The true value of making contact and hits. Dimaggio, Mantle, JD Drew, Bill Buckner...& Ray Donovan?
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭✭
When your batter is up with second and third and one out and all he has to do is put the dang ball in play and you get actual run on the board it means more than sabermetric theoretical fractional run value over the long haul. It means an actual run right in front of your face , a better chance to win, and everybody in the stadium knows it. There is value in contact and hits, despite the negligible value given in sabermetrics in making contact.
Yes, it is obvious that the guys who got to second and third get a big portion of the value, but an actual run on the board is also an obvious value, and a player who can deliver those runs on board consistently has more value than their theoretical sabermetric value. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I always felt it was actually selfish of Barry Bonds to be taking so many close pitches and end up walking when he could have made a contact out and produced an actual run. There are times in a game where runs are scarce vs a pitcher, or the situation dictates an actual run being more important than the theoretical long haul sabermetric runs that give a slight advantage spread out over time(which may never even materialize in the difference between winning and losing).
Joe Dimaggio put those actual runs on the board better than anyone in history, while also being elite in the long haul theoretical runs. That wins baseball games. Joe Dimaggio is the all time leader at delivering Baserunners home.
BRS% is simply the percentage of baserunners who scored as a result of the batters plate appearance:
BRS% DiMaggio 21.5% vs league avg of 14.9%
BRS% Mantle 16.2% vs league avg of 14.0%
BRS% Drew 15.1% vs league avg of 14.8%
BRS% Buckner 17.2% vs league avg of 14.3%
Yes, I know that mantle drove himself in more, but the fact that Buckner still delivered actual runners on the board better than Mantle says a lot about Buckner and the value his contact and hits provided. I'm not saying Buckner is in the same park as Mantle because OB% does have value too, as does driving in yourself with a home run...but contact and hits have a big value too and it is evident in Buckner delivering actual runners on the scoreboard better than Mantle did. It shows Buckner's value despite Buckner's hitting getting trashed by sabermetric measurements.
Buckner's advantage in BRS% will not bring him near the same discussion as Mantle....but it will bring him into a discussion with the the platoon heavy JD Drew who dwarfs Buckner in sabermetric hitting, but not in the actual runs on the board.
Buckner is getting the job done. He is the Ray Donovnan of baseball. He comes in, delivers, and gets the job done. Then fades away hiding in the shadows of baseball history where his skill set doesn't get ANY credit by the suits....until now at least.
Comments
Yes, if you swing at every pitch you will make more contact and you will drive in more runners. You will also double up more runners and make a ton more outs, leaving the hitters behind you with nobody to drive in. You have shone a flashlight on one piece of the puzzle, but you have reached a conclusion that does not follow from that one piece. Over the course of his career, Buckner produced 25 fewer runs than an average hitter would have - Buckner was a below average hitter. Over the course of his career, Mantle produced 860 more runs than an average hitter would have - Mantle was a GOAT level hitter.
Producing runs does include driving in runners on base, and Buckner delivered in that one respect. But producing runs also includes getting on base for the hitters behind you to drive in, and advancing runners on base so that they are more likely to be driven in by the hitters behind you. In these respects, Buckner did not deliver; in these respects, Buckner was putrid. If you look at all the pieces of the puzzle - sabermetrics is just another word for "looking at all the pieces of the puzzle" - you see that Buckner was essentially an average hitter. He does not belong in the same sentence as J.D. Drew, let alone Mickey Mantle.
I think you are advocating hitters widen their zones to swing at pitches outside of the strike zone? If so, there is a place of diminishing returns. there have been hitters throughout time that were looked at as good "RBI" men. these players typically did not have good command of the strike zone and when they came to the plate it was time to swing at the best pitches they saw, even if those pitches were off the plate.
an example of that type of player would be Joe Carter. a good "RBI" man, but a pretty bad offensive player over all.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You make a fair point, but you bring up Buckner, who was as slow as a turtle as his career progressed. Still a valid point. Don't get me wrong, there is the chance of a double play with Buckner, Big Papi, or the one legged catcher.
But if you're talking about a guy like Mantle with above average speed, or a Dimaggio, then the OP's opinion is
a very valid one.
No, not swinging at balls.
Yes, I have shown the light on the one piece of the puzzle, the part where the sabermetrics don't really include. They already fully include the stuff you are talking about(of which I brought up too), so didn't detail those.
But, that does not discount the "bird in a hand is worth two in a bush" aspect.
Sabermetrics brings the long haul value and that does not always pan out. Blake Snell in last year's world series is another glaring example where the long haul should get thrown in the trash when making decision.
Or in Buckner's case, he is bringing in a guaranteed run, where drawing a walk is not a guaranteed run, but greatly enhances your sabermetric value.
Dallas, not every one has that bat to ball skill where just swinging at every pitch would work, and still be able to hit .300 and make contact. Just like not everyone has that eye where taking pitches to draw walks would actually result in more walks.
SO yes, I am highlighting that aspect for Buckner. That is better that making it worthless like sabermetric does.
When you look at the walks and the actual amount of times that they actually score(or don't), that is another aspect.
Bill Buckner was always one of my favorites. Very good hitter. To bad about that World Series error. Oh, well. He died too young.
Bill Buckner's lifetime OPS+ is 100. Exactly average, which I concede is not being shined on as 'putrid', but it still does not capture his value properly, in real terms.
But when you loo at this:
BRS% is simply the percentage of baserunners who scored as a result of the batters plate appearance:
BRS% DiMaggio 21.5% vs league avg of 14.9%
BRS% Mantle 16.2% vs league avg of 14.0%
BRS% Drew 15.1% vs league avg of 14.8%
BRS% Buckner 17.2% vs league avg of 14.3%
You see that he actually did BETTER than Mickey Mantle. Forget JD Drew(Ken Phelps Jr) for a second, and focus on Mantle. Mantle is an extreme home run hitter and with a good average, yet Buckner plated those runners at a higher rate. I'm in no way saying Buckner is anywhere near the hitter as Mantle, but when you look at those concrete runs(not theoretical runs) and see he did it better than Mantle, then it shines a little more light on Buckner's true value to a lineup than OPS+ is showing.
And yes, Bonds was a little shelfish for beefing his OB% when his team could have used a few extra guaranteed runs if he had simply made contact on strikes thrown. It may have produced even a double play to go with the run, but those guaranteed runs on the board win games.
You scared me for a second. I thought your name was Hydra...and was just watching Wanda Vision last night.
For the poster above, Buckner was a very fast baserunner for half his career. Before his double ankle surgeries he played the outfield and even centerfield. He stole bases and ran extremely well. Even after his surgeries he still gutted out some stolen bases. He was a good baserunner. Even with no ankles left, he still somehow managed 18 steals with Boston in 1985.
I would prefer to have a batter like Buckner with his skill set in my lineup, instead of JD Drew who was a platoon plater and and most of his value came from walks and he couldn't drive any runners in effectively at all.
Buckner's skill set has certain value. If it were as easy as just "swinging at every pitch" as is being proposed, then half the guys in the minor leagues would do that because they would have killed for Buckner's career instead of a career at JCPenny.
There is a reason why Buckner got intentionally walked as many times as he did for a non home run guy. Looking how he bested Mickey Mantle in plating runners at a better rate, you could understand why.
The theoretical run values do not jive with the ACTUAL run driven in value AND run scored value. Buckner closes the gap on famous OB%guys like Schmidt and Morgan in creating actual runs, not theoretical runs. If walks were of the run scoring value as they are being out to be, then it did not translate into real runs scored by Buckner, Schmidt, and Morgan.
Lifetime plate appearances
Buckner 10,037
Schmidt 10,063
Morgan 11,329
Number of base runners on base when at bat
Buckner 6,291
Schmidt 6,614
Morgan 6,324
Number of those Baserunners they brought in, and the percentage:
Buckner 1,082 or 17.2%
Schmidt 1,093 or 16.5%
Morgan 900 or 14.2%
Number of times they drove themselves in(which are home runs).
Buckner 174
Schmidt 548
Morgan 268
Buckner w/ Morgan's total PA(196)
Total number of runs driven in(including runners and themselves).
Buckner 1,256
Schmidt 1,641
Morgan 1,168
Buckner equalized to Morgan(1,278)
Number of runs total with equalized Baserunners.
Buckner 1,312
Schmidt 1,641
Morgan 1,168
Buckner equalized to morgan(1,284)
Number of career runs scored after reaching base:
Buckner 903
Schmidt 958
Morgan 1,382
Buckner equalized to Morgan PA(Buckner scored a run .091% of lifetime plate appearances minus home runs. He has 1,200 less plate appearances than Morgan, which equals to 100 more runs scored while on base.
Buckner 1,003
Total number of runs responsible for as a batter and baserunner: The true value of what they actually did!
Buckner 2,215
Schmidt 2,599
Difference: Schmidt +384
Morgan 2,550
Buckner equalized to Morgan (2,287)
Sabermetric theoretical run values: The theoretical value of what they did. Does not match up to true value at all.
Batter runs
Buckner -24.9
Schmidt 577
Difference Schmidt +602
Morgan 498
Run expectancy 24 base/out combination:
Buckner 80.2
Schmidt 624.3
Difference Schmidt +544
Morgan 695
Biggest variables:
Speed of runners ahead of you.
Hitting ability of hitters behind you, especially home run ability.
Buckner had no advantage in those variables, and in the case of Morgan, Buckner was severely handicapped in those variables.
Sabermetric aspects of 'extending the inning with a walk' is a variable, but singles extend the inning too. Same with moving other runnerss up who eventually score. Singles move those runners further than walks. These aspects are not nearly enough to erase the real actual runs that buckner produced and scored, in which close the theoretical gap to a big degree.
Buckner is far more valuable in the game of baseball that is played on the field than what the theoretical values present. He has a unique skill set that very few could match in making elite high level of contact and with a high batting average. It translated into plating runs as good or better as some of the all time great hitters, and scoring runs to enough of a degree where his real value is higher than his theoretical value.
The rest of it just brought tears to my eyes and I'm going to try to forget I read any of it. But the point you make here is simply incorrect, and possibly my pointing it out will stop you from going further down the godforsaken path that you're on.
Sabermetrics doesn't make driving in runs "worthless", it includes it as one of several aspects of hitting value. The one aspect of hitting at which Buckner was better than average was in getting hits or otherwise making contact with runners on base and driving in runs. At all other aspects of hitting, Buckner was worse than average. If sabermetrics were ignoring the value of Buckner's hits then he would show up as a terrible hitter; it is because sabermetrics does place value on this aspect that Buckner instead shows up as an average hitter.
Good hitters - all of them, there are no exceptions - swing hard at strikes and don't swing at balls. Good hitters strike out more often than bad hitters (as a group, there are exceptions), and they walk more than bad hitters. Taking a walk sometimes drives in a run, often advances a runner, and always puts a man on base. It also never uses up an out. Walking less than 500 times in more than 10,000 plate appearances is putrid, and it cost Buckner's teams as many runs as his ability to make contact gained them. If you look only at his RBI and conclude that Buckner was a good hitter then you are wrong; if I look at only his OBP and conclude that he was a bad hitter, then I am wrong. The answer is both - he was average.
Actually, his lack of walks didn't cost his team as much runs as he plated, as you can see above the actual runs he did score in comparison to Schmidt and Morgan, which is MUCH closer than the obscene gap that the sabermetrics says.
Nothing in the sabermetrics is showing that he eclipses Morgan and Schmidt to that degree in plating actual runs in which Buckner did better. Maybe theoretically it does, but not in the reality of generating actual runs. That same line of thinking you are backing is what prompted the Rays to take out Blake Snell...and cost them the world series.
He plated runs at a better rate than Schmidt and Morgan, and he scored more runs than what the theoretical run creation says. Morgan's and Schmidt's walks didn't translate into as many actual runs they are getting credit for, and Morgan was in a better lineup.
ALL of your run value is coming from a theoretical value placed, not the actual value.
Then when you get down to JD Drew, his putrid run production, and his platoon status, it is even more pronounced. Your crying actually stems from not quite understanding the Ken Phelps factor. That is probably something you should add to your sig line, "Official backer of the platoon Hall of Fame," and then have Cliff Johnson and Gene Tenace as your logo.
Back to kick this dead horse. I see 1948 posted again right before me, but my brain has taken all it can take for one day so I didn't read it. I can't imagine it changes anything I'm posting here, but if it does, my bad.
Over the course of their careers, Buckner came up with men in scoring position 27.6% of the time; Mantle 24.6%. Buckner came up with a runner only on 1st 18.3% of the time, Mantle 22.0% of the time. This more than explains the 1% difference between them in BRS%, and in fact Mantle was much better at this metric than Buckner (and also every single other metric).
But more importantly, when Buckner came up with RISP, he himself scored a run (either immediately with a HR, or eventually by being driven in by a teammate) 8.4% of the time; Mantle scored 11.3% of the time. You can't score if you don't get on base.
Last kick: Win Probability Added measures every PA, including the ones where Buckner hit a Grandma Moses dribbler on what would have been ball four and drove in a runner. Mantle ranks 6th all-time in WPA, between Aaron and Gehrig. Buckner ranks 540th, below Ron Hunt but just above Joe Ferguson (in 1/3 the PA). Think of anyone who ever played baseball; if you think that player was a good hitter, then the odds are overwhelming that that player was a better hitter than Bill Buckner. Buckner was an average hitter, but considering that he couldn't play defense at all he was a below average baseball player. Yep, Bill Buckner sucked.
The actual runs plated and scored says the opposite. WPA is still theoretical and the teams goodness can play a large factor in that when giving more positive opportunites to move the needle. He didn't suck. The guy who sucks is the guy who is sitting on the couch watching, yet you give that guy more credit than a player who is actually playing Major League Baseball. Your couch heroes and bench jockeys, tenace and Cliff Johnson, leading the way.
What gives you the reason to say Buckner sucked at defense?? Range factor? Or is it the same method that gives Bill Mazeroski the all time best fielder ever, even though Mazeroski's replacements fielded just as good in his stead.
Blake Snell...remember that. When you tried the theoretical elements as gospel, you get the Blake Snell situation...and lose.
Save me a seat on the Ken Phelps bus..I'll sit next to Tenace and behind Cliff Johnson
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......
A simple "I surrender" would have sufficed. It's obvious that you've never understood any of the arguments I've presented, but if you ask nicely I'll try to explain them to you. Oops, that was condescending, wasn't it?
You don't have anything to be condescending about as your entire argument is based on a mirage, a narrow vision of reality.
The formulas that you use to proclaim that Bill Buckner sucks also say that players who sit at home on the couch are more valuable than players holding down an every day job in MLB.
I ask you, did you get those formulas from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?
I think Buckner should get credit for being good at driving in runs. More so than the guy who made an error at a bad time.
During his best period, 1980-1983 he was a #3 hitter with no great clean up hitter behind him. Given the choice of trying to take a walk or hitting that borderline pitch under those circumstances, I think he did the right thing. In his situation a walk was much worse for the team than a hit. Especially if the batter can hit an extra base hit that should drive all the runners in, in most situations.
During that time he looks like the best Doubles hitter in the league and he had a very nice SLG as well.
His OB% was low for a guy who hit about .300 every year, but I would rather see him drive in a few more runs than be stranded on first base along with the runners he failed to drive in because he wanted a better OB%.
_Bill was obviously a swing first guy, he could have tried to get on base harder in situations where there were no runners on base. _
Since he was never a great slugger, pitchers probably weren't "pitching around" him, so he might not have gotten walks no matter what he did. Pitchers don't want to walk the #3 guy, especially with men on base.
Walks are a high(er) value stat if you can't hit, are a fast runner and have somebody behind you that can drive you in.
Buckner is by no stretch of the imagination a HOFer, but he was a very nice hitter, who was good at driving in guys that were on base.
Exactly!
I clearly said that he was nowhere near in the same league as Mantle, but the fact that he plated baserunners at a better percentage than Mantle says a whole lot about Buckner's bat to ball skill while maintaining a hard contact base hit ability. That combination of skill is actually quite rare and not easy to do or acquire. Buckner is actually the guy you would want batting behind someone like Barry Bonds, because if they do walk Bonds with guys on third, there is a very high probability Buckner is going to plate that run. That wins games. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
And anyone who is ragging on Buckner doesn't realize the gamer that man was. His ankles were shot, yet he still played! He was a very fast runner previous to the bad ankle injuries, and I can imagine how many doubles, triples, or legged out singles it cost him.
Claiming he is a bad defender is just not knowing baseball. He played LF, and could play CF, and 1B and did it quite well. There aren't a ton of guys who could play both CF and 1B and do it well. That is skill. His ankle injuries cost him the flexibility to play OF.
On a different team other than LA starting his career, he is easily a starting CF on some crummy team...and then his saber value climbs as a result. I don't need his saber value to climb to see that. Some obviously do.
From 1971-1974 Buckner's baserunner was outstanding. He could run. He stole 31 bases in 1974.
He took the extra base on the base paths 53% of the time from 1971-1974
Then he played badly hurt in 1975, eventually succumbing to injury and had to stop. His extra base percentage plummeted to 35% that year. He had surgery in the offseason.
He came back in 1976 and was running better again, taking the extra base 54% of the time and stealing 28 bases.
Had corrective surgery AGAIN.
1977 he was at 47% and then at 56% in 1978. Still not at 100% running, but dang good baserunner.
The ankle problems just got worse and worse.
From 1979-1983 he was down to 44% taking the extra base running.
From 1984-1987 he was down to 37%.
I know it is a different subject, but playing on those ankles was a marvel itself. He had bat skills that were impressive.
The types of hitters like Buckner are an excellent value to a lineup. They are also hard to find. Now Nick Madrigal is playing for the White Sox, and when you watch batter after batter strike out with a man on third and less than two outs, it is maddening. You stick a guy like Madrigal in between those two high strikeout guys, and that helps build a lineup that can manufacture runs AND put crooked numbers up too. You win more games.
You aren't always going to be playing in games where you hit five home runs, especially in the post season. A guy like Buckner and soon to be Madrigal who are extreme contact hitters AND get a lot of hits, are of great value to building a lineup that can maximize runs.
Especially in the playoffs when you run into pitchers that don't walk guys or give up many home runs.