer.
If we're talking about the entire decade's accomplishments, the answer is Aaron, with a small but clear lead over Mays. If we're going the Stargell route and ignoring all the games not played during the decade, then Dick Allen is a legitimate choice.
The greatest hitting season of the 1960's was either Yaz 1967, Robinson 1966, Jackson 1969, Mantle 1961, or Cash 1961; at least, a decent argument could be made for any of these. I'd go with Yaz, though.
So you prefer compilers? Frank tanana over koufax?
Don't forget, morgan threw up a few stinkers there in the 70's. So it wasn't all quality from joe, even though he was the younger player. I have previously debunked your provided metrics other than win shares in this thread so I will not go over that again. He is getting a positional adjustment and points added for base running. As for a batter standing in the box, Joe is simply not as good as Willie. Stargell got on base at nearly the same clip, and hit with considerably more power. Are those not the two most important skills for a hitter?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have never heard "compiler" applied to what a player accomplished during the best decade of his career, because that's not what the word means. Playing high quality baseball is better than not playing baseball at all; you need to disagree with that statement for "compiler" to apply to Joe Morgan vs. Willie Stargell in the 1970's. Over the last 15 years of his career, Tanana was an average pitcher; he compiled strikeouts and innings and such, but he didn't compile much of anything worthwhile for a comparison to Koufax. Silly analogy.
Morgan had exactly zero seasons that any reasonable person could characterize as a "stinker" during the 1970's. He had a few seasons far below his own standard, and in a comparison to Stargell you should match those up against the three seasons worth of games that Stargell didn't play at all. If you want to call those "seasons" of Stargell's "stinkers" I won't argue with you. If you want to say that Stargell not playing was "better" than Morgan playing above average baseball - wait, that's what you are saying - then we're back to silly.
You raised some valid questions about the metrics I cited; you "debunked" none of them. Of the four that I cited, only offensive WAR gives a positional adjustment, so you can stop worrying so much about that. WAR and Win Shares do include baserunning, but batter runs and WPA don't, so you can stop worrying so much about that, too. More to the point, I cited four stats, two of which you have not even validly objected to, that show Morgan being a better hitter than Stargell for the decade. You have provide zero to support Stargell; what you've provided are rate stats, and unless you're going to argue that Gates Brown was the "best hitter" of 1968, you need to somehow account for Stargell missing nearly 400 games.
And in response to your last question, I'll say it again: when Stargell was playing, he was a great hitter and a reasonable argument can be made that he was the best. When Stargell wasn't playing, he hit as well as I did and as well as my grandmother did. You are either pretending that he played every game, or you're arguing that Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. Either way, we disagree.
dallas, Do you not agree that the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power?
This one is really simple. Pops slugged significantly better than morgan. 100 points better. Morgan got on base 30 points more than stargell.
Let's not get all crazy with the number of games stargell missed. Morgan missed almost 200 games in the 70s. All told, morgan played about 20 games more per season. Most of that was due to stargell missing 100 games in 1977. It is not as though we don't have a significant sample size with which to gauge these two players.
Let's go over your metrics again. Wpa is situation dependant. A team oriented stat.
OWar and Bruns are compiled stats. About quantity. And throw in a positional adjustment and credit for base running lessens the value of these metrics for specifically hitting.
As I said before, I am not familiar enough with offensive win share to debate it. It is a compiled stat though.
Morgan's 1978 and 1979 seasons may not have been stinkers, but they were very average.
When two players play a comparable number of games, rate stats are the way to go to see who was more effective. You are seldom going to find two players who played the same number of games over a 10 year period for comparison. The goal is to make sure both have a significant data set and I think both of these players do.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The answer is your BOTH right.
Both players were fantastic and VERY different skill sets.
If you wanted to argue for Stargell, you simply point out he was a better "Ball Striker", his hits were monsters.
Morgan could hit it a bit too, but his offensive production was greatly enhanced by his speed on the bases. A walk and a SB might not be as good as a double, but it's very good.
I'm looking at the 1960's now, here's the guys I looked at;
Aaron
Allen
Banks
Clemente
Killebrew
Mantle
Mays
McCovey
Robinson
Yastrzemski
I compared PA, HR, BB, BA, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, TB, TB+BB, Runs, RBI, oWAR, WPA, BtRuns, and Offensive Winning % (Win Shares?). Now I remember why I didn't become an accountant. Some of these numbers seem to contradict each other.
My numbers might not be perfect, I was about ready to kill myself at several points. ;-)
Eliminated Dick Allen because he only played 6 full years in the decade. He WAS a STUD.
Eliminated Ernie Banks before I got very far, obvious he wasn't as good as the others.
Clemente and Yaz were the next to go, as hitters they simply didn't cut it. Both of these guys would benefit if we included defense, but we're not.
Yaz did NOT have the best year of the decade either, Mickey Mantle's 1961 was better and Frank Robinson was as well in 1966. More on them later.
McCovey barely made it to 5000 At Bats for the decade, and that hurt him, he was the worst of the best.
Mantle was ruined in Baltimore when he ran into the fence, in his 9 years he had the highest OPS of any player here!
He probably wins the 1950's anyway, so I said goodby to Mr. Mantle. Give him an average 1965 and 1966 and he might be in the top three, or even #1. He did only play 9 years (as did Yaz), but it was the end of an unbelievable hitting run.
Before continuing, I just HAD to figure Killebrew's numbers two ways; straight up, and by eliminating 1968 and adding an "average" year. Being hurt in the AS game REALLY affected his overall numbers, 1968 was not Harmon Killebrew, and he's my guy.
Killebrew and Mays were next and they actually rated pretty even in a lot of areas, if you adjust Killebrews numbers he beats Willie in a LOT of categories. Killer was #1 in HR and BB for the decade (all players in MLB, not just Mays), was equal to Mays in SLG (adjusted), and better (straight up) in OBP. In OWAR. Willie beats Harmon handily (and everyone else too, SB a factor here?) BUT they are about the same in OW% straight up, and Killer wins if adjusted.
A wise man recently said "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power" Killebrew was the best at hitting with power and BB, only Frank and Mickey had higher OBP, NOT "adjusting" Killebrew's numbers............thanks Craig44 ;-)
The last two I had were Aaron and Robinson and Frank beats Hank in several important categories. OBP, OPS and OPS+ and OW%.
They are virtually tied in several; BA, Runs, RBI and BtRuns.
Aaron wins it (for me) by playing in 450 more games, hitting 60 more HR almost 300 more TB and a higher SLG.
Robinson might have significantly better numbers if you figure RBI and Runs scored per at bat, but that would be giving him things he didn't achieve, he never really had a "bad" year or serious injury, he just played in less games. Every game your big guy misses hurts the team.
Aaron was also great EVERY year of the decade.
Aaron, Robinson, Mays, Killebrew are my top four, in that order. Not much difference between 1 and 2. Not much between 3 and 4.
Not sure how to rate the rest, I'll take a stab at it;
Mantle
McCovey
Clemente
Yaz
Banks
Allen
I'm not doing this kind of thing again. I really don't know how you guys do this, but hat's off to those who do.
I welcome any thoughts om my methods and conclusions. Remember I might have made some math errors. Feel free to destroy me!
;-)
Morgan played 16% more games than Stargell and came to the plate 24% more often. Your position is that this means absolutely nothing and that the games Morgan won for his team while Stargell was sitting on the bench don't count. I don't know how else to say this: I think you're wrong. I think those games do count. I agree that rate stats are the way to go when two players have played a comparable number of games, but this doesn't apply to Morgan/Stargell. By virtue of not being fit enough to play every day (only once in the decade did he miss fewer than 20 games), Stargell spent a lot of time resting on the bench. In so doing he dug himself a 16%-24% hole in comparison to Morgan. I don't see that he dug himself out of that hole; you won't even acknowledge the hole is there.
Gates Brown came to the plate over 100 times in 1968; that is a significant sample size. Was Gates Brown the best hitter in 1968? If not, why not?
I forgot about Cash's 1961. Harmon was quite good in 61 as well. Killer was about even with Reggie in 69, but I DON"T want to argue about that!
:-)
Very well reasoned list joebonzai. I am inclined to agree that Aaron was the man for the 1960s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That's hyperbole and you know it joe. How about this. A player needs 500 PA in order to qualify for league leader status. Stargell averaged that many PA per season for the decade. I would say that is a large enough sample size, wouldn't you?
The original question was who was the best hitter. Not who had the most home runs, hits, WAR etc. Not who accumulated the "most" of anything. I think you are debating the wrong question. We are not talking about cumulative value here, but who had the best skill set. Both players had large enough sample sizes to evaluate their merits as hitters.
Stargell had the best skill set as a hitter. He did not accumulate as much value because he played 200 fewer games, but he was a better hitter.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
dallas' first name is Joe too?
No wonder he's so smaaaaat! ;-)
How about Jim Rice vs Ken Phelps in the 1980's?
Rice .348 OB% and .471 SLG%
PHELPS .380 OB% and .500 SLG percentage
At some point, the number of games DO count. Phelps had 2,144 plate appearances so that is enough of a sample to show his ability.
I don't know exactly how much Stargell sat vs lefties when he could have started...don't feel like looking...but I know he did that a little more in the late 70's.
I know George Brett sat 10% more games vs lefties as opposed to righties...and that helps elevate his percentages...and hurts his team. He even sat vs lefties at the end of the year so he could win a batting title. So his .330 average that year looks a little more hollow as a result, and he would NOT be as good as someone else hitting .329 with more at bats(and all else being equal).
What does Stargell SLG% look like vs a full compliment of at bats vs left handed pitchers? It gets worse. Not enough to drop it too far, but in close calls, enough to make a difference when comparing to someone else.
And Gates Brown was the best hitter of 1968. I've asked you to confirm that several times, and I honestly don't know why you keep avoiding that question.
Anyway, a consistently well-rested Stargell did have hitting skills comparable (in value) to Morgan's when he was fit to play. I don't mind at all if you see Stargell as "better" in that sense.
But if you're a manager or GM and you have the opportunity to have either Joe Morgan or Willie Stargell on your team for the decade of the 70's - even ignoring fielding and baserunning - you'd be a fool if you didn't take Morgan. Because Morgan, solely with his hitting, was more valuable than Stargell for those years. It hadn't occurred to me to define "best hitter" any other way than this when the question was first posed, but if you define it the way you have then Stargell is a valid choice.
Sorry joe, I meant Dallas
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I'll answer with what I think.
Part of being a good anything is being in the game.
Stargell "qualified" for league leader status 6 times out of 10. Morgan qualified 10 out of 10.
Willie came very close 2 more times. A person arguing against Willie could say those 4 years should then be wiped out. I wouldn't go there, but the argument could be made.
OPS+ says he was as good in 1977 as he was in 1975 and that's what I don't like about the "+" .
He was "better" than Morgan 145 to 138 that year (1977) yet had 102 TB and Morgan had 249.
Who was the better hitter that year? I'll take Morgan even though Willie beat him in SLG and OPS.
The decision is easy for that year (to me), but you can't deny that Morgan played in a lot more games in the decade and that should raise his hitting cred simply because he played and Willie did not.
I would certainly say that Stargell is a vastly superior "ballstriker" going head to head with Morgan...........but he loses every time Joe shows up and he doesn't. That HAS to count for something.
You could actually say that it hurts the team MORE when Willie sits than when Joe does.
Did gates Brown have enough PA to qualify for league leader status? Nope. Well, I guess he doesn't have enough for me to qualify him for best hitter of 1968. I guess if it's a good enough standard for MLB, it's good enough for me.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What specific hitting skill did Morgan do better at than stargell? You know as well as I do it was getting on base. Now stargell was better at slugging. Now tell me how much better at slugging Willie was than joe? How much better at getting on base was Joe than willie? It is just that simple.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You're trying to have it both ways and the result isn't really even an argument. What specific hitting skill did anyone have in 1968 that was better than Gates Brown? How much someone plays is part of your argument when it suits the conclusion you want to reach, and it's not when it's inconvenient. I'm not going to play anymore.
Who was a better hitter, mantle or Aaron? Most would say mantle, but Aaron had 4,000 more PA.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I told you the standard i was using for this debate, the PA necessary for qualification for league leader status. Don't know how I am trying to have it both ways? You are speaking in hyperbole when asking about gates brown. I could say the same about a player who went 3-3 with 2 hr in a game. That he was the greatest for a season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You also refused to address the question Dallas. I find you tend to do that when you come up short in a debate.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Now I am confused. In this case Willie missed 40% of the decade.
I'll also answer one of your questions. You said earlier that the two things that are best about a hitter "the two most important skills a hitter can possess are getting on base and striking the ball with power"
Morgan led the league in OBP 4 times and SLG 1 time. Stargell led in SLG 1 time even though he was a better slugger.
Joe was better in one of your skills than Willie.
I'm still calling it a draw, hitting wise. If we're picking teams, I'll take whoever you don't and be fine with it.
On the contrary, I answered those questions (three times, I think). But those questions ignore games played, and translate to higher OPS+ = "better". And to be fair, you answered my question, too, by saying that 502 plate appearances = 650 plate appearances, and 104 plate appearances = 501 plate appearances. Since your response makes no sense, but is absolutely essential to your conclusion, I have nowhere to go from there. Oddly, you made essentially the opposite argument in the 1969 Cy Young thread, recognizing the huge additional value of Gibson's additional innings pitched; at least, I recall no mention of 162 innings being the threshold beyond which additional innings have no value - the argument you are now making in this thread. Like I said, I give up.
Stargell missed 365 games in the decade. 100 of those in one season. He missed 22.5% of his team's games. He
Averaged 508 PA a season for the entire decade.
I am comparing them directly to each other cumulatively, not season by season and not to their peers. For the decade:
OBP: Morgan, .404, Stargell, .374
SLG: Morgan, .455 , Stargell, .555
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He missed almost 25% of the games?
That seems like a lot.
Killebrew had two major injuries, one ending his season at the all-star game (1968) and he still managed 604 PA per year.
Plate appearances matter, especially when sitting more vs LHP. Dodging lefties is a better word.
In 1978 Stargell had a .949 OPS......which was his third best OPS of the decade.
But he sat a lot vs lefties.
If you add an extra 69 plate appearances vs lefties, at the rate he hit lefties at this stage of his career...
His season total OPS is .906
That is only adding 69 more plate appearances. If I dig deeper, that number is going to be higher.
Dave Parker that same year had 254 plate appearances vs lefties and Stargell only 138....and Parker sat 14 games himself.
So that number of 69 is waaaay low. It is more like you have to add an extra 125 or more plate appearances if you want to compare Stargell to a full time player.....
Stargell's true ability, playing day in and day out, at that stage of his career, is more like an .850 OPS, not .949.
For instance,
Stargell last five years of the decade he averaged 110 games per year, and 433 plate appearances...and 143 OPS+
If plate appearances don't matter,
Then wouldn't Ken Phelps in his five year stretch where he averaged 105 games 378 plate appearances...with a 149 OPS+....
Make him better than Stargell there?
OR
1986-1988 Ken Phelps OPS+ 153
1986-1988 Don Mattingly OPS+ 146
Phelps averaged 412 plate appearances per yet during that stretch....a pretty beefy sample.
It always comes back to ken Phelps
Everyone should know the Ken Phelps factor.
Being able to play 160 games a year is not only a reflection of value, it is also a reflection of ability, because you don't take games off that would otherwise hurt your percentages....whereas other plays DO take games off to save their percentages AND hurt their team(Stargell is one of them for a part of his career. McCovey too even more so).
you sir are the clown,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama