The real debate for fringe HOF guys (excluding the ones that were snubbed) would be did Yaddie do enough defensively to make up for his lack of offense or was a decade of Andruw Jones being an elite player offensively and defensively enough. The WPA or rate argument is basically saying if Andruw had another 10 years like his first 10 hed be the best player ever, but it didnt happen.
If you think Morgan is the 16th best player of all time or Bagwell at 24th thats hard to actually have a real conversation about production if someone is hyper focused on a fringe stat.
Bill James ranked Morgan 12th and Bagwell 32nd, excluding pitchers and Negro Leaguers, and I absolutely, 100% agree that it would be a flat out waste of everyone's time for you to attempt to have a real conversation about baseball with Bill James. Now, I'm not Bill James, but I strongly suspect that it would be nearly as futile for you to attempt one with me. On the assumption that we both value our time, let's agree not to attempt such a conversation.
https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/
"WPA is tricky because there’s an innate desire to use it as a measure of “which player has delivered when it matters most!” In reality, it’s far more complicated than that because it’s an additive measure. To accrue big WPA totals, you need to be presented with many opportunities to come through with the game on the line. A player with a 5.0 WPA for the year hasn’t necessarily been more “clutch” than one with a 2.0 WPA, they may simply have had many chances with the bases loaded late in close games."
Every single thing of WPA and the algorithm says not to use it as a comparison, or a prediction. You can have a higher one simply because your team gave you more chances to accumulate it over a career.
Its a very bad stat to focus on for a players career and teams dont use it. They use proprietary information which is why the Cardinals were punished for hacking into the Astros database being fined 2 million, losing draft picks, and Chris Correra got jail time and was banned for life
You posted this as if it somehow contradicted something that I said, when it doesn't. And while Piper Slowinski is free to write whatever he/she wants to write, the notion that an article that you found on the Internet by an author you (and everyone else) has never heard of is God's truth on stone tablets may be part of your religion but it's not part of mine. Slowinski makes some valid points, and, in my opinion, vastly overstates others. But, again (and again, and again, and again), NOBODY is saying that the career ranking of WPA is the same thing as a list of best hitters. NOBODY. What I said is that WPA contains useful information, and that ignoring it simply because it contradicts your preconceived conclusions is not a smart thing to do.
In lieu of a conversation - which I trust we both agree would be a waste of time - I'll leave you with this. Find, similar to Slowinski's example, some players that you think had relatively comparable "great" seasons, and then look up each of their WPA in those seasons. You'll find, contra Slowinski, that most of them had relatively comparable WPA. But some of the people in your sample will have unusually high or low WPA. For those people, look up their RISP and men on averages; they will, nearly every time, be unusually good or bad.
To get you started, try Aaron Judge in his rookie season. At one level, the level you can't see past, he was a beast that season, but his WPA was only 2.0, the same as Brett Gardner over in LF. Look up Judge's contextual hitting and the puzzle is no longer a puzzle. While everyone's hitting is supposed to get better with men or with RISP (mostly because fly outs become SF in some of those situations), Judge's hitting actually got 8% WORSE with RISP and 9% worse with men on. His WPA was not low because he didn't have his chances, it was low because he blew too many chances. Sure, you'll find people who fit the Slowinski model, but you'll find more that don't. There is a lot of useful information in WPA.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If you think Morgan is the 16th best player of all time or Bagwell at 24th thats hard to actually have a real conversation about production if someone is hyper focused on a fringe stat.
Bill James ranked Morgan 12th and Bagwell 32nd, excluding pitchers and Negro Leaguers, and I absolutely, 100% agree that it would be a flat out waste of everyone's time for you to attempt to have a real conversation about baseball with Bill James. Now, I'm not Bill James, but I strongly suspect that it would be nearly as futile for you to attempt one with me. On the assumption that we both value our time, let's agree not to attempt such a conversation.
https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/wpa/
"WPA is tricky because there’s an innate desire to use it as a measure of “which player has delivered when it matters most!” In reality, it’s far more complicated than that because it’s an additive measure. To accrue big WPA totals, you need to be presented with many opportunities to come through with the game on the line. A player with a 5.0 WPA for the year hasn’t necessarily been more “clutch” than one with a 2.0 WPA, they may simply have had many chances with the bases loaded late in close games."
Every single thing of WPA and the algorithm says not to use it as a comparison, or a prediction. You can have a higher one simply because your team gave you more chances to accumulate it over a career.
Its a very bad stat to focus on for a players career and teams dont use it. They use proprietary information which is why the Cardinals were punished for hacking into the Astros database being fined 2 million, losing draft picks, and Chris Correra got jail time and was banned for life
You posted this as if it somehow contradicted something that I said, when it doesn't. And while Piper Slowinski is free to write whatever he/she wants to write, the notion that an article that you found on the Internet by an author you (and everyone else) has never heard of is God's truth on stone tablets may be part of your religion but it's not part of mine. Slowinski makes some valid points, and, in my opinion, vastly overstates others. But, again (and again, and again, and again), NOBODY is saying that the career ranking of WPA is the same thing as a list of best hitters. NOBODY. What I said is that WPA contains useful information, and that ignoring it simply because it contradicts your preconceived conclusions is not a smart thing to do.
In lieu of a conversation - which I trust we both agree would be a waste of time - I'll leave you with this. Find, similar to Slowinski's example, some players that you think had relatively comparable "great" seasons, and then look up each of their WPA in those seasons. You'll find, contra Slowinski, that most of them had relatively comparable WPA. But some of the people in your sample will have unusually high or low WPA. For those people, look up their RISP and men on averages; they will, nearly every time, be unusually good or bad.
To get you started, try Aaron Judge in his rookie season. At one level, the level you can't see past, he was a beast that season, but his WPA was only 2.0, the same as Brett Gardner over in LF. Look up Judge's contextual hitting and the puzzle is no longer a puzzle. While everyone's hitting is supposed to get better with men or with RISP (mostly because fly outs become SF in some of those situations), Judge's hitting actually got 8% WORSE with RISP and 9% worse with men on. His WPA was not low because he didn't have his chances, it was low because he blew too many chances. Sure, you'll find people who fit the Slowinski model, but you'll find more that don't. There is a lot of useful information in WPA.
Bill James isnt some baseball god. Are you going to next say that money ball worked because of getting Hattebrtg to play first base instead of the fact the Tejada, Chaves, Koch, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Dye were on the team for the A's? Most of James stats are largely dismissed and what is wrong with baseball in general with a computer saying theoretical production outweighs actual results.
WPA is a fringe stat that admits its a fringe stat that shouldnt be used for comparisons. Its a small part of the puzzle nothing more.
Saying Morgan is 12th all time just invalidates any conversation or the persons stats that come up with that result Bill James included.
Your argument for Votto has been WPA, theres plenty of breakdowns of what it actually is and they all say the same thing. Its a cumulative stat where it should not be used to judge players against each other, its not predictive, it rewards people with more chances and just because its higher doesnt mean it was a better player
None of this changes the fact that Votto does not have the numbers for the HOF. Andruw Jones should be in the HOF long before Votto if were just going to use what could have been stats. Votto had 6 premium years, many average to below average years and has the most errors of any active first baseman with over 100. WAP ignores defense, it ignores baserunning ability and rewards things based on early or late in the game when early runs can actually mean more getting into a bullpen earlier that will impact a team for the rest of the series if not longer.
Morgan was average in Houston, has a good 6-7 year run on a stacked team with the all times hit leader on the Big Red Machine and was average after that. Hes no where close to an elite HOFer much less elite of the elite all time overall.
Youre ultra focused on a singular fringe stat and keep doubling down on that.
James was hired in 2003 by the Red Sox and spent 17 years there. He had nothing to do with building the Pedo, Manny, Ortiz, Nomar, Damon, Schilling, Foulke teams. The Red Sox never won because of being cute with "sabermetrics" or Bill James stats being better than everyone, every time they won and didnt miss the playoffs after that core left was when they would make big trades and be aggressive in free agency to gets studs. They missed the playoffs half the time he was there after that core and didnt have sustained success having to go for broke to win when they did. Ellsbury, Drew, Agone, Beckett, Lester none of those guys are Bill James sabermetrics steals. No team has ever won by trying to put together a WAP roster, they win by putting together studs that produce. The funny part is when he left in 2019 thats when teams really started to embrace advanced stats, just not his and not ones writers can look up.
Joe Morgan was a terrific player but, let's be real, a .271 career hitter with 268 home runs, even if he was twice as good as the combination of Maz, Mays & Brooks as a defender, would still not be the 12th (or 16th) best player of all-time.
I'm mystified. For starters, Votto has more All-Star appearances than Thomas, Thome, Bagwell, or Palmeiro. All of the top 20 first basemen in JAWS (which attempts to reduce the advantage that players with long careers have over players with short careers in WAR) are enshrined except for those with special circumstances, if you consider Todd Helton's playing in Colorado a special circumstance. Albert Pujols is too recently active, and Mark McGwire has the PED stigma. Votto is 12th on that list.
The only real problem with WPA and its cousin cWPA is that it attributes everything that happens on a play to the batter and the pitcher, so pitchers on teams with good defenses, like the '70s Baltimore Orioles tend to be overrated compared to pitchers who have to contend with, say, post-Seattle Ken Griffey patrolling center. So a bases empty two out ground out to Omar Vizquel that Vizquel throws into the dugout is treated exactly the same as a double to deep centerfield would be for the batter and the pitcher, and Vizquel's WPA changes not at all. But if that's the biggest problem…
@daltex said:
I'm mystified. For starters, Votto has more All-Star appearances than Thomas, Thome, Bagwell, or Palmeiro. All of the top 20 first basemen in JAWS (which attempts to reduce the advantage that players with long careers have over players with short careers in WAR) are enshrined except for those with special circumstances, if you consider Todd Helton's playing in Colorado a special circumstance. Albert Pujols is too recently active, and Mark McGwire has the PED stigma. Votto is 12th on that list.
The only real problem with WPA and its cousin cWPA is that it attributes everything that happens on a play to the batter and the pitcher, so pitchers on teams with good defenses, like the '70s Baltimore Orioles tend to be overrated compared to pitchers who have to contend with, say, post-Seattle Ken Griffey patrolling center. So a bases empty two out ground out to Omar Vizquel that Vizquel throws into the dugout is treated exactly the same as a double to deep centerfield would be for the batter and the pitcher, and Vizquel's WPA changes not at all. But if that's the biggest problem…
All star voting really has to be ignored. Aside from the the rosters being expanded, Votto was voted in by the fans in 2010 that those other players named never had the chance to be be voted in for. You can even go back and look at how silly AS voting is with 2000 Thomas 115Rs, 43 Hrs, 143 RBI,.328/.436/.625 and wasnt an all star. If thats not an all star no one is and theres multiple examples of that. 2003 and 2006 Thomas wasnt an all star either with similar numbers. 2001-2003 Thome should have been an all star as well with similar numbers but wasnt. List can go on and on for all stars and even mvp voting. On the field production cant be ignored though
Youre citing a stat that has Morgan as the 16th best of all time,
Correct. Do you think that's too low? You may be right.
Bagwell (who has a much greater HOF case than Votto) as 24th.
I still don't know where you're going with this. Bagwell in 24th "feels" about right to me. Do you think that's too high or too low?
Berkman as 37th,
Still don't know what point you're making, or trying to make.
Ken Griffy Jr as 55th behind Votto which is just hysterical.
I suspect that your "point" is buried inside this one, but it would be hella helpful if you'd use your big boy words and just make a point rather than assuming we're going to figure it out by deciphering your hallucinations. Griffey was a fine hitter for half his career, and if the second half had been anywhere close to as good, he'd blow Votto away. But it wasn't. The second half of Griffey's career bounced between OK and putrid, and in the end Votto edges him out on this stat.
Its a bad advanced stat to create discussions
No, it's not. It's an excellent stat. And again, it's "an" excellent stat, it is not "the" excellent stat. What I'm seeing here, from you and others, is an unwillingness to consider what a statistic says if what it says contradicts the conclusion you've already reached.
Joey Votto is MUCH better than you, and others, think he is. WPA points you to what appears to be the largest gap in your knowledge about Votto (and presumably others). Before you ignore it, I recommend you try to understand it. But you do you.
I tend to agree with this side of the argument. I will always side with actual production (hits, 2b, 3b, HR) over potential production (BB).
And this, I think sums up the argument against Votto, and why that argument ultimately fails. Walks are real production. No ifs, ands, buts, or qualifications of any kind. They are real production. And how do we know they are real production? Because they produce real runs. Stats that don't recognize that fact are as useless as they are comforting to people's preconceived notions.
The only time BB produce runs are when the bases are loaded. other than that example, it takes an error on defense or a batted ball to actually score the run. A BB on its own, "produces" nothing with the exception of bases loaded. With the exception of making an out, a bases-loaded BB is about the least productive thing a batter can do in that situation. Any type of hit would produce at LEAST one run, and usually more.
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
To quote myself from a very similar thread a couple years back:
"On the JAWS list, the only first basemen above Votto who aren't in the HOF are Pujols (HOF lock), Cabrera (HOF lock), and Palmeiro (would have been a HOF lock except for the cheating). Below him are McCovey, Murray, Greenberg, Sisler, Killebrew, Perez, Cepeda, and most of the old-timers.
Yes, a lot of Votto's value is in his walks and he'll probably have to wait awhile because of that. But as the voters who don't understand how valuable walks are retire and get replaced by more knowledgeable voters I think his chances are very good."
The only thing that has changed since then is that Votto has passed Palmeiro. Hopefully, the number of HOF voters who don't understand how valuable walks are has also changed, or will by the time Votto gets on the ballot.
Quiz: of SLG and OBP, which is more important (creates more runs) than the other?
Answer: OBP
Chicks and less knowledgeable fans love the long ball. Hitters who get on base 25% more often than average hitters are incredibly valuable and win more games. Votto's Win Probability Added is 42nd all time. Is he one of the 50 greatest hitters of all time? There's a very strong case that he is.
Theres no case that Votto is one of the 50 best hitters of all time. None. Not even top 100 or 200. 50 best first basemen maybe and that would even be a stretch
SLG creates more runs than OBP for base cloggers. Rickey Henderson types OBP could mean more, slow station to station Votto types SLG means more. Knowledgeable baseball people know this and that what you could do on base matters.
Palmerios stats blow Vottos out of the water. Trying to dictate walks being the most important over actual production and numbers is someone who believes analytics means more than actual results
I tend to agree with this side of the argument. I will always side with actual production (hits, 2b, 3b, HR) over potential production (BB) The reason I consider BB potential production is because unless the bases are loaded, the act of BB itself never drove in a runner. No walk that I ever heard of ever moved a runner from 1st to 3rd or scored a runner from 1st. Batted balls also always include the possibility of forcing errors on the defense. with the exception of bases loaded, BB are fully dependent on another batter to force the action. in the modern game where stealing is not really in play, and with slow players like Votto who are base cloggers, it becomes a station-to-station game.
And yes, Palmiero produced to a higher degree than Votto.
Except Votto has a .513 SLG percentage and hits .320 with Runners in Scoring position...so he is doing what you are saying is important. Then on top of that, he gets on base at an elite level.
That is why his win probability is high. He has gotten a lot of hits with men on base at a high rate...isn't that what guys have railed on Mike Trout for supposedly not doing?
Aren't all hits with nobody on base just 'potential' runs too?
Yes, all hits with nobody on base are just "potential runs", but they may have a higher probability of scoring, like extra-base hits automatically puts the runner in scoring position. even singles give the fielder an opportunity for an error and base advancement that a BB doesnt.
He does have a .513 SLG percentage, but because he takes so many walks, he has less opportunity to do more. I haven't taken a really deep dive into his stats yet, but I wonder how many BB Votto is taking when men are on base? in scoring position? That is real production that is being missed out on by walking to 1b.
Yes, everyone's hits with nobody on base are what you say....so treat theirs like that considering that 60% of their hits come with nobody on base.
You want Votto to swing outside the strike zone with RISP?
With RISP and Votto draws a walk, and there is a batter behind him that has a 28% or 29% chance of getting a single and Vott has a 32% chance of getting a single(which goes down to 15-20% if swinging outside the strike zone), except now when the 29% guy is up there are MORE base runners to bat in.
Really isn't that complicated.
Except you don't know if the guy behind him has a 28% chance of getting a single.
It is called situational hitting. how many are on base/who is hitting behind you will dictate whether or not you open up your zone or not. opening up the zone 3-5" will not take Votto down to a .150 hitter. it will give him more chances to drive the ball.
Part of the nuance in that the worse hitter there is behind an elite hitter then the worse pitches you will see and give almost zero chance to drive the ball with men on(and a base open).
In your example, then every Mike Trout walk with Ohtani behind him should be gold. Remember, there is no RBI without a man on base(except for a HR of course).
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
That really is the way to break it down when career lengths are varied. You make a compelling case there.
@JoeBanzai said:
Generally speaking, I do not get too excited about bases on balls.
The #3 hitter has the (in my opinion) best run producer hitting behind him, so if he doesn't get a good pitch to hit, he shouldn't expand his strike zone to try to hit a bad pitch. You want him to be a good hitter for average and have a good OBP, if he also has a great SLG, you have the "perfect" guy for the job.
As I mentioned, Votto's low on plate appearances, but not because he has missed a lot of games through injury. Five plus years in the minors hurts.
Steroids aside, I would put Palmiero in ahead of Votto, but the facts being what they are, I would vote for Votto.
Bottom of the 9th, two outs, nobody on, score is tied.
Batter A hits a single.
Batter B walks.
Batter C gets a single, winning run scores, game over.
In a perfect stat, who would get credit for "producing" that game winning run?
They all get a piece.
Typically, the walk gets completely ignored in your example even though it was an important building block to scoring that run. The walk is still the least important item of the three in your example....but a good measurement already knows that as they value a BB as about 2/3 the value of a single(overall value, worth the same in the most common situation of nobody on base, and worth less in other men on situations that don't happen as often), so that shouldn't be a surprise.
In the end, any way you slice it, if you aren't giving a player's BB 2/3 the value of a single, and you are just ignoring them or discounting them completely, then your analysis is completely wrong right off the bat and really shouldn't warrant any further discussion if this isn't accounted for.
It is true that some spots in the lineup that instead of .67 value overall it might only be .60 value, but what usually happens is that people knock the walk down to .00 value because they just discount them.
Right off the bat, common sense knows that more than half of a player's plate appearances occur with nobody on base, so automatically a BB is the same value as a single half the time. Anyone is welcome to list every other situation and compare each player if someone walks inordinately more when it doesn't have the same value, then knock yourself out because that has already been done and accounted for. You won't discover anything new.
Also this situation:
9th inning two outs tied game:
Player A hits a triple
Player B hits a single and the game is over.
Just by reading these boards and listening to fans for years, Player B gets almost all the credit because he "drove in the winning run," but player A is the more important event for that win and it isn't even close.
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
That really is the way to break it down when career lengths are varied. You make a compelling case there.
Thank you!
I looked at some HOFer careers and see that the "best of the best"; Mays, Aaron, Musial had 15-17 great seasons. Mantle had 12, DiMaggio had 10, Killebrew 10, Larry Walker 10. Looks like Yaz only had about 8.
It seems to me other than a very few players, guys get into the Hall on the strength of about 10 superb seasons, then play slightly above average for 4-6 years and poorly (or injured) for 2-4.
Votto absolutely has the great years and a couple of slightly above average ones. Getting a late start hurts him, a couple of years he was hurt and COVID also hurts.
If he can play a couple of more full seasons and still have an OPS+ in the 125 range, he should be a lock. If he's done now or plays badly for another year or two, he's going to have a hard time getting in.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Of course, you're right. But I was hoping for an answer from someone who thinks OPS+ and WPA are worthless stats to get some idea (because at present I have none - literally none) of what they think a stat that isn't worthless looks like.
And no, I am not holding my breath waiting for such an answer.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Of course, you're right. But I was hoping for an answer from someone who thinks OPS+ and WPA are worthless stats to get some idea (because at present I have none - literally none) of what they think a stat that isn't worthless looks like.
And no, I am not holding my breath waiting for such an answer.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
My responses have been very clear. If you chose not to read them and address them thats your choice. I'm not going to get drawn into some you know what contest especially not over fringe stats. If you cant see or admit the flaws of advanced stats where you can find a fringe one to support basically any position you want its hard for any real discussion
As I've said multiple times now, these stats like the algorithms are a peice of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. You also evaluate players by different things based on their career positioning. Prospects youll look at different things than a rookie or if youre picking a player for a year, just as youd look at different things for guys whose careers are basically done or are done. Once the career is over the story is told.
I've attempted a few times now with real conversations. If I just have to put you on ignore than so be it
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
Such as? Answering my quiz question would be a fine place to start. What stat is it that assigns proper credit to the three hitters in my question?
My responses have been very clear.
This made me laugh. As I said, I have no idea whatsoever what you think are the proper ways to measure "better than" when comparing two players. Because you refuse to say despite being asked.
If you chose not to read them and address them thats your choice.
I did read them. You pooh-pooh stats while citing either nothing at all or some unknown writer on the Internet as your source. There is nothing for me to address.
I'm not going to get drawn into some you know what contest especially not over fringe stats. If you cant see or admit the flaws of advanced stats where you can find a fringe one to support basically any position you want its hard for any real discussion
Then offer the stats that you think trump the "fringe" stats. I do see, and admit, the flaws in every stat, and have said so here in this very thread. I am not aware of any stat that says Griffey was a better player than Morgan. In my first post I focused on JAWS/WAR, I switched to WPA because it shed light on why Votto was being so underrated, and I could have used Win Shares or several other stats. They all say Morgan was better. You say Griffey was better but won't say why.
As I've said multiple times now, these stats like the algorithms are a peice of the puzzle not the whole puzzle.
This made me laugh again. You say "as I've said" and then paraphrase something I said and that you had never said before.
You also evaluate players by different things based on their career positioning. Prospects youll look at different things than a rookie or if youre picking a player for a year, just as youd look at different things for guys whose careers are basically done or are done. Once the career is over the story is told.
Um, OK. I have no idea why you threw in this irrelevant little tidbit, but yes, that's true. All I've been discussing, though, is the story told at the end of the career.
I've attempted a few times now with real conversations.
No, you haven't. You dismiss anything I say without so much as a hint why you are doing so. And in place of what I've said you offer .... nothing. I am leaning strongly towards the position that you simply don't understand what I'm saying, but the way to disabuse me of that position is to demonstrate that you do. One easy thing you can do is to stop saying that I've said things that I haven't said, and to instead directly quote the actual words I've used and address those. When you say, for example "Youre ultra focused on a singular fringe stat and keep doubling down on that", what am I supposed to do with that? I'm happy to focus on the stats you prefer but you're keeping those a secret. And the single only reason I even mentioned WPA, before others started doing the "doubling down" of which you speak, was to highlight how well Votto hit with men on and with RISP. If your position is that how well one hits with RISP and men on is a "fringe" stat, then say that and I can laugh at you and be done with this charade. If your position is something other that that you could - and I'm just spitballin' here - actually state your position.
If I just have to put you on ignore than so be it
No, not that, that would devastate me.
No, what I'm asking you to do is to use your big boy words and form an actual argument. If something I've said is relevant to your argument, then quote - actually quote - what I've said and explain WHY you think my position is flawed. {And no, doing a Google search and finding out there exists someone, somewhere on the planet who disagrees with me is not sufficient.} Then, explain how you go about determining how good a player is, or which of two players is better than the other.
And just to head off any argument that will cause me physical pain, explain to me how you think the park adjustment between Seattle in the 1990's and the Astrodome in the 1960's should be applied. You said that park adjustments can be flawed, and they can, but if your position is that they don't apply at all then just say that and I can put you on ignore and we can go our merry ways.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
@coolstanley said:
Its hard to believe that Votto only made 6 all stars. Meanwhile Steve Garvey is a 10-time all star who rarely missed a game and they wont let him in.
All star game has always been a popularity contest.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I would agree, he had some good seasons sprinkled in there.
I think a players story is written with both counting and rate stats. It takes a combination. The all-time top tier players: Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Seaver, Clemens and Johnson all had fantastic counting and rate numbers. They were all-time dominating and played extended careers that included the old man years. I think the athletes that truly transcend were able to do it in their 20's, 30's and 40's. It is an incredible athlete that can rise to the very top in both their early years and when the average player is long retired.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I would agree, he had some good seasons sprinkled in there.
Agreed. Aside from the very end of his career 2002 was his one bad season. He was putting up big time numbers just didnt play enough most of the years. 2008 is where the fall off started when he was 38 and that wasnt even terrible, just terrible by his standard. If you take his name away 08 is a pretty average season that most teams would be happy with. 09 and 2010 where he retired were where it got terrible
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Your arguments simply make no sense.
Palmiero never led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, OPS OPS+, so he was " never at the top" either.
Votto led in SLG once, OPS twice, OPS+ once (his OPS and OPS+ wins were in 3 different years) and OBP seven times.
Votto is a BETTER PLAYER.
After his finest season Palmiero was judged as the 5th best player that year. Using WAR, he's not even in the top 10!
Votto has an MVP and a 2nd (should have won that time) and a 3rd place finish as well.
Palmiero; never at the top.
Votto; at the top.
You end up with the comment; "by the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?"
Letting Palmiero (a lesser player) in before Votto is a perfect example of watering down the HOF!
You also haven't addressed the steroid question. Funny how when faced with a difficult point, so many here refuse to answer.
Palmiero's numbers were enhanced by juicing and he played more games because steroids not only make you stronger, they help your body heal faster. They help BOTH performance and your "counting" numbers.
Better player vs. guy who played longer, sure sounds like the Harold Baines argument for induction to me.
AND A CHEATER AS WELL.
On another subject, I thought it was hilarious that you "threatened" to put one of the finest posters here on ignore. Now THAT'S FUNNY!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Your arguments simply make no sense.
Palmiero never led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, OPS OPS+, so he was " never at the top" either.
Votto led in SLG once, OPS twice, OPS+ once (his OPS and OPS+ wins were in 3 different years) and OBP seven times.
Votto is a BETTER PLAYER.
After his finest season Palmiero was judged as the 5th best player that year. Using WAR, he's not even in the top 10!
Votto has an MVP and a 2nd (should have won that time) and a 3rd place finish as well.
Palmiero; never at the top.
Votto; at the top.
You end up with the comment; "by the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?"
Letting Palmiero (a lesser player) in before Votto is a perfect example of watering down the HOF!
You also haven't addressed the steroid question. Funny how when faced with a difficult point, so many here refuse to answer.
Palmiero's numbers were enhanced by juicing and he played more games because steroids not only make you stronger, they help your body heal faster. They help BOTH performance and your "counting" numbers.
Better player vs. guy who played longer, sure sounds like the Harold Baines argument for induction to me.
AND A CHEATER AS WELL.
On another subject, I thought it was hilarious that you "threatened" to put one of the finest posters here on ignore. Now THAT'S FUNNY!
Palmerio isnt a lesser player. His career accomplishments of actual production are far better. Taking supplements has been around forever. It hasnt gone away either. The Myans used amphetamines before races, Mantle missed time from a hip infection from steroids, supposedly everyone was doing it during Palmarios time so why would that matter when the pitchers are doing it too. Votto has played the same number of years basically and his production simply doesnt match. Its not like Vottos career was cut short by a big injury Bo Jackson style
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Your arguments simply make no sense.
Palmiero never led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, OPS OPS+, so he was " never at the top" either.
Votto led in SLG once, OPS twice, OPS+ once (his OPS and OPS+ wins were in 3 different years) and OBP seven times.
Votto is a BETTER PLAYER.
After his finest season Palmiero was judged as the 5th best player that year. Using WAR, he's not even in the top 10!
Votto has an MVP and a 2nd (should have won that time) and a 3rd place finish as well.
Palmiero; never at the top.
Votto; at the top.
You end up with the comment; "by the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?"
Letting Palmiero (a lesser player) in before Votto is a perfect example of watering down the HOF!
You also haven't addressed the steroid question. Funny how when faced with a difficult point, so many here refuse to answer.
Palmiero's numbers were enhanced by juicing and he played more games because steroids not only make you stronger, they help your body heal faster. They help BOTH performance and your "counting" numbers.
Better player vs. guy who played longer, sure sounds like the Harold Baines argument for induction to me.
AND A CHEATER AS WELL.
On another subject, I thought it was hilarious that you "threatened" to put one of the finest posters here on ignore. Now THAT'S FUNNY!
Palmerio isnt a lesser player. His career accomplishments of actual production are far better. Taking supplements has been around forever. It hasnt gone away either. The Myans used amphetamines before races, Mantle missed time from a hip infection from steroids, supposedly everyone was doing it during Palmarios time so why would that matter when the pitchers are doing it too. Votto has played the same number of years basically and his production simply doesnt match. Its not like Vottos career was cut short by a big injury Bo Jackson style
The MAYANS?
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
I think a players story is written with both counting and rate stats. It takes a combination. The all-time top tier players: Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Seaver, Clemens and Johnson all had fantastic counting and rate numbers. They were all-time dominating and played extended careers that included the old man years. I think the athletes that truly transcend were able to do it in their 20's, 30's and 40's. It is an incredible athlete that can rise to the very top in both their early years and when the average player is long retired.
THat is my personal preference too. I would like Hall of Famers to have long careers AND with MVP caliber peaks(not just the writers opinions but the actual measurements that put them there).
@JoeBanzai said:
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Your arguments simply make no sense.
Palmiero never led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, OPS OPS+, so he was " never at the top" either.
Votto led in SLG once, OPS twice, OPS+ once (his OPS and OPS+ wins were in 3 different years) and OBP seven times.
Votto is a BETTER PLAYER.
After his finest season Palmiero was judged as the 5th best player that year. Using WAR, he's not even in the top 10!
Votto has an MVP and a 2nd (should have won that time) and a 3rd place finish as well.
Palmiero; never at the top.
Votto; at the top.
You end up with the comment; "by the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?"
Letting Palmiero (a lesser player) in before Votto is a perfect example of watering down the HOF!
You also haven't addressed the steroid question. Funny how when faced with a difficult point, so many here refuse to answer.
Palmiero's numbers were enhanced by juicing and he played more games because steroids not only make you stronger, they help your body heal faster. They help BOTH performance and your "counting" numbers.
Better player vs. guy who played longer, sure sounds like the Harold Baines argument for induction to me.
AND A CHEATER AS WELL.
On another subject, I thought it was hilarious that you "threatened" to put one of the finest posters here on ignore. Now THAT'S FUNNY!
Palmerio isnt a lesser player. His career accomplishments of actual production are far better. Taking supplements has been around forever. It hasnt gone away either. The Myans used amphetamines before races, Mantle missed time from a hip infection from steroids, supposedly everyone was doing it during Palmarios time so why would that matter when the pitchers are doing it too. Votto has played the same number of years basically and his production simply doesnt match. Its not like Vottos career was cut short by a big injury Bo Jackson style
The MAYANS?
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
The Mayans were known for producing good pitching lol
Of course, you're right. But I was hoping for an answer from someone who thinks OPS+ and WPA are worthless stats to get some idea (because at present I have none - literally none) of what they think a stat that isn't worthless looks like.
And no, I am not holding my breath waiting for such an answer.
The ironic thing is how 'clutch' is talked about so much here and that WPA actually measures that. So instead of relying on Joe Blow's opinion on a guy and how he 'feels' it was a clutch moment, there is actually an objective measurement to show. WPA isn't 100% perfect but it is 1,000% better than relying on someone's personal view of how a player contributes to run/win production, and properly account for its value instead of some unverified view on what hte value is.
The reasoning of "the stat is no good because it rates Joe Morgan too high," more than likely means that it isn't the stat that is wrong, but rather the viewer doesn't know or recognize how runs are created.
Joe Morgan does get a boost in the WPA over some other elite players in history because he was on an elite team with more chances to add crooked numbers in the WPA column, but that isn't a giant margin of error.
Plus anyone that has taken Trout down a couple pegs for not being on a winning team then must add Morgan up a few pegs for being the MVP on what is considered one of the best three teams in history. Can't have it both ways.
Base on Balls are completely undervalued and misunderstood. They are worth 2/3 of a single overall, and that is about as concrete as the sidewalk I just stepped over. Any other valuation drastically different than that makes zero sense and is based on nothing.
The funny thing is people discredit Votto's walks because he might not have a good hitter behind him(COUGH, that's the GM's deficiency not Votto's).
People discredit Gene Teance walks because he didn't run well.
So if both of those are true 'discredits' then Joe Morgan's base on balls should have MORE value than he is being given credit for because he ran at an elite level and he was getting on base for elite hitters.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I'd hate to think I wasted half an hour and 1,000 words only to have you run away. So. I'll try again.
Yes, I would like to argue that Joe Morgan was a top 16 player and that he was better than Griffey. But here's the thing - because Someran Domguy in Peoria says all the advanced stats aren't perfect and can therefore be completely ignored, I don't want to waste time making that argument with any of those stats. Instead, I want to make the argument using stats that you have pre-approved. So, before I make my argument pro-Morgan, please make your argument pro-Griffey. And don't just say "numbers" or "real production" or other meaningless words and phrases, be very specific about which numbers and how you are defining "production". And also, please be very specific about how you are accounting for the vast difference in ballparks and eras between the two, since the comparison will be useless without that.
Thanks so much.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I'd hate to think I wasted half an hour and 1,000 words only to have you run away. So. I'll try again.
Yes, I would like to argue that Joe Morgan was a top 16 player and that he was better than Griffey. But here's the thing - because Someran Domguy in Peoria says all the advanced stats aren't perfect and can therefore be completely ignored, I don't want to waste time making that argument with any of those stats. Instead, I want to make the argument using stats that you have pre-approved. So, before I make my argument pro-Morgan, please make your argument pro-Griffey. And don't just say "numbers" or "real production" or other meaningless words and phrases, be very specific about which numbers and how you are defining "production". And also, please be very specific about how you are accounting for the vast difference in ballparks and eras between the two, since the comparison will be useless without that.
Thanks so much.
You and I need to find something to disagree on, I am out of "ignores".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Base on Balls are completely undervalued and misunderstood. They are worth 2/3 of a single overall, and that is about as concrete as the sidewalk I just stepped over. Any other valuation drastically different than that makes zero sense and is based on nothing.
The funny thing is people discredit Votto's walks because he might not have a good hitter behind him(COUGH, that's the GM's deficiency not Votto's).
People discredit Gene Teance walks because he didn't run well.
So if both of those are true 'discredits' then Joe Morgan's base on balls should have MORE value than he is being given credit for because he ran at an elite level and he was getting on base for elite hitters.
Can't have it both ways.
Votto had a number of great players behind him for his career. His walks are discredited because hes slow and clogs the bases. Aside from a homerun theres not many places where even a double would score him from first. It takes multiple hits to score someone like that.
Morgan from 72-1977 has elite years on the big red machine. When they werent around him whether it be Houston, SF, or his last few years in Cincy he was pretty average at best. The funniest part is people arguing OPS+ Morgan doesnt even sniff the top 100 much less 12th or 16th. The stat has flaws which has to be realized as Griffey had more real word production that Votto in the same stadium at the same time being over a decade older but if you do certain things the stat rewards you. Adrian Gonzalez is a big problem for the stat as well. Learning how to use the advanced stats is how you find out how to judge baseball.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I would agree, he had some good seasons sprinkled in there.
Agreed. Aside from the very end of his career 2002 was his one bad season. He was putting up big time numbers just didnt play enough most of the years. 2008 is where the fall off started when he was 38 and that wasnt even terrible, just terrible by his standard. If you take his name away 08 is a pretty average season that most teams would be happy with. 09 and 2010 where he retired were where it got terrible
This is preposterous. In 2008 there were 147 players who had enough PA to qualify for the batting title. Griffey was 99th in OPS+. Griffey was never a very good CF, and by 2001 he was horrible, and eventually was shuttled over to RF and then DH. So no, I don't think most teams would have been happy to have a poor defensive corner outfielder who can only hit league average.
In the years in question, Griffey's only halfway decent year was 2005. He had 3.7 WAR, which was good enough for 52nd. The other players whose WAR rounded to 3.7 WAR in 2005 were the immortal Aaron Rowand, Randy Winn, and Bill Hall.
For the decade, Griffey's 7.6 WAR ranks 264th, which isn't as good as it sounds because, of course, a lot of the competition didn't play all those calendar years. So he's just behind Geovany Soto (who only played 378 games to Griffey's 991) and just ahead of Mark Bellhorn (643 games).
So perhaps "terrible" is a bit of an exaggeration, but well below average and, except for a decidedly non-special 2005 season, barely above replacement level player. When you add that he was paid over $90 million over that time, yeah, I'll stick with terrible.
So perhaps "terrible" is a bit of an exaggeration, but well below average and, except for a decidedly non-special 2005 season, barely above replacement level player. When you add that he was paid over $90 million over that time, yeah, I'll stick with terrible.
Which makes my anticipation for Basebal21's argument that Griffey was better than Morgan that much harder to bear. I'm on pins and needles, I tells ya'. I know it's going to be one for the ages.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Joe Morgan does get a boost in the WPA over some other elite players in history because he was on an elite team with more chances to add crooked numbers in the WPA column, but that isn't a giant margin of error.
That may be right, or it may not, but I think the margin of error is awfully small. Yes, Morgan gets more chances to produce a run (or a fraction thereof), but it's also true that great teams play with a lead more often than bad teams, and getting a hit, or a walk, when your team is already ahead has a lower WPA than the same hit or walk when your team is behind. I honestly don't know how all the variables shake out, but WPA seems to do an awfully good job of tracking what it was designed to track. I think Win Shares / WAR / Runs Created are better stand-alone stats than WPA, but WPA definitely deserves its place in the universe of stats that define "better than", and that have buried for all time the use of the triple crown stats to do the comparisons.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I would agree, he had some good seasons sprinkled in there.
Agreed. Aside from the very end of his career 2002 was his one bad season. He was putting up big time numbers just didnt play enough most of the years. 2008 is where the fall off started when he was 38 and that wasnt even terrible, just terrible by his standard. If you take his name away 08 is a pretty average season that most teams would be happy with. 09 and 2010 where he retired were where it got terrible
This is preposterous. In 2008 there were 147 players who had enough PA to qualify for the batting title. Griffey was 99th in OPS+. Griffey was never a very good CF, and by 2001 he was horrible, and eventually was shuttled over to RF and then DH. So no, I don't think most teams would have been happy to have a poor defensive corner outfielder who can only hit league average.
In the years in question, Griffey's only halfway decent year was 2005. He had 3.7 WAR, which was good enough for 52nd. The other players whose WAR rounded to 3.7 WAR in 2005 were the immortal Aaron Rowand, Randy Winn, and Bill Hall.
For the decade, Griffey's 7.6 WAR ranks 264th, which isn't as good as it sounds because, of course, a lot of the competition didn't play all those calendar years. So he's just behind Geovany Soto (who only played 378 games to Griffey's 991) and just ahead of Mark Bellhorn (643 games).
So perhaps "terrible" is a bit of an exaggeration, but well below average and, except for a decidedly non-special 2005 season, barely above replacement level player. When you add that he was paid over $90 million over that time, yeah, I'll stick with terrible.
18 HR with 71 RBIs, .353 OBP .424 Slug and yes even an OPS over 100 if you want to use that. I didnt say it was a great year, I said it wasnt terrible and where his fall off really began.
2001, 2003, 2004,2006 were all on pace to be great years. As said he got hurt and just didnt play enough in 03 and 04. 111 games in 01 or 109 games in 2006 were good years when he was on the field but youd like more than 109/111 games out of every position player besides catcher. 2005 was a great year even with the injuries, as was 2007.
So a couple people have said that Votto's walks have less value because he doesn't run fast. They never specified HOW MUCH less or how many times he failed to run to the next base because of his lack of speed. FYI MLB baseball baserunning during Votto's career, baserunners Run Scoring %,scored 30% of the time successfully when they got on base and Votto's was 25% percent...so probably nowhere near the deduction these folks are thinking .
However, whichever 'deduction' the fellas are giving Votto's walks, means Joe Morgan's walks have that much MORE value than he is being credited for because Morgan ran exceptionally well.
Can't have it both ways...no matter how hard one tries to do so....still can't have it both ways.
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
I'd hate to think I wasted half an hour and 1,000 words only to have you run away. So. I'll try again.
Yes, I would like to argue that Joe Morgan was a top 16 player and that he was better than Griffey. But here's the thing - because Someran Domguy in Peoria says all the advanced stats aren't perfect and can therefore be completely ignored, I don't want to waste time making that argument with any of those stats. Instead, I want to make the argument using stats that you have pre-approved. So, before I make my argument pro-Morgan, please make your argument pro-Griffey. And don't just say "numbers" or "real production" or other meaningless words and phrases, be very specific about which numbers and how you are defining "production". And also, please be very specific about how you are accounting for the vast difference in ballparks and eras between the two, since the comparison will be useless without that.
Thanks so much.
Real production. Numbers. Go old school then. Griffey and Morgan are only 25 plate appearances difference for their careers.
Old school Runs created. Runs scored + RBI minus HR(because HR is counted twice in their Runs scored and RBI).
Joe Morgan produced 2,515 real runs where he either scored them himself or drove them in himself.
Ked Griffery produced 2,868.
This is ignoring that Griffey played in a higher scoring era where it was easier to rack up those totals.
It is also ignoring the other element of producing runs(moving runners up where you are credited with neither a run or RBI but a run scores as a result of your base advancement or if you get on to allow another batter to come up instead of the inning being over).
Even if those key elements are ignored, they are close enough in their raw totals that it isn't a stretch at all to mention Griffey and Morgan in the same sentence...and that is before defense/position is accounted for and included.
Even in the 'real production' old school method Morgan and Griffey comparison is not a stretch.
@dallasactuary I am not feeling doing math, but if you use their Old School Runs Created real production and see what their run production per plate appearance rate is and then see how much each is better than their respective league averages, it will shed some light for old school thought process.
They have almost identical career plate appearances so it removes that issue.
Griffey has a lifetime 136 OPS+
Morgan has a lifetime 132 OPS+
OPS+ detractors say the stat isn't good because it actually gives credits for base on balls. These detractors say base on balls aren't as valuable as OPS+ says, and they use players like Joey Votto and Gene Tenace and say since a runner who gets a base on balls and is slow, it devalues the base on balls in OPS. Forget the fact they never say exactly how much it devalues the base on balls for them. They just say it does and thus they just discount the base on balls.
However, if it is true that a slower runner devalues the base on balls in OPS+, then that means the faster runner increases the value of the base on balls in OPS+. Can't have it both ways.
So as it stands, either Morgan's lifetime OPS+ of 132 must be taken at that exact value...or you have to increase the value for Morgan's base on balls in his OPS+ since he runs elite and one cannot have it both ways in the base on balls detracting...which means Morgan's OPS+ is higher than 132.
So it is settled.
Griffey has a 136 lifetime OPS+
Morgan has a 132 lifetime OPS+
So what happens when you add offensive factors that OPS actually does not include?
Griffey Grounded into 199 double plays. If you love RBI then you have to hate players removing RBI opps. These matter.
Morgan grounded into 105 double plays.
So there are 94 'bases' you have to take away from Griffey's OPS.
Griffey had 184 stolen bases and 69 CS.....which is a net 46 extra bases griffey added. Every CS eliminates two SB
Morgan had 689 stolen bases and 162 CS....which is a net 365 extra bases Morgan added.
The stolen bases alone for Morgan is enough to offset the small OPS+ lead that Griffey has.
Base running is more than just steals.
Extra base taken percentage:
Griffey took the extra base 42% of the time successfully.
Morgan took the extra base 51% of the time successfully.
Those are more base running advancements in Morgan's favor.
So really, Morgan is the better offensive player.
Strikeouts. How many times do we hear about Mike Trout and his strikeouts. If strikeouts are THAT detrimental compared to contact outs, then you have to apply that to Morgan/Griffey too.
Griffey 1,779 strikeouts.
Morgan 1,015 strikeouts.
Can't have it both ways.
Griffey lifetime home OPS .958. Road OPS .860. So the ballpark factor in the + is not misjudging Griffey.
@1948_Swell_Robinson thanks for stepping up for @Basebal21 and making the pro-Griffey argument which, obviously, showed Morgan was better. Not that it wasn't already, but clearly this question is now settled once and for all.
One way to show the gap between them as even more dramatic - which I think it is - is using the OPS++ stat that I made up a while back (with your inspiration), and account for bases-empty walks, DPs, and SB/CS directly. Griffey's OPS++ rises from 136 to 149. Morgan's rises from 132 to 182. Consistent with what you said, it is the SB/CS, which OPS+ completely ignores, and the walks, which OPS+ undervalues, that elevate Morgan to all-time great status. That he was an all-time great offensive producer while playing second base is just icing on the cake.
I do wonder, though, whether Basebal21 never attempted an argument because he knew there wasn't a good one, or if he really wanted to make the argument but had no idea how to do it. In other words, is he saying things he doesn't believe just to stir the pot (i.e., he's a troll), or does he not know enough about baseball to contribute to discussions like this. I think those are the only two options and neither one argues for paying any attention to him going forward.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said: @1948_Swell_Robinson thanks for stepping up for @Basebal21 and making the pro-Griffey argument which, obviously, showed Morgan was better. Not that it wasn't already, but clearly this question is now settled once and for all.
One way to show the gap between them as even more dramatic - which I think it is - is using the OPS++ stat that I made up a while back (with your inspiration), and account for bases-empty walks, DPs, and SB/CS directly. Griffey's OPS++ rises from 136 to 149. Morgan's rises from 132 to 182. Consistent with what you said, it is the SB/CS, which OPS+ completely ignores, and the walks, which OPS+ undervalues, that elevate Morgan to all-time great status. That he was an all-time great offensive producer while playing second base is just icing on the cake.
I do wonder, though, whether Basebal21 never attempted an argument because he knew there wasn't a good one, or if he really wanted to make the argument but had no idea how to do it. In other words, is he saying things he doesn't believe just to stir the pot (i.e., he's a troll), or does he not know enough about baseball to contribute to discussions like this. I think those are the only two options and neither one argues for paying any attention to him going forward.
One has to try arguing from the other side to sometimes get a better overall view.
Most fans come up with assumptions on the value of baseball events. Two problems they run into:
1)They make a complete invalid guess. Take the base on balls for example. Some completely discount it like it has zero value. Some discount it a lot. None of these discounters actually put a value on it though. We know that overall a base on balls has 2/3 the value of single. If someone were to say that is wrong, then they almost never give a figure what it should be. They say, "I just feel it isn't worth that." That isn't a very compelling case they make, but that is what they do.
I think you are right. Deep down they know they cannot reconcile the fact that a bases empty single is worth the exact same as a bases empty walk. When right off the bat you know that 60% of your walks are the exact same value as a single, then that AUTOMATICALLY gives the walk 50% the value of a single if you ignore every base on balls that occurs with runners on.
Then they have to reconcile that about half the singles with a man on first base only moves the base runner one base, that all of those singles are the exact same value of a base on balls with a man on first.
instead, they rest their entire case on the 15% of walks/singles that occur in the spots where there is a noticeable difference between the two, a huge difference in some cases. The problem is, we already know this. Its just that those only account for a small percent and when added to the majority of base on balls/singles that occur where there is no difference, the walk ends up being about 2/3 the value of a single. It isn't that difficult.
2)They don't apply their standards to everyone. Here in this thread you have one poster discounting the value of a base on balls to Votto because "he clogs the bases." But that same person doesn't give the extra credit for Morgan's walks because Morgan is an elite base runner(among the elite of all time BTW)...so he veers off into another unrelated aspect because his base on balls theory is blown completely wrong.
I actually looked at Gene Tenace's game logs since he would be considered the 'king' of the 'walks don't matter if you clog the bases' theory.
I started counting how many of his base on balls actually led to him scoring on that walk. How many of his walks actually plated a run. Then how many of his walks moved up a runner that eventually scored as a result.
If you do that and see that in one year Tenace scored on 9 of his walks, drove in two runs with his walks, and then moved runners up to score another 10 times, clearly a base on balls is not worthless for even the slowest man. Those are estimates. Someone can count every one if they want the exact ones. I did it for two seasons and stopped. I lost the sheet I had it written on.
So if someone gets all giddy at 100 RBI seasons compared to 79 RBI, then that is the difference of the runs that Tenace's base on balls directly created for that season.
So back to problem #1. What is the value of Gene Tenace's walks if the average BB is worth 2/3 of a single? Clearly it isn't zero because Tenace has scored on his walks. He has plated runners. He has moved up runners. Same for Votto.
Is it .67 overall? Probably not as they score a little less than league average. Of course, this isn't accounting for the lineup behind them.
It is going to be around .55 to .60 if they are slow and bat fourth or fifth. Which then make Morgan's worth more than the .67.
None of these things are guesses. Every play by play event is looked at. So when people come up with baseless values, most of those theories vanish when common sense is applied and they are applied across the board to every player. So when that is realized, they will focus on a fringe event or circumstance to try and discount the 95% reality since their stance on base on balls has zero merit.
Joey Votto has a run scoring percentage of 25% when he gets on base(not counting runs scored on home runs). The league average is 30%. So right off the bat we know that Votto getting on base primarily via the walk that he is scoring just a little below average even as a slower runner! So he obviously is not clogging the bases to the point where one can say "his walks aren't of any value." Obviously has walks have value since he does score on them and he does move runners with them.
On the flip side, the antithesis of Votto is ichiro. Ichiro didn't walk a lot but he had a TON of singles and he ran extremely well. With all those 'hits' and knowing how much faster Ichiro was than Votto, he only scored 35% when he got on base, compared to the league average of 30% and Votto's 25%.
So the difference in the mind of people is somewhat correct as there is a difference, it is just nowhere near as big a difference as they are believing or envisioning.
PS, as for Ichiro specifically, a big chunk of his singles are like walks even with guys on base because Ichiro had a lot of infield singles and short outfield singles that advanced base runners at a poor rate.
Votto OPS+ in his best 9 year stretch was 162
Ichiro OPS+ in his best 9 year stretch was 118
Knowing the truth on how often Votto and Ichiro scored, there is NO view that can make Ichiro a better hitter than Votto in their primes. It is not even close.
You can discount Votto's base on balls by ten percent due to his slower speed and that still comes nowhere near close to closing the gap between the two.
However, if you are going to adjust Votto's walks downward due to his slower speed, then you have to adjust Ichiro's singles downward due to them being a high amount of infield singles and short outfield singles that do not advance runners the same as Votto's singles do because his go to the outfield and the outfield has to play him deeper because he is a power threat.
Once you adjust Votto's walks and Ichiro's crappy singles appropriately, then their OPS+ difference remains just as vast as it is with Votto being a FAR FAR FAR superior hitter than Ichiro.
With Votto being a vastly superior hitter than Ichiro, when you add some of the overall things like base running and defense to Ichiro to close the gap on Votto, then realize those are the same things Joe Morgan gets added to his resume to erase the gap on seemingly superior players....expect in Morgan's case, Morgan was actually far superior than Ichiro was with the bat, so Morgan has less gaps to close with his running and defense/position.
Morgan lifetime OPS+ 132
Ichiro lifetime OPS+ 107
For all the people who put Ichiro anywhere near an all time list, you see that Morgan was a better hitter by a lot. A lot.
When @dallasactuary is putting Morgan in the top 20 it is because he is adding the base running of Morgan and the second base defense of Morgan to get him there. That is the same thing people do with Ichiro to get him anywhere near an all time list and Ichiro was nowhere near as good a hitter as Morgan. They were about equal as base runners(Morgan attempting more steals), and Morgan played a more defensively demanding position(and played it well).
So take a breath before getting 'upset' at Morgan being a top 20 player....because I am pretty sure many of those same detractors put Ichiro as an all time top 50 player and he is well below Morgan.
Joe Morgan and Rod Carew are almost equal with the bat with Morgan at an OPS+ of 132 and Carew at 131....and Morgan did it with 800 more lifetime plate appearances.
Reading the above few explanations cements the OPS+ as a real deal for Morgan.
Hardly anyone has a problem rating Carew in the top 75 of hitters, yet Morgan and him are basically the same with the bat and Morgan with a slight edge with an extra 800 plate appearances.
However:
Joe Morgan played 21,543 innings at second base.
Rod Carew played 9,463 innings at second base.
And Morgan played the position much more effectively....which is part of the reason he played 12,000 more innings there.
So right there Morgan is superior to Carew when hitting and defense are accounted for.
When you add the baserunning:
Morgan had 689 SB and 162 CS
Carew had 353 SB and 187 CS
The difference becomes much bigger between Morgan and Carew and should not be a surprise when @dallasactuary puts Morgan in the top 20 players all time, especially if you are one who views Carew in the top 100 all time(of which Carew is that good too. I'm not knocking Carew. He just isn't as good as Morgan).
Morgan is bay far the best post war second baseman. Jackie Robinson is the only second baseman that clips Morgan 133 to 132 OPS+ but Robinson played elsewhere positions, his career is shorter, and he doesn't have the same base running...though you can see why many say Robinson is not just a historic player, he was also historically good too!
For context, Craig Biggio OPS+ is 112 in about 1,000 more plate appearances than Morgan.
Robby Alomar at 116 OPS+ with 900 less plate appearances than Morgan.
Comments
The real debate for fringe HOF guys (excluding the ones that were snubbed) would be did Yaddie do enough defensively to make up for his lack of offense or was a decade of Andruw Jones being an elite player offensively and defensively enough. The WPA or rate argument is basically saying if Andruw had another 10 years like his first 10 hed be the best player ever, but it didnt happen.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Bill James ranked Morgan 12th and Bagwell 32nd, excluding pitchers and Negro Leaguers, and I absolutely, 100% agree that it would be a flat out waste of everyone's time for you to attempt to have a real conversation about baseball with Bill James. Now, I'm not Bill James, but I strongly suspect that it would be nearly as futile for you to attempt one with me. On the assumption that we both value our time, let's agree not to attempt such a conversation.
You posted this as if it somehow contradicted something that I said, when it doesn't. And while Piper Slowinski is free to write whatever he/she wants to write, the notion that an article that you found on the Internet by an author you (and everyone else) has never heard of is God's truth on stone tablets may be part of your religion but it's not part of mine. Slowinski makes some valid points, and, in my opinion, vastly overstates others. But, again (and again, and again, and again), NOBODY is saying that the career ranking of WPA is the same thing as a list of best hitters. NOBODY. What I said is that WPA contains useful information, and that ignoring it simply because it contradicts your preconceived conclusions is not a smart thing to do.
In lieu of a conversation - which I trust we both agree would be a waste of time - I'll leave you with this. Find, similar to Slowinski's example, some players that you think had relatively comparable "great" seasons, and then look up each of their WPA in those seasons. You'll find, contra Slowinski, that most of them had relatively comparable WPA. But some of the people in your sample will have unusually high or low WPA. For those people, look up their RISP and men on averages; they will, nearly every time, be unusually good or bad.
To get you started, try Aaron Judge in his rookie season. At one level, the level you can't see past, he was a beast that season, but his WPA was only 2.0, the same as Brett Gardner over in LF. Look up Judge's contextual hitting and the puzzle is no longer a puzzle. While everyone's hitting is supposed to get better with men or with RISP (mostly because fly outs become SF in some of those situations), Judge's hitting actually got 8% WORSE with RISP and 9% worse with men on. His WPA was not low because he didn't have his chances, it was low because he blew too many chances. Sure, you'll find people who fit the Slowinski model, but you'll find more that don't. There is a lot of useful information in WPA.
Bill James isnt some baseball god. Are you going to next say that money ball worked because of getting Hattebrtg to play first base instead of the fact the Tejada, Chaves, Koch, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Dye were on the team for the A's? Most of James stats are largely dismissed and what is wrong with baseball in general with a computer saying theoretical production outweighs actual results.
WPA is a fringe stat that admits its a fringe stat that shouldnt be used for comparisons. Its a small part of the puzzle nothing more.
Saying Morgan is 12th all time just invalidates any conversation or the persons stats that come up with that result Bill James included.
Your argument for Votto has been WPA, theres plenty of breakdowns of what it actually is and they all say the same thing. Its a cumulative stat where it should not be used to judge players against each other, its not predictive, it rewards people with more chances and just because its higher doesnt mean it was a better player
None of this changes the fact that Votto does not have the numbers for the HOF. Andruw Jones should be in the HOF long before Votto if were just going to use what could have been stats. Votto had 6 premium years, many average to below average years and has the most errors of any active first baseman with over 100. WAP ignores defense, it ignores baserunning ability and rewards things based on early or late in the game when early runs can actually mean more getting into a bullpen earlier that will impact a team for the rest of the series if not longer.
Morgan was average in Houston, has a good 6-7 year run on a stacked team with the all times hit leader on the Big Red Machine and was average after that. Hes no where close to an elite HOFer much less elite of the elite all time overall.
Youre ultra focused on a singular fringe stat and keep doubling down on that.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
James was hired in 2003 by the Red Sox and spent 17 years there. He had nothing to do with building the Pedo, Manny, Ortiz, Nomar, Damon, Schilling, Foulke teams. The Red Sox never won because of being cute with "sabermetrics" or Bill James stats being better than everyone, every time they won and didnt miss the playoffs after that core left was when they would make big trades and be aggressive in free agency to gets studs. They missed the playoffs half the time he was there after that core and didnt have sustained success having to go for broke to win when they did. Ellsbury, Drew, Agone, Beckett, Lester none of those guys are Bill James sabermetrics steals. No team has ever won by trying to put together a WAP roster, they win by putting together studs that produce. The funny part is when he left in 2019 thats when teams really started to embrace advanced stats, just not his and not ones writers can look up.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Joe Morgan was a terrific player but, let's be real, a .271 career hitter with 268 home runs, even if he was twice as good as the combination of Maz, Mays & Brooks as a defender, would still not be the 12th (or 16th) best player of all-time.
I'm mystified. For starters, Votto has more All-Star appearances than Thomas, Thome, Bagwell, or Palmeiro. All of the top 20 first basemen in JAWS (which attempts to reduce the advantage that players with long careers have over players with short careers in WAR) are enshrined except for those with special circumstances, if you consider Todd Helton's playing in Colorado a special circumstance. Albert Pujols is too recently active, and Mark McGwire has the PED stigma. Votto is 12th on that list.
The only real problem with WPA and its cousin cWPA is that it attributes everything that happens on a play to the batter and the pitcher, so pitchers on teams with good defenses, like the '70s Baltimore Orioles tend to be overrated compared to pitchers who have to contend with, say, post-Seattle Ken Griffey patrolling center. So a bases empty two out ground out to Omar Vizquel that Vizquel throws into the dugout is treated exactly the same as a double to deep centerfield would be for the batter and the pitcher, and Vizquel's WPA changes not at all. But if that's the biggest problem…
All star voting really has to be ignored. Aside from the the rosters being expanded, Votto was voted in by the fans in 2010 that those other players named never had the chance to be be voted in for. You can even go back and look at how silly AS voting is with 2000 Thomas 115Rs, 43 Hrs, 143 RBI,.328/.436/.625 and wasnt an all star. If thats not an all star no one is and theres multiple examples of that. 2003 and 2006 Thomas wasnt an all star either with similar numbers. 2001-2003 Thome should have been an all star as well with similar numbers but wasnt. List can go on and on for all stars and even mvp voting. On the field production cant be ignored though
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
The only time BB produce runs are when the bases are loaded. other than that example, it takes an error on defense or a batted ball to actually score the run. A BB on its own, "produces" nothing with the exception of bases loaded. With the exception of making an out, a bases-loaded BB is about the least productive thing a batter can do in that situation. Any type of hit would produce at LEAST one run, and usually more.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Earlier there was a comment about how easy it was to hit in Cincinnati, looking at OPS+ because it takes into account park factor, I looked at Votto's top 10 seasons (leaving out his rookie year where he only played 24 games) and Palmiero's.
Years with OPS+ above 170;
Votto 3
Palmiero 0
Years with OPS+ 160-169;
Votto 2
Palmiero 1
Years with OPS+ 150-159
Votto 3
Palmiero 2
Votto's 10 year average was 158
Palmiero's 10 best years was 144
Furthermore, if you compare each players best 10 seasons side by side 9 out of the 10 go to Votto.
Years 11 & 12 are about the same for each hitter, then Votto runs out of full years and Palmiero has a bunch of years where he played at no where near a HOF level.
Part of the nuance in that the worse hitter there is behind an elite hitter then the worse pitches you will see and give almost zero chance to drive the ball with men on(and a base open).
In your example, then every Mike Trout walk with Ohtani behind him should be gold. Remember, there is no RBI without a man on base(except for a HR of course).
That really is the way to break it down when career lengths are varied. You make a compelling case there.
Great points.
They all get a piece.
Typically, the walk gets completely ignored in your example even though it was an important building block to scoring that run. The walk is still the least important item of the three in your example....but a good measurement already knows that as they value a BB as about 2/3 the value of a single(overall value, worth the same in the most common situation of nobody on base, and worth less in other men on situations that don't happen as often), so that shouldn't be a surprise.
In the end, any way you slice it, if you aren't giving a player's BB 2/3 the value of a single, and you are just ignoring them or discounting them completely, then your analysis is completely wrong right off the bat and really shouldn't warrant any further discussion if this isn't accounted for.
It is true that some spots in the lineup that instead of .67 value overall it might only be .60 value, but what usually happens is that people knock the walk down to .00 value because they just discount them.
Right off the bat, common sense knows that more than half of a player's plate appearances occur with nobody on base, so automatically a BB is the same value as a single half the time. Anyone is welcome to list every other situation and compare each player if someone walks inordinately more when it doesn't have the same value, then knock yourself out because that has already been done and accounted for. You won't discover anything new.
Also this situation:
9th inning two outs tied game:
Player A hits a triple
Player B hits a single and the game is over.
Just by reading these boards and listening to fans for years, Player B gets almost all the credit because he "drove in the winning run," but player A is the more important event for that win and it isn't even close.
Thank you!
I looked at some HOFer careers and see that the "best of the best"; Mays, Aaron, Musial had 15-17 great seasons. Mantle had 12, DiMaggio had 10, Killebrew 10, Larry Walker 10. Looks like Yaz only had about 8.
It seems to me other than a very few players, guys get into the Hall on the strength of about 10 superb seasons, then play slightly above average for 4-6 years and poorly (or injured) for 2-4.
Votto absolutely has the great years and a couple of slightly above average ones. Getting a late start hurts him, a couple of years he was hurt and COVID also hurts.
If he can play a couple of more full seasons and still have an OPS+ in the 125 range, he should be a lock. If he's done now or plays badly for another year or two, he's going to have a hard time getting in.
OPS+ attempts to adjust for parks, but it really doesnt do a very good job. Case in point 2009 Adrian Gonzalez. Petco park was impossible to hit in as a lefty with the original dimensions. Bonds, Adam Dunn and Ortiz were basically the only lefty hitters that could consistently hit it out there. The park ruined Brian Giles career it was so hard on a lefty before they moved the fences in significantly.
That year Agone hit .277/.407/.551 with 40 Hrs 119 walks to 109 strike outs and 99 RBIs on an offensively anemic Padres roster. Yet his OPS+ was only 162. He would have had 60 or more homeruns if you laid out his hits over the Cincy stadium instead of Petco.
Even if you believe the OPS+ which isnt a great stat either as you can never really actually account for parks, it doesnt change the fact Palmerios numbers still blow Vottos out of the water. Accumulation of counting stats is what matters for the HOF. Number of hits, RBIs, HRs etc. Your career production is what the HOF is all about not whether or not you would have been better if you got an extra 2000 at bats. Being healthy and getting those at bats is part of the equation to being in the HOF. Its supposed to be the best of all time not the hall of very good and the current voting group seems intent on destroying the halls legacy
Like the algorithms advanced stats are just supposed to be part of the picture, not the picture. If youre talking season to season or for the future sure, but once careers are over the production speaks for itself
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Of course, you're right. But I was hoping for an answer from someone who thinks OPS+ and WPA are worthless stats to get some idea (because at present I have none - literally none) of what they think a stat that isn't worthless looks like.
And no, I am not holding my breath waiting for such an answer.
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
I am assuming then you love that Harold Baines made it in.
For me, I like to see the BEST players in, not as much as those very good for a very long time.
Votto is the far superior player, for enough years to be eligible for the HOF.
Palmiero will need to buy a ticket.
Could start with stats that dont have Joe Morgan as a top 16th or 12th player of all time while Griffey Jr isnt even top 50.
My responses have been very clear. If you chose not to read them and address them thats your choice. I'm not going to get drawn into some you know what contest especially not over fringe stats. If you cant see or admit the flaws of advanced stats where you can find a fringe one to support basically any position you want its hard for any real discussion
As I've said multiple times now, these stats like the algorithms are a peice of the puzzle not the whole puzzle. You also evaluate players by different things based on their career positioning. Prospects youll look at different things than a rookie or if youre picking a player for a year, just as youd look at different things for guys whose careers are basically done or are done. Once the career is over the story is told.
I've attempted a few times now with real conversations. If I just have to put you on ignore than so be it
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Such as? Answering my quiz question would be a fine place to start. What stat is it that assigns proper credit to the three hitters in my question?
This made me laugh. As I said, I have no idea whatsoever what you think are the proper ways to measure "better than" when comparing two players. Because you refuse to say despite being asked.
I did read them. You pooh-pooh stats while citing either nothing at all or some unknown writer on the Internet as your source. There is nothing for me to address.
Then offer the stats that you think trump the "fringe" stats. I do see, and admit, the flaws in every stat, and have said so here in this very thread. I am not aware of any stat that says Griffey was a better player than Morgan. In my first post I focused on JAWS/WAR, I switched to WPA because it shed light on why Votto was being so underrated, and I could have used Win Shares or several other stats. They all say Morgan was better. You say Griffey was better but won't say why.
This made me laugh again. You say "as I've said" and then paraphrase something I said and that you had never said before.
Um, OK. I have no idea why you threw in this irrelevant little tidbit, but yes, that's true. All I've been discussing, though, is the story told at the end of the career.
No, you haven't. You dismiss anything I say without so much as a hint why you are doing so. And in place of what I've said you offer .... nothing. I am leaning strongly towards the position that you simply don't understand what I'm saying, but the way to disabuse me of that position is to demonstrate that you do. One easy thing you can do is to stop saying that I've said things that I haven't said, and to instead directly quote the actual words I've used and address those. When you say, for example "Youre ultra focused on a singular fringe stat and keep doubling down on that", what am I supposed to do with that? I'm happy to focus on the stats you prefer but you're keeping those a secret. And the single only reason I even mentioned WPA, before others started doing the "doubling down" of which you speak, was to highlight how well Votto hit with men on and with RISP. If your position is that how well one hits with RISP and men on is a "fringe" stat, then say that and I can laugh at you and be done with this charade. If your position is something other that that you could - and I'm just spitballin' here - actually state your position.
No, not that, that would devastate me.
No, what I'm asking you to do is to use your big boy words and form an actual argument. If something I've said is relevant to your argument, then quote - actually quote - what I've said and explain WHY you think my position is flawed. {And no, doing a Google search and finding out there exists someone, somewhere on the planet who disagrees with me is not sufficient.} Then, explain how you go about determining how good a player is, or which of two players is better than the other.
And just to head off any argument that will cause me physical pain, explain to me how you think the park adjustment between Seattle in the 1990's and the Astrodome in the 1960's should be applied. You said that park adjustments can be flawed, and they can, but if your position is that they don't apply at all then just say that and I can put you on ignore and we can go our merry ways.
Baines no. Numbers arent there and wasnt really ever at the top.
Andruew Jones address that than. Bagwell, Berkman, etc. There is a strong case for Jones, and somewhat for Bagwell but at the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You know, it would help if you'd understand and admit that Griffey was terrible after the 2000 season.
Its hard to believe that Votto only made 6 all stars. Meanwhile Steve Garvey is a 10-time all star who rarely missed a game and they wont let him in.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
He wasnt terrible after 2000. Injury prone sure, terrible no. Do you really want to try and argue Joe Morgan, or Lance Berkman was better than him? Or that Morgan is a top 16 player of all time?
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
All star game has always been a popularity contest.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would agree, he had some good seasons sprinkled in there.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think a players story is written with both counting and rate stats. It takes a combination. The all-time top tier players: Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Seaver, Clemens and Johnson all had fantastic counting and rate numbers. They were all-time dominating and played extended careers that included the old man years. I think the athletes that truly transcend were able to do it in their 20's, 30's and 40's. It is an incredible athlete that can rise to the very top in both their early years and when the average player is long retired.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Agreed. Aside from the very end of his career 2002 was his one bad season. He was putting up big time numbers just didnt play enough most of the years. 2008 is where the fall off started when he was 38 and that wasnt even terrible, just terrible by his standard. If you take his name away 08 is a pretty average season that most teams would be happy with. 09 and 2010 where he retired were where it got terrible
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Your arguments simply make no sense.
Palmiero never led the league in BA, OBP, SLG, OPS OPS+, so he was " never at the top" either.
Votto led in SLG once, OPS twice, OPS+ once (his OPS and OPS+ wins were in 3 different years) and OBP seven times.
Votto is a BETTER PLAYER.
After his finest season Palmiero was judged as the 5th best player that year. Using WAR, he's not even in the top 10!
Votto has an MVP and a 2nd (should have won that time) and a 3rd place finish as well.
Palmiero; never at the top.
Votto; at the top.
You end up with the comment; "by the end of the day how many players are we going to let into the HOF?"
Letting Palmiero (a lesser player) in before Votto is a perfect example of watering down the HOF!
You also haven't addressed the steroid question. Funny how when faced with a difficult point, so many here refuse to answer.
Palmiero's numbers were enhanced by juicing and he played more games because steroids not only make you stronger, they help your body heal faster. They help BOTH performance and your "counting" numbers.
Better player vs. guy who played longer, sure sounds like the Harold Baines argument for induction to me.
AND A CHEATER AS WELL.
On another subject, I thought it was hilarious that you "threatened" to put one of the finest posters here on ignore. Now THAT'S FUNNY!
Palmerio isnt a lesser player. His career accomplishments of actual production are far better. Taking supplements has been around forever. It hasnt gone away either. The Myans used amphetamines before races, Mantle missed time from a hip infection from steroids, supposedly everyone was doing it during Palmarios time so why would that matter when the pitchers are doing it too. Votto has played the same number of years basically and his production simply doesnt match. Its not like Vottos career was cut short by a big injury Bo Jackson style
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
The MAYANS?
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
THat is my personal preference too. I would like Hall of Famers to have long careers AND with MVP caliber peaks(not just the writers opinions but the actual measurements that put them there).
The Mayans were known for producing good pitching lol
The ironic thing is how 'clutch' is talked about so much here and that WPA actually measures that. So instead of relying on Joe Blow's opinion on a guy and how he 'feels' it was a clutch moment, there is actually an objective measurement to show. WPA isn't 100% perfect but it is 1,000% better than relying on someone's personal view of how a player contributes to run/win production, and properly account for its value instead of some unverified view on what hte value is.
The reasoning of "the stat is no good because it rates Joe Morgan too high," more than likely means that it isn't the stat that is wrong, but rather the viewer doesn't know or recognize how runs are created.
Joe Morgan does get a boost in the WPA over some other elite players in history because he was on an elite team with more chances to add crooked numbers in the WPA column, but that isn't a giant margin of error.
Plus anyone that has taken Trout down a couple pegs for not being on a winning team then must add Morgan up a few pegs for being the MVP on what is considered one of the best three teams in history. Can't have it both ways.
Base on Balls are completely undervalued and misunderstood. They are worth 2/3 of a single overall, and that is about as concrete as the sidewalk I just stepped over. Any other valuation drastically different than that makes zero sense and is based on nothing.
The funny thing is people discredit Votto's walks because he might not have a good hitter behind him(COUGH, that's the GM's deficiency not Votto's).
People discredit Gene Teance walks because he didn't run well.
So if both of those are true 'discredits' then Joe Morgan's base on balls should have MORE value than he is being given credit for because he ran at an elite level and he was getting on base for elite hitters.
Can't have it both ways.
I'd hate to think I wasted half an hour and 1,000 words only to have you run away. So. I'll try again.
Yes, I would like to argue that Joe Morgan was a top 16 player and that he was better than Griffey. But here's the thing - because Someran Domguy in Peoria says all the advanced stats aren't perfect and can therefore be completely ignored, I don't want to waste time making that argument with any of those stats. Instead, I want to make the argument using stats that you have pre-approved. So, before I make my argument pro-Morgan, please make your argument pro-Griffey. And don't just say "numbers" or "real production" or other meaningless words and phrases, be very specific about which numbers and how you are defining "production". And also, please be very specific about how you are accounting for the vast difference in ballparks and eras between the two, since the comparison will be useless without that.
Thanks so much.
You and I need to find something to disagree on, I am out of "ignores".
Harmon Killebrew sucks!
Sucks to BE DEAD!
Votto had a number of great players behind him for his career. His walks are discredited because hes slow and clogs the bases. Aside from a homerun theres not many places where even a double would score him from first. It takes multiple hits to score someone like that.
Morgan from 72-1977 has elite years on the big red machine. When they werent around him whether it be Houston, SF, or his last few years in Cincy he was pretty average at best. The funniest part is people arguing OPS+ Morgan doesnt even sniff the top 100 much less 12th or 16th. The stat has flaws which has to be realized as Griffey had more real word production that Votto in the same stadium at the same time being over a decade older but if you do certain things the stat rewards you. Adrian Gonzalez is a big problem for the stat as well. Learning how to use the advanced stats is how you find out how to judge baseball.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
This is preposterous. In 2008 there were 147 players who had enough PA to qualify for the batting title. Griffey was 99th in OPS+. Griffey was never a very good CF, and by 2001 he was horrible, and eventually was shuttled over to RF and then DH. So no, I don't think most teams would have been happy to have a poor defensive corner outfielder who can only hit league average.
In the years in question, Griffey's only halfway decent year was 2005. He had 3.7 WAR, which was good enough for 52nd. The other players whose WAR rounded to 3.7 WAR in 2005 were the immortal Aaron Rowand, Randy Winn, and Bill Hall.
For the decade, Griffey's 7.6 WAR ranks 264th, which isn't as good as it sounds because, of course, a lot of the competition didn't play all those calendar years. So he's just behind Geovany Soto (who only played 378 games to Griffey's 991) and just ahead of Mark Bellhorn (643 games).
So perhaps "terrible" is a bit of an exaggeration, but well below average and, except for a decidedly non-special 2005 season, barely above replacement level player. When you add that he was paid over $90 million over that time, yeah, I'll stick with terrible.
Which makes my anticipation for Basebal21's argument that Griffey was better than Morgan that much harder to bear. I'm on pins and needles, I tells ya'. I know it's going to be one for the ages.
That may be right, or it may not, but I think the margin of error is awfully small. Yes, Morgan gets more chances to produce a run (or a fraction thereof), but it's also true that great teams play with a lead more often than bad teams, and getting a hit, or a walk, when your team is already ahead has a lower WPA than the same hit or walk when your team is behind. I honestly don't know how all the variables shake out, but WPA seems to do an awfully good job of tracking what it was designed to track. I think Win Shares / WAR / Runs Created are better stand-alone stats than WPA, but WPA definitely deserves its place in the universe of stats that define "better than", and that have buried for all time the use of the triple crown stats to do the comparisons.
18 HR with 71 RBIs, .353 OBP .424 Slug and yes even an OPS over 100 if you want to use that. I didnt say it was a great year, I said it wasnt terrible and where his fall off really began.
2001, 2003, 2004,2006 were all on pace to be great years. As said he got hurt and just didnt play enough in 03 and 04. 111 games in 01 or 109 games in 2006 were good years when he was on the field but youd like more than 109/111 games out of every position player besides catcher. 2005 was a great year even with the injuries, as was 2007.
Production wasnt his issue. Staying healthy was
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
So a couple people have said that Votto's walks have less value because he doesn't run fast. They never specified HOW MUCH less or how many times he failed to run to the next base because of his lack of speed. FYI MLB baseball baserunning during Votto's career, baserunners Run Scoring %,scored 30% of the time successfully when they got on base and Votto's was 25% percent...so probably nowhere near the deduction these folks are thinking
.
However, whichever 'deduction' the fellas are giving Votto's walks, means Joe Morgan's walks have that much MORE value than he is being credited for because Morgan ran exceptionally well.
Can't have it both ways...no matter how hard one tries to do so....still can't have it both ways.
Real production. Numbers. Go old school then. Griffey and Morgan are only 25 plate appearances difference for their careers.
Old school Runs created. Runs scored + RBI minus HR(because HR is counted twice in their Runs scored and RBI).
Joe Morgan produced 2,515 real runs where he either scored them himself or drove them in himself.
Ked Griffery produced 2,868.
This is ignoring that Griffey played in a higher scoring era where it was easier to rack up those totals.
It is also ignoring the other element of producing runs(moving runners up where you are credited with neither a run or RBI but a run scores as a result of your base advancement or if you get on to allow another batter to come up instead of the inning being over).
Even if those key elements are ignored, they are close enough in their raw totals that it isn't a stretch at all to mention Griffey and Morgan in the same sentence...and that is before defense/position is accounted for and included.
Even in the 'real production' old school method Morgan and Griffey comparison is not a stretch.
@dallasactuary I am not feeling doing math, but if you use their Old School Runs Created real production and see what their run production per plate appearance rate is and then see how much each is better than their respective league averages, it will shed some light for old school thought process.
@dallasactuary
They have almost identical career plate appearances so it removes that issue.
Griffey has a lifetime 136 OPS+
Morgan has a lifetime 132 OPS+
OPS+ detractors say the stat isn't good because it actually gives credits for base on balls. These detractors say base on balls aren't as valuable as OPS+ says, and they use players like Joey Votto and Gene Tenace and say since a runner who gets a base on balls and is slow, it devalues the base on balls in OPS. Forget the fact they never say exactly how much it devalues the base on balls for them. They just say it does and thus they just discount the base on balls.
However, if it is true that a slower runner devalues the base on balls in OPS+, then that means the faster runner increases the value of the base on balls in OPS+. Can't have it both ways.
So as it stands, either Morgan's lifetime OPS+ of 132 must be taken at that exact value...or you have to increase the value for Morgan's base on balls in his OPS+ since he runs elite and one cannot have it both ways in the base on balls detracting...which means Morgan's OPS+ is higher than 132.
So it is settled.
Griffey has a 136 lifetime OPS+
Morgan has a 132 lifetime OPS+
So what happens when you add offensive factors that OPS actually does not include?
Griffey Grounded into 199 double plays. If you love RBI then you have to hate players removing RBI opps. These matter.
Morgan grounded into 105 double plays.
So there are 94 'bases' you have to take away from Griffey's OPS.
Griffey had 184 stolen bases and 69 CS.....which is a net 46 extra bases griffey added. Every CS eliminates two SB
Morgan had 689 stolen bases and 162 CS....which is a net 365 extra bases Morgan added.
The stolen bases alone for Morgan is enough to offset the small OPS+ lead that Griffey has.
Base running is more than just steals.
Extra base taken percentage:
Griffey took the extra base 42% of the time successfully.
Morgan took the extra base 51% of the time successfully.
Those are more base running advancements in Morgan's favor.
So really, Morgan is the better offensive player.
Strikeouts. How many times do we hear about Mike Trout and his strikeouts. If strikeouts are THAT detrimental compared to contact outs, then you have to apply that to Morgan/Griffey too.
Griffey 1,779 strikeouts.
Morgan 1,015 strikeouts.
Can't have it both ways.
Griffey lifetime home OPS .958. Road OPS .860. So the ballpark factor in the + is not misjudging Griffey.
@1948_Swell_Robinson thanks for stepping up for @Basebal21 and making the pro-Griffey argument which, obviously, showed Morgan was better. Not that it wasn't already, but clearly this question is now settled once and for all.
One way to show the gap between them as even more dramatic - which I think it is - is using the OPS++ stat that I made up a while back (with your inspiration), and account for bases-empty walks, DPs, and SB/CS directly. Griffey's OPS++ rises from 136 to 149. Morgan's rises from 132 to 182. Consistent with what you said, it is the SB/CS, which OPS+ completely ignores, and the walks, which OPS+ undervalues, that elevate Morgan to all-time great status. That he was an all-time great offensive producer while playing second base is just icing on the cake.
I do wonder, though, whether Basebal21 never attempted an argument because he knew there wasn't a good one, or if he really wanted to make the argument but had no idea how to do it. In other words, is he saying things he doesn't believe just to stir the pot (i.e., he's a troll), or does he not know enough about baseball to contribute to discussions like this. I think those are the only two options and neither one argues for paying any attention to him going forward.
One has to try arguing from the other side to sometimes get a better overall view.
Most fans come up with assumptions on the value of baseball events. Two problems they run into:
1)They make a complete invalid guess. Take the base on balls for example. Some completely discount it like it has zero value. Some discount it a lot. None of these discounters actually put a value on it though. We know that overall a base on balls has 2/3 the value of single. If someone were to say that is wrong, then they almost never give a figure what it should be. They say, "I just feel it isn't worth that." That isn't a very compelling case they make, but that is what they do.
I think you are right. Deep down they know they cannot reconcile the fact that a bases empty single is worth the exact same as a bases empty walk. When right off the bat you know that 60% of your walks are the exact same value as a single, then that AUTOMATICALLY gives the walk 50% the value of a single if you ignore every base on balls that occurs with runners on.
Then they have to reconcile that about half the singles with a man on first base only moves the base runner one base, that all of those singles are the exact same value of a base on balls with a man on first.
instead, they rest their entire case on the 15% of walks/singles that occur in the spots where there is a noticeable difference between the two, a huge difference in some cases. The problem is, we already know this. Its just that those only account for a small percent and when added to the majority of base on balls/singles that occur where there is no difference, the walk ends up being about 2/3 the value of a single. It isn't that difficult.
2)They don't apply their standards to everyone. Here in this thread you have one poster discounting the value of a base on balls to Votto because "he clogs the bases." But that same person doesn't give the extra credit for Morgan's walks because Morgan is an elite base runner(among the elite of all time BTW)...so he veers off into another unrelated aspect because his base on balls theory is blown completely wrong.
I actually looked at Gene Tenace's game logs since he would be considered the 'king' of the 'walks don't matter if you clog the bases' theory.
I started counting how many of his base on balls actually led to him scoring on that walk. How many of his walks actually plated a run. Then how many of his walks moved up a runner that eventually scored as a result.
If you do that and see that in one year Tenace scored on 9 of his walks, drove in two runs with his walks, and then moved runners up to score another 10 times, clearly a base on balls is not worthless for even the slowest man. Those are estimates. Someone can count every one if they want the exact ones. I did it for two seasons and stopped. I lost the sheet I had it written on.
So if someone gets all giddy at 100 RBI seasons compared to 79 RBI, then that is the difference of the runs that Tenace's base on balls directly created for that season.
So back to problem #1. What is the value of Gene Tenace's walks if the average BB is worth 2/3 of a single? Clearly it isn't zero because Tenace has scored on his walks. He has plated runners. He has moved up runners. Same for Votto.
Is it .67 overall? Probably not as they score a little less than league average. Of course, this isn't accounting for the lineup behind them.
It is going to be around .55 to .60 if they are slow and bat fourth or fifth. Which then make Morgan's worth more than the .67.
None of these things are guesses. Every play by play event is looked at. So when people come up with baseless values, most of those theories vanish when common sense is applied and they are applied across the board to every player. So when that is realized, they will focus on a fringe event or circumstance to try and discount the 95% reality since their stance on base on balls has zero merit.
Some more common sense:
Joey Votto has a run scoring percentage of 25% when he gets on base(not counting runs scored on home runs). The league average is 30%. So right off the bat we know that Votto getting on base primarily via the walk that he is scoring just a little below average even as a slower runner! So he obviously is not clogging the bases to the point where one can say "his walks aren't of any value." Obviously has walks have value since he does score on them and he does move runners with them.
On the flip side, the antithesis of Votto is ichiro. Ichiro didn't walk a lot but he had a TON of singles and he ran extremely well. With all those 'hits' and knowing how much faster Ichiro was than Votto, he only scored 35% when he got on base, compared to the league average of 30% and Votto's 25%.
So the difference in the mind of people is somewhat correct as there is a difference, it is just nowhere near as big a difference as they are believing or envisioning.
PS, as for Ichiro specifically, a big chunk of his singles are like walks even with guys on base because Ichiro had a lot of infield singles and short outfield singles that advanced base runners at a poor rate.
Votto OPS+ in his best 9 year stretch was 162
Ichiro OPS+ in his best 9 year stretch was 118
Knowing the truth on how often Votto and Ichiro scored, there is NO view that can make Ichiro a better hitter than Votto in their primes. It is not even close.
You can discount Votto's base on balls by ten percent due to his slower speed and that still comes nowhere near close to closing the gap between the two.
However, if you are going to adjust Votto's walks downward due to his slower speed, then you have to adjust Ichiro's singles downward due to them being a high amount of infield singles and short outfield singles that do not advance runners the same as Votto's singles do because his go to the outfield and the outfield has to play him deeper because he is a power threat.
Once you adjust Votto's walks and Ichiro's crappy singles appropriately, then their OPS+ difference remains just as vast as it is with Votto being a FAR FAR FAR superior hitter than Ichiro.
With Votto being a vastly superior hitter than Ichiro, when you add some of the overall things like base running and defense to Ichiro to close the gap on Votto, then realize those are the same things Joe Morgan gets added to his resume to erase the gap on seemingly superior players....expect in Morgan's case, Morgan was actually far superior than Ichiro was with the bat, so Morgan has less gaps to close with his running and defense/position.
Morgan lifetime OPS+ 132
Ichiro lifetime OPS+ 107
For all the people who put Ichiro anywhere near an all time list, you see that Morgan was a better hitter by a lot. A lot.
When @dallasactuary is putting Morgan in the top 20 it is because he is adding the base running of Morgan and the second base defense of Morgan to get him there. That is the same thing people do with Ichiro to get him anywhere near an all time list and Ichiro was nowhere near as good a hitter as Morgan. They were about equal as base runners(Morgan attempting more steals), and Morgan played a more defensively demanding position(and played it well).
So take a breath before getting 'upset' at Morgan being a top 20 player....because I am pretty sure many of those same detractors put Ichiro as an all time top 50 player and he is well below Morgan.
Joe Morgan and Rod Carew are almost equal with the bat with Morgan at an OPS+ of 132 and Carew at 131....and Morgan did it with 800 more lifetime plate appearances.
Reading the above few explanations cements the OPS+ as a real deal for Morgan.
Hardly anyone has a problem rating Carew in the top 75 of hitters, yet Morgan and him are basically the same with the bat and Morgan with a slight edge with an extra 800 plate appearances.
However:
Joe Morgan played 21,543 innings at second base.
Rod Carew played 9,463 innings at second base.
And Morgan played the position much more effectively....which is part of the reason he played 12,000 more innings there.
So right there Morgan is superior to Carew when hitting and defense are accounted for.
When you add the baserunning:
Morgan had 689 SB and 162 CS
Carew had 353 SB and 187 CS
The difference becomes much bigger between Morgan and Carew and should not be a surprise when @dallasactuary puts Morgan in the top 20 players all time, especially if you are one who views Carew in the top 100 all time(of which Carew is that good too. I'm not knocking Carew. He just isn't as good as Morgan).
Morgan is bay far the best post war second baseman. Jackie Robinson is the only second baseman that clips Morgan 133 to 132 OPS+ but Robinson played elsewhere positions, his career is shorter, and he doesn't have the same base running...though you can see why many say Robinson is not just a historic player, he was also historically good too!
For context, Craig Biggio OPS+ is 112 in about 1,000 more plate appearances than Morgan.
Robby Alomar at 116 OPS+ with 900 less plate appearances than Morgan.