dallasactuary,
You can deny Tenace being in the Phelps class all you want...but the way you are using OPS+ to compare Tenace to Garvey is the same method that makes Phelps a superior hitter to Dave Winfield, Molitor, and Murray.
The reality is that Tenace is closer in lifetime plate appearances to PHELPS, than he is to Garvey.
Tenace is 3,240 plate appearances away from Phelps. Tenace is 3,939 plate appearances away from Garvey.
So,if I ONLY look at Garvey's performance in ONLY the highest leverage times like Phelps, I mean Tenace. I'm simply going to fire Garvey after 1980 and don't play him before 1972, then he has a similar amount of plate apperances as Tenace does.
Yeah I know, ballpark. Ok, even if I gave you that at wholesale price, I stilll need to bench Garvey vs the toughest RH's to mimic Teance. Plus there is no guarantee that the ballpark figures are 100% accurate for the two. Dodger Stadium is not a hitters park.
Once I do that, Garvey beats him easily in that SAME time frame with the same high optimum playing time....and that is completely ignoring the contributions that Garvey did AFTER 1980 and ALLLL those thousands of plate appearances he contributed while Tenace was sitting on a couch.
Also keep in mind that walks are indeed a tad less important for middle of the order hitters, and walks almost useless when batting in front of the pitcher spot. I say a tad less important as it won't turn Joe Carter into Mike Schmidt, but in cases like this where it is a little closer, Garvey's getting more hits and total bases carry a little more weight in that lineup spot compared to Tenace's walks. Just a little though.
That is also seen in the RBI total above in the same amount of playing time where Garvey had a lot more...and Garvey still even scored more runs even though Tenace had a higher OB%.
So Garvey did not simply just play longer. He was clearly a better hitter too. Any advantaged gained by Teance for his catching(which was not a full time catcher) is erased with the fact that Garvey did play longer and every day.
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
I could see it in the future though...pulling up to Cooperstown is a big luxury bus. Out steps Gary Roenicke, then John Lowenstein tipping his cap, fitting that they come out together. Next, a now more than chubby Matt Stairs climbs down.
Ken Phelps, wearing a crown prematurely, is the next to emerge.
Old and frail, worn out from years of play in MLB, Cliff Johnson gingerly steps off the bus. Then Gene Tenace emerges triumphantly.
The camera pans to the entrance of Cooperstown with a huge banner commemorating a new wing that just opened up..."The best of the part time players."
Gene Tenace gets the most votes of the group, however, just edging out Cliff Johnson and Johnson's lifetime 125 OPS+ in his 4,600 lifetime plate appearances. The voters profiled Johnson as a hitter as close to Tenace as almost anyone in MLB history, and that made the vote a little closer than expected.
Dallasactuary, Tenace did not hit RH pitchers better than Garvey. Yearly OPS vs RH(minimum 100 at bats)
Garvey....Tenace.
.864......854
.864.....819
.838.....809
.832.....807
.825....789
.816......776
.788......771
.730......715
.728.....707
.718......696
.713......bench or Couch at home
.700......bench or Couch at home
.697......bench or Couch at home
.662.....bench or Couch at home
.620.....bench or Couch at home
.561.....bench or Couch at home
.413......bench or Couch at home
Garvey's last six came at the end of his career, and of course Garvey played EVERY game so it is against every toughest RH and if banged up.
And a reminder, Tenace has base on balls a much larger component of his OPS, and with middle of the order hitters walks take a tad less importance to the total bases that boosted Garvey's. A tad. I don't want anyone to get carried away thinking I am taking away the base on balls value, because it is still there and important even for cleanup hitters.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Not just played longer. Hit better too. Same with Perez being better than Keith Hernandez.
As it stands, Tenace is closer to Phelps than you think, at least according to your methods you are using to compare Tenace to Garvey.
OK, I'll play. I compared them, among many other ways, by comparing their batter runs, and it was 267 for Tenace (tied with Bench) and 167 for Garvey (tied with Hebner). Remember that? That was the actual way I compared them, not the misinterpretation of how I compared them that JB has been presenting. If you've got those confused, you may want to take a moment (or a couple of hours) to review all of my masturbatory rehash.
Anyway, it was 267 for Tenace, 167 for Garvey, and now I'll add 96 for Phelps. Help me here, actuaries aren't good with numbers, but is 96 closer to 167 or to 267? As I said, and meant, you are embarrassing yourself by bringing Ken Phelps into a discussion in which he very obviously does not belong. Not as much as you are by adding 3,000 ABs against RHP at the end of Tenace's career (which as statistical comedy can't be topped), but still quite a lot.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Not just played longer. Hit better too. Same with Perez being better than Keith Hernandez.
As it stands, Tenace is closer to Phelps than you think, at least according to your methods you are using to compare Tenace to Garvey.
OK, I'll play. I compared them, among many other ways, by comparing their batter runs, and it was 267 for Tenace (tied with Bench) and 167 for Garvey (tied with Hebner). Remember that? That was the actual way I compared them, not the misinterpretation of how I compared them that JB has been presenting. If you've got those confused, you may want to take a moment (or a couple of hours) to review all of my masturbatory rehash.
Anyway, it was 267 for Tenace, 167 for Garvey, and now I'll add 96 for Phelps. Help me here, actuaries aren't good with numbers, but is 96 closer to 167 or to 267? As I said, and meant, you are embarrassing yourself by bringing Ken Phelps into a discussion in which he very obviously does not belong. Not as much as you are by adding 3,000 ABs against RHP at the end of Tenace's career (which as statistical comedy can't be topped), but still quite a lot.
I've got it! Maybe he's saying if you add Phelps' career to Garvey's then the composite player is just as good as Tenace.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Dallasactuary, Tenace did not hit RH pitchers better than Garvey. Yearly OPS vs RH(minimum 100 at bats)
Garvey....Tenace.
.864......854
.864.....819
.838.....809
.832.....807
.825....789
.816......776
.788......771
.730......715
.728.....707
.718......696
.713......bench or Couch at home
.700......bench or Couch at home
.697......bench or Couch at home
.662.....bench or Couch at home
.620.....bench or Couch at home
.561.....bench or Couch at home
.413......bench or Couch at home
Garvey's last six came at the end of his career, and of course Garvey played EVERY game so it is against every toughest RH and if banged up.
And a reminder, Tenace has base on balls a much larger component of his OPS, and with middle of the order hitters walks take a tad less importance to the total bases that boosted Garvey's. A tad. I don't want anyone to get carried away thinking I am taking away the base on balls value, because it is still there and important even for cleanup hitters.
I'm astonished at how little you appear to know about baseball.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Not just played longer. Hit better too. Same with Perez being better than Keith Hernandez.
As it stands, Tenace is closer to Phelps than you think, at least according to your methods you are using to compare Tenace to Garvey.
OK, I'll play. I compared them, among many other ways, by comparing their batter runs, and it was 267 for Tenace (tied with Bench) and 167 for Garvey (tied with Hebner). Remember that? That was the actual way I compared them, not the misinterpretation of how I compared them that JB has been presenting. If you've got those confused, you may want to take a moment (or a couple of hours) to review all of my masturbatory rehash.
Anyway, it was 267 for Tenace, 167 for Garvey, and now I'll add 96 for Phelps. Help me here, actuaries aren't good with numbers, but is 96 closer to 167 or to 267? As I said, and meant, you are embarrassing yourself by bringing Ken Phelps into a discussion in which he very obviously does not belong. Not as much as you are by adding 3,000 ABs against RHP at the end of Tenace's career (which as statistical comedy can't be topped), but still quite a lot.
Batter Runs are a rate state like OPS+ is. It is a comparison to a league average. So if you have have platoon splits, it will also save your Batter Run stat. A league average hitter will receive ZERO batter runs and a guy sitting on a couch will receive ZERO Batter runs. A hitter like Phelps or Tenace who ONLY hits in high optimum spots will have less events that would make his batter runs go negative. Going 0 for 4 would give you negative battter runs. So when guys do not play in games where 0 for 4 are more likely, they are saving their batter runs just like they are their OPS.
So you may want to rethink what you wrote because batter runs DO NOT solve the platoon stat problem or the short career problem.
You keep using the phrase "rate stat". It does not mean what you think it means. Everything else you say about Batter Runs is correct, but the constant misuse of "rate stat" is becoming painful. A player who plays one game can have an OPS+ of 100, or 150, or whatever, same as a player who plays 162 games; OPS+ is a rate stat. A player who plays one game can not accumulate 267 Batter Runs; Batter Runs is not a rate stat, it is a counting stat.
Regarding Tenace, for now the 75th time, the "short career problem" can't be "solved", it will always be there. Catchers have short careers and you decide for yourself how to deal with that. Regarding the "platoon stat problem" you are simply overestimating - and by a lot - how much effect that has on Tenace. You say he "ONLY" hits in "high optimum spots", but he faced RHP twice as often as LHP, completely the opposite of Phelps who actually was a platoon player. I did a reasonable adjustment to take into account Tenace's minor platooning problem and it dropped his OPS+ by a single point. You continue to insist on doing a completely unreasonable adjustment by burying his minor platoon stat problem under his short career problem. The two problems are independent of each other and need to be treated separately; your approach just squares the short career problem and completely botches the address to the platoon stat problem.
Garvey played longer than Tenace - decide how much that means to you and conclude from it what you will. Once that's done, forget about it, and address any other issue you see on its own terms. There is still a platooning problem and it drops his OPS+ by a single point. Adding 3,000 ABs against RHP in his old man years would drop it a lot more, but it would also give him a long career and we've already addressed that problem. To add all those old man RHP ABs is not addressing the platooning problem on its own terms, it is conflating it with his short career problem and addressing that problem again from a different direction. The single biggest difference between Garvey and Tenace is the length of their careers, so I get why you want to address it twice and ignore everything else. What I'm telling you is that I see what you're doing (even if you don't), and I'm calling BS on it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Does anyone need to look further to see why that lead in batter runs is wrong? I don' think so. Just do the same exercises I did above with OPS, it comes out to the same conclusion. Garvey was a better hitter.
Ken Phelps had 3.3 Batter Runs in 1985
Eddie Murray had 3.4 Batter Runs in 1991
Yet they are equal in your methods??? Get outtta here. Are you kidding?
Steve Garvey Batter Runs
1985 he had 5.5.
1986 he had NEGATIVE 10. Negative 10.
In 1985 Garvey played EVERY game and only had 5.5 batter runs. He was penalized by playing every game. So if I somehow made him a platoon player, his batter runs actually GO UP. They go up if he plays less because I will not play him against Nolan Ryan and aviod those nasty 0 for 4's that make your batter runs go down. So the bench guy goes 0 for 4 instead.
Same for 1986. Garvey's OPS vs LH in 1986 .838! Again, if I play him in just half of his at bats he had vs. RH pitchers, then his batter runs climb out of the negative for that year, and that would be equal to Tenace situation. If I ONLY play him vs LH, then his batter runs climb way up, and that would be Ken Phelps.
In 1986, Tim Pyznarski played for Garvey in the few games Garvey missed. HIs OPS was .581 and OPS+ was 64. So in essence, by Garvey playing every day vs the tough RH pitchers, he is saving his team from having to play Tim Pyznarski....even though by Garvey playing it is dragging down Garvey's OPS and Batter runs into a slight negative, making him look worse of a htter than Tenace who did the opposite.
In 1978, the primary First Baseman for the Padres in lieu of Tenace was Broderick Perkins and his OPS at 1B was .605.
In 1978, the primary catcher for the Padres in lieu of Tenace was Rick Sweet and his OPS at C was .603.
You see, when a guy like Garvey plays EVERY DAY, your team does not suffer by having to play Pyznarski, Perkins, or Sweet. So when Garvey goes 0 for 4 vs Ryan, he is just saving the inevitable of the reserve going 0 for 4.
When Tenace doesn't play in the tough matchup or at an old age, the team suffers with those scrubs.
Granted, a team could have a viable option, but that costs MONEY. It also keeps that viable option from playing in someone else's stead.
Garvey playing EVERY DAY helps WINNING, despite the fact that it may knock his Batter RUns into the negative.
What was Gene Tenace doing in 1985 and 1986? He wasn't good enough to play in MLB.
Garvey 1985/86 NEGATIVE 4.5 Batter runs as a complete FULL TIME player.
Tenace 1985/86 Zero batter runs while he sat on his couch.
Batter Runs is telling us that a guy sitting on his couch at home was a better hitter than a guy who was just a tick below a league average MLB hitter. Keep in mind, that he really wasn't below league average, because he played vs every tough RH pitcher. If I give Garvey the Teance or Phelps treatment in those years then he is above league average hitter of WAAAY above in the case of Ken Phelps treatment.
Take this post to your next saber meeting and start showing some light onto a topic they don't quite grasp yet.
Edit to add... @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it within the realm of possibility to prove that Jim Rice didn't suck? He's my favorite player and doesn't get a lot of love sometimes.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
On the surface it looks like Tenace was better. However,
he was not.
The OPS+ number is nice for Tenace, but 2 minutes after looking at it, you see that he was not the "better" player.
Banzi, you are correct. This is where the old school guys get upset about sabermetrics, because intuitively they saw Garvey out there every day. They know that if Garvey didn't play vs Ryan, then someone else had to and it wouldn't be pretty.
The time has definitely come to give guys like Garvey their just due. Sabermetrics are just killing players like him, and as clerarly outlined above, sabermetrics are wrong in doing so.
Batter runs, OPS, WAR, etc....ALL stats have it wrong in regard to Garvey. It is clearly outlined in my last above post.
Having a player to handle at bats EVERY SINGLE GAME is a benefit to a team. Sure, some teams may have young guys that 'may' be able to fill in, but Garvey gives you that known commodity. You never know how bad that reserve might be. Even the best prospects come up and do absolutely nothing.
Edit to add... @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it within the realm of possibility to prove that Jim Rice didn't suck? He's my favorite player and doesn't get a lot of love sometimes.
Rice certainly didn't suck, even though he was much better when playing in his home park. You can't just ignore what he did in Fenway and say "he sucks". You can, but you would be wrong.
It's funny that a guy who relies on stats that average everything out and ignores when a guy doesn't even play, chooses to ignore Rice's numbers in the years he crushed it at home.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Edit to add... @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it within the realm of possibility to prove that Jim Rice didn't suck? He's my favorite player and doesn't get a lot of love sometimes.
Rice certainly didn't suck, even though he was much better when playing in his home park. You can't just ignore what he did in Fenway and say "he sucks". You can, but you would be wrong.
It's funny that a guy who relies on stats that average everything out and ignores when a guy doesn't even play, chooses to ignore Rice's numbers in the years he crushed it at home.
Rice doesn't suck of course. I know Dallas is being hyperbolic on that to make a point...I don't think he actually believes Rice sucks. However, Rice has a little Garvey in his profile as well. Rice played full time too....not 162 games every year like Garvey. There is a lot of value of playing 160 games full time, even if it is two percent below league average. The sabermetric stats do not show that. Those stats will ALWAYS favor the players who played mostly in prime optimal situations...but that hurts the team when Pyznarksi has to play instead.
On the surface it looks like Tenace was better. However,
he was not.
The OPS+ number is nice for Tenace, but 2 minutes after looking at it, you see that he was not the "better" player.
Banzi, you are correct. This is where the old school guys get upset about sabermetrics, because intuitively they saw Garvey out there every day. They know that if Garvey didn't play vs Ryan, then someone else had to and it wouldn't be pretty.
The time has definitely come to give guys like Garvey their just due. Sabermetrics are just killing players like him, and as clerarly outlined above, sabermetrics are wrong in doing so.
Batter runs, OPS, WAR, etc....ALL stats have it wrong in regard to Garvey. It is clearly outlined in my last above post.
Having a player to handle at bats EVERY SINGLE GAME is a benefit to a team. Sure, some teams may have young guys that 'may' be able to fill in, but Garvey gives you that known commodity. You never know how bad that reserve might be. Even the best prospects come up and do absolutely nothing.
The other way to look at it is that guys like me who saw Garvey play and thought he was very good but not great are being "proven"right. Or at least have validated data & talking points now . I never thought of Garvey as a HOFer but I can understand why others would. He has great "back of baseball card stats". Those are the ones which many of us grew up with pre Internet. batting ave, hits, homers, rbis. Those only tell a part of the story
There is zero doubt he gets in one day via the veterans committee
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
On the surface it looks like Tenace was better. However,
he was not.
The OPS+ number is nice for Tenace, but 2 minutes after looking at it, you see that he was not the "better" player.
Banzi, you are correct. This is where the old school guys get upset about sabermetrics, because intuitively they saw Garvey out there every day. They know that if Garvey didn't play vs Ryan, then someone else had to and it wouldn't be pretty.
The time has definitely come to give guys like Garvey their just due. Sabermetrics are just killing players like him, and as clerarly outlined above, sabermetrics are wrong in doing so.
Batter runs, OPS, WAR, etc....ALL stats have it wrong in regard to Garvey. It is clearly outlined in my last above post.
Having a player to handle at bats EVERY SINGLE GAME is a benefit to a team. Sure, some teams may have young guys that 'may' be able to fill in, but Garvey gives you that known commodity. You never know how bad that reserve might be. Even the best prospects come up and do absolutely nothing.
The other way to look at it is that guys like me who saw Garvey play and thought he was very good but not great are being "proven"right. Or at least have valid talking points now . I never thought of Garvey as a HOFer but can understand why others would. He has great back of baseball card stats. Those are the ones which many of us grew up with pre Internet. batting ave, hits, homers, rbis. Those only tell a part of the story
m
I never thought of him as a HOFer either, because I would like my HOFers to be effective longer than Garvey was, and/or a little better than he was during his prime. He was better than Tenace though.
Edit to add... @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it within the realm of possibility to prove that Jim Rice didn't suck? He's my favorite player and doesn't get a lot of love sometimes.
Rice certainly didn't suck, even though he was much better when playing in his home park. You can't just ignore what he did in Fenway and say "he sucks". You can, but you would be wrong.
It's funny that a guy who relies on stats that average everything out and ignores when a guy doesn't even play, chooses to ignore Rice's numbers in the years he crushed it at home.
here's my dos centavos, then i'm going to briskly reclothe myself and sprint from you guys
in a utopian world, the Hall would have an obligation to honor players in a way that reflected some form of objectivity. but you, i, everyone's dog, and Gene Tenace know that simply isn't the case. over the years it has morphed into a foundation with the sole purpose of preserving collective memories, period.
case in point...
if you're been paying attention over the years, then you know that my fav player was Vlad the Impaler. if you've been paying attention over the years, then you also know that impartiality takes precedence over rooting interests in my world. that said, a very strong case can be made that if Vladimir Guerrero is in the Hall of Fame, then a dude like Bobby Abreu should be in as well. if Abreu never gets in, then VG shouldn't be in either. on its face, that is a laughable statement. but if you pull out your shovel and deep dig, it's true: the disparity is negligible when it comes to their comprehensive contributions as baseball players.
yet no one outside of Astros fans, Phillies fans, Yankees fans, Angels fans, Dodgers fans, Mets fans, and Abreu's momma and daddy would publicly admit while sober that they made a concerted effort to go watch him play. conversely, Guerrero was like a mating call for any lukewarm fan. "dude, i wanna go see Vlad stroll up to the plate au naturel and clobber a nut-high fastball 420 feet, or fire the cannon from the warning track and either nail a guy at third on the fly or drill the bull in the head like Nuke LaLoosh."
one guy left indelible memories, the other guy..........not so much. one guy got in on his second try, the other guy will only be found in the Hall if he decides to visit and has his wallet with him. yet WAR (Abreu - 60.2, Guerrero - 59.5), win shares (Abreu - 356, Guerrero - 324), and peak win shares from 98-04 (Abreu - 191, Guerrero - 182) not only alter the perceived gap considerably, but also serve as yet another reminder of why the baseball HoF -- aka the House of Fandom -- should no longer, under any circumstance, be taken seriously.
I did a post several years ago about Vlad and while I don't remember including Abreu, there were a multitude of players with careers of very similar value. I said then, and I still believe, that it made no sense to pluck Guerrero out from among this large mass of very good players and put him in the HOF. Chicks, and the HOF, love the long ball, and Guerrero did have the most HR among this group, but Darrell Evans was close, and was better than Guerrero overall. The induction of Guerrero can best be described as "random", and honors handed out randomly are no longer honors. I think a reasonable case can be made to induct Guerrero, Reggie Smith, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Bobby Abreu and other similarly good players, or to induct none of them, depending on your vision of the HOF. But inducting only Guerrero made no sense; not as harmful to the HOF's reputation as inducting Rice/Baines - both in a much lower quality group than Guerrero - but it was harmful.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
dallasactuary,
You can deny Tenace being in the Phelps class all you want...but the way you are using OPS+ to compare Tenace to Garvey is the same method that makes Phelps a superior hitter to Dave Winfield, Molitor, and Murray.
The reality is that Tenace is closer in lifetime plate appearances to PHELPS, than he is to Garvey.
Tenace is 3,240 plate appearances away from Phelps. Tenace is 3,939 plate appearances away from Garvey.
So,if I ONLY look at Garvey's performance in ONLY the highest leverage times like Phelps, I mean Tenace. I'm simply going to fire Garvey after 1980 and don't play him before 1972, then he has a similar amount of plate apperances as Tenace does.
Garvey 5,554 Plate Apperances and .818 OPS Runs 688. RBI 810
Tenace 5,527 Plate Apperances and .817 OPS. Runs 653. RBI 674
Yeah I know, ballpark. Ok, even if I gave you that at wholesale price, I stilll need to bench Garvey vs the toughest RH's to mimic Teance. Plus there is no guarantee that the ballpark figures are 100% accurate for the two. Dodger Stadium is not a hitters park.
Once I do that, Garvey beats him easily in that SAME time frame with the same high optimum playing time....and that is completely ignoring the contributions that Garvey did AFTER 1980 and ALLLL those thousands of plate appearances he contributed while Tenace was sitting on a couch.
Also keep in mind that walks are indeed a tad less important for middle of the order hitters, and walks almost useless when batting in front of the pitcher spot. I say a tad less important as it won't turn Joe Carter into Mike Schmidt, but in cases like this where it is a little closer, Garvey's getting more hits and total bases carry a little more weight in that lineup spot compared to Tenace's walks. Just a little though.
That is also seen in the RBI total above in the same amount of playing time where Garvey had a lot more...and Garvey still even scored more runs even though Tenace had a higher OB%.
So Garvey did not simply just play longer. He was clearly a better hitter too. Any advantaged gained by Teance for his catching(which was not a full time catcher) is erased with the fact that Garvey did play longer and every day.
Garvey wins. Sorry Dallas. Sometimes you cannot win them all.
I could see it in the future though...pulling up to Cooperstown is a big luxury bus. Out steps Gary Roenicke, then John Lowenstein tipping his cap, fitting that they come out together. Next, a now more than chubby Matt Stairs climbs down.
Ken Phelps, wearing a crown prematurely, is the next to emerge.
Old and frail, worn out from years of play in MLB, Cliff Johnson gingerly steps off the bus. Then Gene Tenace emerges triumphantly.
The camera pans to the entrance of Cooperstown with a huge banner commemorating a new wing that just opened up..."The best of the part time players."
Gene Tenace gets the most votes of the group, however, just edging out Cliff Johnson and Johnson's lifetime 125 OPS+ in his 4,600 lifetime plate appearances. The voters profiled Johnson as a hitter as close to Tenace as almost anyone in MLB history, and that made the vote a little closer than expected.
Dallasactuary, Tenace did not hit RH pitchers better than Garvey. Yearly OPS vs RH(minimum 100 at bats)
Garvey....Tenace.
.864......854
.864.....819
.838.....809
.832.....807
.825....789
.816......776
.788......771
.730......715
.728.....707
.718......696
.713......bench or Couch at home
.700......bench or Couch at home
.697......bench or Couch at home
.662.....bench or Couch at home
.620.....bench or Couch at home
.561.....bench or Couch at home
.413......bench or Couch at home
Garvey's last six came at the end of his career, and of course Garvey played EVERY game so it is against every toughest RH and if banged up.
And a reminder, Tenace has base on balls a much larger component of his OPS, and with middle of the order hitters walks take a tad less importance to the total bases that boosted Garvey's. A tad. I don't want anyone to get carried away thinking I am taking away the base on balls value, because it is still there and important even for cleanup hitters.
OK, I'll play. I compared them, among many other ways, by comparing their batter runs, and it was 267 for Tenace (tied with Bench) and 167 for Garvey (tied with Hebner). Remember that? That was the actual way I compared them, not the misinterpretation of how I compared them that JB has been presenting. If you've got those confused, you may want to take a moment (or a couple of hours) to review all of my masturbatory rehash.
Anyway, it was 267 for Tenace, 167 for Garvey, and now I'll add 96 for Phelps. Help me here, actuaries aren't good with numbers, but is 96 closer to 167 or to 267? As I said, and meant, you are embarrassing yourself by bringing Ken Phelps into a discussion in which he very obviously does not belong. Not as much as you are by adding 3,000 ABs against RHP at the end of Tenace's career (which as statistical comedy can't be topped), but still quite a lot.
I've got it! Maybe he's saying if you add Phelps' career to Garvey's then the composite player is just as good as Tenace.
I'm astonished at how little you appear to know about baseball.
Batter Runs are a rate state like OPS+ is. It is a comparison to a league average. So if you have have platoon splits, it will also save your Batter Run stat. A league average hitter will receive ZERO batter runs and a guy sitting on a couch will receive ZERO Batter runs. A hitter like Phelps or Tenace who ONLY hits in high optimum spots will have less events that would make his batter runs go negative. Going 0 for 4 would give you negative battter runs. So when guys do not play in games where 0 for 4 are more likely, they are saving their batter runs just like they are their OPS.
So you may want to rethink what you wrote because batter runs DO NOT solve the platoon stat problem or the short career problem.
You keep using the phrase "rate stat". It does not mean what you think it means. Everything else you say about Batter Runs is correct, but the constant misuse of "rate stat" is becoming painful. A player who plays one game can have an OPS+ of 100, or 150, or whatever, same as a player who plays 162 games; OPS+ is a rate stat. A player who plays one game can not accumulate 267 Batter Runs; Batter Runs is not a rate stat, it is a counting stat.
Regarding Tenace, for now the 75th time, the "short career problem" can't be "solved", it will always be there. Catchers have short careers and you decide for yourself how to deal with that. Regarding the "platoon stat problem" you are simply overestimating - and by a lot - how much effect that has on Tenace. You say he "ONLY" hits in "high optimum spots", but he faced RHP twice as often as LHP, completely the opposite of Phelps who actually was a platoon player. I did a reasonable adjustment to take into account Tenace's minor platooning problem and it dropped his OPS+ by a single point. You continue to insist on doing a completely unreasonable adjustment by burying his minor platoon stat problem under his short career problem. The two problems are independent of each other and need to be treated separately; your approach just squares the short career problem and completely botches the address to the platoon stat problem.
Garvey played longer than Tenace - decide how much that means to you and conclude from it what you will. Once that's done, forget about it, and address any other issue you see on its own terms. There is still a platooning problem and it drops his OPS+ by a single point. Adding 3,000 ABs against RHP in his old man years would drop it a lot more, but it would also give him a long career and we've already addressed that problem. To add all those old man RHP ABs is not addressing the platooning problem on its own terms, it is conflating it with his short career problem and addressing that problem again from a different direction. The single biggest difference between Garvey and Tenace is the length of their careers, so I get why you want to address it twice and ignore everything else. What I'm telling you is that I see what you're doing (even if you don't), and I'm calling BS on it.
Grab some popcorn and see:
1978 Gene Tenace had 25 Batter Runs
1980 Steve Garvey had 19.4 Batter Runs
On the surface it looks like Tenace was better. However, look at their at their PA vs RH and LH
Player.......RH......LH
Tenace....343.....172
Garvey....592.....112
Does anyone need to look further to see why that lead in batter runs is wrong? I don' think so. Just do the same exercises I did above with OPS, it comes out to the same conclusion. Garvey was a better hitter.
Ken Phelps had 3.3 Batter Runs in 1985
Eddie Murray had 3.4 Batter Runs in 1991
Plate Appearances:
Player.......RH.....LH
Phelps.....129.....11
Murray....360....279
Yet they are equal in your methods??? Get outtta here. Are you kidding?
Steve Garvey Batter Runs
1985 he had 5.5.
1986 he had NEGATIVE 10. Negative 10.
In 1985 Garvey played EVERY game and only had 5.5 batter runs. He was penalized by playing every game. So if I somehow made him a platoon player, his batter runs actually GO UP. They go up if he plays less because I will not play him against Nolan Ryan and aviod those nasty 0 for 4's that make your batter runs go down. So the bench guy goes 0 for 4 instead.
Same for 1986. Garvey's OPS vs LH in 1986 .838! Again, if I play him in just half of his at bats he had vs. RH pitchers, then his batter runs climb out of the negative for that year, and that would be equal to Tenace situation. If I ONLY play him vs LH, then his batter runs climb way up, and that would be Ken Phelps.
In 1986, Tim Pyznarski played for Garvey in the few games Garvey missed. HIs OPS was .581 and OPS+ was 64. So in essence, by Garvey playing every day vs the tough RH pitchers, he is saving his team from having to play Tim Pyznarski....even though by Garvey playing it is dragging down Garvey's OPS and Batter runs into a slight negative, making him look worse of a htter than Tenace who did the opposite.
In 1978, the primary First Baseman for the Padres in lieu of Tenace was Broderick Perkins and his OPS at 1B was .605.
In 1978, the primary catcher for the Padres in lieu of Tenace was Rick Sweet and his OPS at C was .603.
You see, when a guy like Garvey plays EVERY DAY, your team does not suffer by having to play Pyznarski, Perkins, or Sweet. So when Garvey goes 0 for 4 vs Ryan, he is just saving the inevitable of the reserve going 0 for 4.
When Tenace doesn't play in the tough matchup or at an old age, the team suffers with those scrubs.
Granted, a team could have a viable option, but that costs MONEY. It also keeps that viable option from playing in someone else's stead.
Garvey playing EVERY DAY helps WINNING, despite the fact that it may knock his Batter RUns into the negative.
What was Gene Tenace doing in 1985 and 1986? He wasn't good enough to play in MLB.
Garvey 1985/86 NEGATIVE 4.5 Batter runs as a complete FULL TIME player.
Tenace 1985/86 Zero batter runs while he sat on his couch.
Batter Runs is telling us that a guy sitting on his couch at home was a better hitter than a guy who was just a tick below a league average MLB hitter. Keep in mind, that he really wasn't below league average, because he played vs every tough RH pitcher. If I give Garvey the Teance or Phelps treatment in those years then he is above league average hitter of WAAAY above in the case of Ken Phelps treatment.
Take this post to your next saber meeting and start showing some light onto a topic they don't quite grasp yet.
he was not.
The OPS+ number is nice for Tenace, but 2 minutes after looking at it, you see that he was not the "better" player.
This is getting good.
Edit to add... @1948_Swell_Robinson , is it within the realm of possibility to prove that Jim Rice didn't suck? He's my favorite player and doesn't get a lot of love sometimes.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Banzi, you are correct. This is where the old school guys get upset about sabermetrics, because intuitively they saw Garvey out there every day. They know that if Garvey didn't play vs Ryan, then someone else had to and it wouldn't be pretty.
The time has definitely come to give guys like Garvey their just due. Sabermetrics are just killing players like him, and as clerarly outlined above, sabermetrics are wrong in doing so.
Batter runs, OPS, WAR, etc....ALL stats have it wrong in regard to Garvey. It is clearly outlined in my last above post.
Having a player to handle at bats EVERY SINGLE GAME is a benefit to a team. Sure, some teams may have young guys that 'may' be able to fill in, but Garvey gives you that known commodity. You never know how bad that reserve might be. Even the best prospects come up and do absolutely nothing.
Rice certainly didn't suck, even though he was much better when playing in his home park. You can't just ignore what he did in Fenway and say "he sucks". You can, but you would be wrong.
It's funny that a guy who relies on stats that average everything out and ignores when a guy doesn't even play, chooses to ignore Rice's numbers in the years he crushed it at home.
Rice doesn't suck of course. I know Dallas is being hyperbolic on that to make a point...I don't think he actually believes Rice sucks. However, Rice has a little Garvey in his profile as well. Rice played full time too....not 162 games every year like Garvey. There is a lot of value of playing 160 games full time, even if it is two percent below league average. The sabermetric stats do not show that. Those stats will ALWAYS favor the players who played mostly in prime optimal situations...but that hurts the team when Pyznarksi has to play instead.
The other way to look at it is that guys like me who saw Garvey play and thought he was very good but not great are being "proven"right. Or at least have validated data & talking points now . I never thought of Garvey as a HOFer but I can understand why others would. He has great "back of baseball card stats". Those are the ones which many of us grew up with pre Internet. batting ave, hits, homers, rbis. Those only tell a part of the story
There is zero doubt he gets in one day via the veterans committee
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I never thought of him as a HOFer either, because I would like my HOFers to be effective longer than Garvey was, and/or a little better than he was during his prime. He was better than Tenace though.
Case Closed
here's my dos centavos, then i'm going to briskly reclothe myself and sprint from you guys
in a utopian world, the Hall would have an obligation to honor players in a way that reflected some form of objectivity. but you, i, everyone's dog, and Gene Tenace know that simply isn't the case. over the years it has morphed into a foundation with the sole purpose of preserving collective memories, period.
case in point...
if you're been paying attention over the years, then you know that my fav player was Vlad the Impaler. if you've been paying attention over the years, then you also know that impartiality takes precedence over rooting interests in my world. that said, a very strong case can be made that if Vladimir Guerrero is in the Hall of Fame, then a dude like Bobby Abreu should be in as well. if Abreu never gets in, then VG shouldn't be in either. on its face, that is a laughable statement. but if you pull out your shovel and deep dig, it's true: the disparity is negligible when it comes to their comprehensive contributions as baseball players.
yet no one outside of Astros fans, Phillies fans, Yankees fans, Angels fans, Dodgers fans, Mets fans, and Abreu's momma and daddy would publicly admit while sober that they made a concerted effort to go watch him play. conversely, Guerrero was like a mating call for any lukewarm fan. "dude, i wanna go see Vlad stroll up to the plate au naturel and clobber a nut-high fastball 420 feet, or fire the cannon from the warning track and either nail a guy at third on the fly or drill the bull in the head like Nuke LaLoosh."
one guy left indelible memories, the other guy..........not so much. one guy got in on his second try, the other guy will only be found in the Hall if he decides to visit and has his wallet with him. yet WAR (Abreu - 60.2, Guerrero - 59.5), win shares (Abreu - 356, Guerrero - 324), and peak win shares from 98-04 (Abreu - 191, Guerrero - 182) not only alter the perceived gap considerably, but also serve as yet another reminder of why the baseball HoF -- aka the House of Fandom -- should no longer, under any circumstance, be taken seriously.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I did a post several years ago about Vlad and while I don't remember including Abreu, there were a multitude of players with careers of very similar value. I said then, and I still believe, that it made no sense to pluck Guerrero out from among this large mass of very good players and put him in the HOF. Chicks, and the HOF, love the long ball, and Guerrero did have the most HR among this group, but Darrell Evans was close, and was better than Guerrero overall. The induction of Guerrero can best be described as "random", and honors handed out randomly are no longer honors. I think a reasonable case can be made to induct Guerrero, Reggie Smith, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Bobby Abreu and other similarly good players, or to induct none of them, depending on your vision of the HOF. But inducting only Guerrero made no sense; not as harmful to the HOF's reputation as inducting Rice/Baines - both in a much lower quality group than Guerrero - but it was harmful.