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 exactly right. I don't know how many people know this, but Morgan had among the highest SB% in history, and pretty much everyone above him was a skinny, slap-hitting singles hitter whose primary skill was running fast as opposed to hitting well. And Morgan stole bases a LOT. Of the people with 600 or more attempts, Morgan's SB% ranks behind only Raines, Wilson, Lopes, and Ichiro, and ahead of Henderson, Coleman, and Ozzie.
Taking into account the true value of a bases-empty walk, a stolen base, and avoiding GIDP, Morgan was every bit as productive as a hitter who didn't steal bases or walk much, but had a batting average north of .400 and a slugging average north of .650. At his peak, you can raise those to .450 and .700. Had Jim Rice batted .375 for his career, and slugged .625, he still wouldn't have been as good (as "productive") as Joe Morgan. I know few people see it, but I don't care that few people see it. Joe Morgan simply was THAT good.
The only close comparison to Morgan as the GOAT at 2B is Hornsby. Hornsby did hit .350 and slug close to .600, and he did walk quite a bit. But his baserunning was terrible, his defense was so-so, and while they didn't keep the stat back then, I suspect he also had a large number of GIDP. I give the nod to Morgan, but I can't say that choosing Hornsby is wrong; they were very close to equals whichever one comes out on top. But I bet that naming Hornsby as a Top 20 player would generate no raised eyebrows at all.
As an aside, Morgan not getting Rookie of the Year was one of the worst award travesties in the history of baseball. And while it would have been hard to deny Carlton the MVP in 1972, Morgan was a legitimate choice (he either did deserve it or was as good or better than the person who won it) for MVP in every year from 1972 through 1977. There is a reason that the Reds were known as the Big Red Machine when Morgan was there, and were known simply as "the Reds" when he wasn't.
And P.S. re your last post, speaking as the biggest fan of Craig Biggio on the planet and considering him one of the Top 50 or so players ever, I do recognize that he wasn't nearly as good as Joe Morgan. Biggio and Griffey were great players; Morgan was an elite player. I've said it in regard to Mike Trout, but the same applies to Morgan: what if you had the chance to watch one of the greatest players in the history of the game and you missed it because you were looking in the wrong places? It's sad, really.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Joe Morgan was very smart, he realized with Foster, Bench, and Perez batting behind him that there was tremendous value in drawing a walk.
George Brett was very smart, he realized with Balboni, White, Motley or whoever batting behind him that there wasn’t much value in drawing a walk.
Gene Tenace was very smart, he realized that as a .230 hitter it would help his team to draw as many walks as possible.
Different players, different situations. Plug Brett into that Red Machine lineup and he gets a lot more picky at what he swings at.
Put Morgan in that Royals lineup and he swings at a lot more pitches because he realizes he is the man.
So to a bigger degree Morgan’s teammates helped enhance his numbers probably a lot more than most players. He was in a perfect situation, yes he took advantage but many players would have done that well batting third in that lineup.
Maybe in part, but one thing all smart players have in common is that they realize that with the bases empty (i.e., most times they come up), a walk is the same as a single. You are addressing RISP at bats where the bases aren't loaded and, oddly, Brett was a lot more likely to walk in those situations (1 per 6.5 PA) than with the bases empty (1 per 14 PA). Tenace walked 1 per every 5 to 6 PA regardless of the situation, as did Morgan.
And we already know what Morgan would do if you put him on a bad team because he came up with the Astros and played with them for several years. And he did more or less the same things in Houston as he did with the Reds, although he had gotten older and much better by the time he got to the Reds. Smart players may adjust how they hit depending on their teammates, but smart players do not start swinging at pitches outside the strike zone no matter what else is going on. I suspect, but there's no way to prove either way, that there is a lot less to the point you're making than you think. Not that there isn't anything at all; just not very much.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Darin said:
Joe Morgan was very smart, he realized with Foster, Bench, and Perez batting behind him that there was tremendous value in drawing a walk.
George Brett was very smart, he realized with Balboni, White, Motley or whoever batting behind him that there wasn’t much value in drawing a walk.
Gene Tenace was very smart, he realized that as a .230 hitter it would help his team to draw as many walks as possible.
Different players, different situations. Plug Brett into that Red Machine lineup and he gets a lot more picky at what he swings at.
Put Morgan in that Royals lineup and he swings at a lot more pitches because he realizes he is the man.
So to a bigger degree Morgan’s teammates helped enhance his numbers probably a lot more than most players. He was in a perfect situation, yes he took advantage but many players would have done that well batting third in that lineup.
The lineup theory is a completely different discussion. and does nothing to discount what the value of a base on balls is.
So right off the bat your unfounded assertions are wrong:
Joe Morgan led the league in walks at age 21 while on Houston so your assertion is wrong with him.
Joe Morgan led the league in walks at age 36 while playing on Houston again so your assertion is wrong again.
In 1981 he was second in the league in walks at age 37. He wasn't on the Reds.
Age 38 was sixth....not on the Reds.
Age 39 was 5th....not on the Reds.
At age 40 his OB% was .356 with the lowly A's. For perspective Don Mattingly had a lifetime .358 OB% and in some strong lineups.
Theory blown. Sorry.
Of course he did have his best years in Cincy as those were his prime years.
You are right, the Reds hitters were stacked. Ask yourself, why would they keep walking Joe Morgan then to put base runners on base for a stacked lineup, especially knowing Morgan ran so well? You said walks don't have much value, but then you see the value of having runners on in front of elite hitters. Which is it?
In 1978 with Cincy Morgan had a 105 OPS+, and then in 1979 he had a 107 OPS+ as he entered his middle 30's. If what you say about the lineup, then how come as he got older and left the Reds and went to different teams and he bettered those OPS+ with the Reds when he was no longer in his prime....
1980 was at 115
1981 was 115
1982 was 136 with SF
1983 was 116
1984 was 104 as a 40 yr old man.
Why do you hold Brett's singles in such high regard then?? He is just getting on base for bad hitters behind him? You do realize more than half the at bats come with nobody on.
Can't have it both ways
If Brett was so 'smart' in your description then he should have been hitting more home runs then
Seems if your theory was correct and hitters can use their 'smartness' to draw walks or hit away or not...then why didn't Brett just hit more Home Runs instead of getting singles and doubles in front of bad hitters? Seems he should have hit more out of the park then...not a very smart choice
So for guys like Brett, his walks don't have value if bad hitters are behind him? How much less value? What if Brett has a .460 Slugging percentage and he is refusing to take a walk for the hitter behind him with a .429 slugging percentage?? How big a difference in run production would that be? Brett's singles lose the same value too if you choose to do that...but how much? Do you really know the difference between a guy who slugs .460 and one sho slugs .420? You are acting as if the .,420 is a nothing. Or a guy who hits .250 instead of .280.
How much different of a value does a walk have if it occurs in front a .280 hitter vs a .250 hitter (with the same power)? You are acting as if the value goes to zero. You are nowhere near close to zero.
In 1984 the lineup spot behind Brett had a .298 AVG and a .422 SLG%, but better than a league average hitter. So you are saying a walk in front of that is of no value? If not of no value, then how much value does it lost from its value compared to a single??
@Darin so then why do you hold George Brett's 1,065 singles with nobody on base in such high regard if you feel getting on base in front of "crappy" hitters is pointless???
Why would Brett's 1,065 singles with nobody on be any better than Morgan's 1,042 base on balls with nobody on base?
I'm sure you are proud seeing Brett in the 3,000 hit club, but those 1,065 singles are meaningless in YOUR words because "Darryl Motley" hit behind him.
Brett should have hit 50 home runs then if he was so smart a hitter and based his hitting on that scenario like you said above. He shouldn't have been up there slapping singles so often like a punch and judy hitter with bad hitters behind. Seems dumb then. Should have been hitting home runs and "doing his run producing job" not just reaching first base for bad hitters.
A third of Brett's hits were basically pointless in your own definition thus making the 3,000 hit club a pointless club in your estimation. So no need to put that up there anymore for one of Brett's achievements.
In the Royals', and Brett's, prime (mid 70's to mid 80's) the Royals tried a lot of people in the 4 spot and seemed to do a pretty good job. Darin didn't mention them, but the batters hitting behind Brett the most were Cowens, McRae, Aikens, Porter, Otis and Mayberry. And they had some pretty good seasons, too; some of them very good. I'm not seeing any reason why Brett would have felt any obligation to be "the man" and swing at bad pitches. At least, it doesn't look like that would have been the smart thing to do.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In 1975 Morgan had their teams best batting average. In 1975 he was third with a .508 SLG just behind .518 and .519.
In 1976 Morgan was second with .320 BA. He was by far FIRST with a .576 SLG%
If anything, Morgan was the guy that helped the rest of the lineup.
Add his .466 and .444 OB% to go along with all time base running ability.
How many times have you read on these boards how the disruptive base runners help the other hitters? So does this not apply to Morgan now?
You have it completely wrong. Morgan was THE MAN in that lineup in every way.
Anyway, I'm still wondering why 1,065 bases empty singles with "poor hitters" behind have any value at all...according to YOUR theory. Brett should have been hitting 50 home runs instead of slapping singles in your scenario.
@Darin said:
Joe Morgan was very smart, he realized with Foster, Bench, and Perez batting behind him that there was tremendous value in drawing a walk.
George Brett was very smart, he realized with Balboni, White, Motley or whoever batting behind him that there wasn’t much value in drawing a walk.
Gene Tenace was very smart, he realized that as a .230 hitter it would help his team to draw as many walks as possible.
Different players, different situations. Plug Brett into that Red Machine lineup and he gets a lot more picky at what he swings at.
Put Morgan in that Royals lineup and he swings at a lot more pitches because he realizes he is the man.
So to a bigger degree Morgan’s teammates helped enhance his numbers probably a lot more than most players. He was in a perfect situation, yes he took advantage but many players would have done that well batting third in that lineup.
Not to mention the all time hits leader hitting in front of him getting over 200 hits a season. Theres a significant difference between what Morgan did in a monster lineup with Rose leading off and what he did the rest of his career. Morgan was average in Houston, bad his final two years in Cincy and pulled out a last final good season in 82 in SF. He without question greatly benefited from the big red machine line up
1976 .725/.811......league average hitter was .681.
1977 .850/.777/.855. League average was .730
1978 .828/.808. League average was. 702
1979 .903/.753. League average was .727
1980 .766/.785. League average was .714
1981 .834/.657. League average was .689.
1982 .766/.862. League average was .713
1983 .815/.840. League average was .714
1984 .770/646. League average was .708
1985 .701/.673. League average was .714.
Some of those were actually very impressive behind him.
1985 was the only season where Brett had crap hitting behind him and they weren't far from a league average hitter.
That wasn't much different than what is behind Brett. Bench was out of his prime by a ton by time Morgan got into his prime. Perez was too. They were still good, but Morgan made them by that time, not the other way around.
And some poster agreed when he brought up Pete Rose. If Pete Rose 'made' Morgan by getting on base, then Morgan MADE the hitters behind him by getting on base even more than Rose and disrupting the pitchers more with his all time elite base running;). Can't have it both ways.
PS then Willie Wilson did the same for George Brett as one of the best MLB base runners in front of him and getting hits lots of hits lol.
Morgan was THE MAN in the lineup when he was in his prime.
Morgan did his worst when they had the most punch behind him.y.
PS George Brett had Willie Wilson as one of the best MLB base runners in front of him to go along with excellent hitting behind him.
I find it funny how anyone with a clue says that Morgan was average in Houston with a 122 OPS+ before the Reds with elite base running. He had not entered his prime yet.
Morgan actually had three season with Houston with a 132 OPS+ then missed a full year with a knee injury.
Anyone who calls those years average really does not have a clue about baseball.
Morgan had his prime years in the middle of his tenure with the Reds and it wasn't because of the lineup.
He hit in the Reds potent lineup in 1978 and 1979 as a 105 and 107 OPS+ hitters. They were his worst years with the Reds and those were the best years with hitters behind him.
THEN he left the potent lineup and had five years better than those two years with the Reds potent lineup...and he was an old man doing it. So much for the lineup making him better. He got better from what he had become when he left the lineup.
Lineup impact has some truth to anyone, but that is small degrees.
Again, we have uniformed people making unvalidated claims about what the lineup did for Morgan and AGAIN it doesn't add up.
For the unsubstantiated go ahead and do that lineup theory with every hitter in the last 80 yrs in MLB and every before/after scenario and see how much water your theory holds. You will be surprised .
The impact is minimal.
The impact does nothing to downgrade Morgan's lifetime 132 OPS+ and his all time baserunning ability and second base defense to boot.
@Darin they won two WS with Morgan and zero without him. So based on YOUR theories with Trout, tell me again how the lineup made Morgan??
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.
Production wasnt his issue. Staying healthy was
What difference does it make? I mean, even if you assume that Griffey could have performed at a high level if he was healthy, he didn't. It really doesn't matter why Griffey wasn't an effective major leaguer. The point is, he just wasn't.
As I said, Griffey managed to play 991 games during that decade, and was almost completely ineffective in them. I mean, his "great" 2005 season wasn't any better than that of Randy Winn, and his 2007 was 254th in WAR, so Griffey's "great" season was almost as good as Julio Lugo.
For the decade, his batting runs, that is the component of WAR dependent on batting, were 104th. He was just between Lyle Overbay and Vernon Wells. So if you want to go by total offensive production, he simply provided very little value. Using OPS+, with the arbitrary qualification of 1000 PA in the decade, Griffey was 114th, if we want to completely damp out the effects of "only" playing 991 games in the decade, which is between and comparable to Miguel Tejada, a slightly above average shortstop, and Alfonso Soriano, a horrific defensive second baseman.
So my entire argument was that Griffey was a) injured less than @Basebal21 would like us to believe, b) by either a rate or counting basis nothing special offensively, and c) a terrible defensive CF and RF before moving to DH full time. So his defense subtracts all the value his dubious offensive achievements provide, and baserunning doesn't help, either.
Look, I'm not saying that Griffey wasn't a great player, even if not quite as good as his reputation, but my point is that if he had retired after the 2000 season, his career would have looked even better. It seems that the only counterargument to this is the 192 home runs that he added, but it's fewer than the likes of Jorge Posada, or, ironically, Mike Cameron who was traded for him and who was a really good defensive center fielder.
Lets examine Joey Votto's quite valuable ability to draw walks and get on base.
First off, Votto has 639 base on balls with the bases empty. For those that get giddy with George Grett's 1,065 bases empty singles, please understand that those walks and singles have the same value. So look at Votto's walks through a different lens and give him the same credit Brett and Ichiro are getting for their bases empty singles instead of ignoring Votto's walks.
Votto's career batting average is really .356. That is how you need to view Votto, as a lifetime .356 hitter, to truly understand his value.
The second most common time Votto drew his walks was with runners on first. He drew 238 walks with a man on first. Understand that singles only move a runner from first to third about 35-40% of the time. So there are another 100 of his base on balls that have the same value as a single. So his real batting average is getting close to .370.
People try to discount Votto's walks because they say, "he should swing away at bad pitches with runners on etc...because he clogs the bases." First off, it is not true that he clogs the bases. He scores 25% of the time when he reaches base(MLB average is 30%). So right there those people are just flat out wrong.
Second, those prime situations don't come up as often as people think AND in the most opportune times with a base open, Votto is so dang good a hitter that pitchers simply pitch around him. For example for his career with runners on second and third:
Votto only has 165 career plate appearances with runners on second and third when he is suppose to be 'swinging away' chasing those pitches. Of those 167 times he was intentionally walked 44 times....and that was his lowest situation with men on base in terms of his batitng average and OPS. That is the situation where he was pitched around the most. So if someone wants to knock a percentage or two off his career totals, then so be it!
HOWEVER, if you do knock him a little for his percentages with runners on second and third, then you have to accelerate his value for his hitting with first and third and all his other situations where he was a beast.
Bating with runners on 1st and 3rd Votto his .430! .430! .494 OB%. And .807 SLG%.
When @dallasactuary cites Votto's Win Probability it is because of things like hitting .430 with men on first and third why he has such a high WPA, NOT because the stat is bad. It is because Votto has been that good in the most important times.
Votto has come to the plate 146 times in the other scenario where he should be 'chasing bad pitches' according to some. The bases loaded. Good thing Votto didn't listen to those people because he did walk 18 times with the bases loaded, so there are some advancements to score a run right there lol. What did he do in his other 128 times he came to the plate with the bases loaded when he didn't walk?
He hit .336 and slugged .538...both much better than George Brett ...so if you love Brett as a hitter, you love Votto more
When someone sees where the VAST majority of walks are coming(in situations where they have the same value as a single), AND that Votto hit like an absolute beast with men on and Runners in Scoring poistion....the walk detractors are simply completely wrong about their evaluation and judgement on the value of a walk compared to a single(a hit). They are so wrong it isn't even a debate(even though they rarely ever establish a value for the walk, they just make stuff up because it doesn't suit their narrative)
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.
Production wasnt his issue. Staying healthy was
What difference does it make? I mean, even if you assume that Griffey could have performed at a high level if he was healthy, he didn't. It really doesn't matter why Griffey wasn't an effective major leaguer. The point is, he just wasn't.
As I said, Griffey managed to play 991 games during that decade, and was almost completely ineffective in them. I mean, his "great" 2005 season wasn't any better than that of Randy Winn, and his 2007 was 254th in WAR, so Griffey's "great" season was almost as good as Julio Lugo.
For the decade, his batting runs, that is the component of WAR dependent on batting, were 104th. He was just between Lyle Overbay and Vernon Wells. So if you want to go by total offensive production, he simply provided very little value. Using OPS+, with the arbitrary qualification of 1000 PA in the decade, Griffey was 114th, if we want to completely damp out the effects of "only" playing 991 games in the decade, which is between and comparable to Miguel Tejada, a slightly above average shortstop, and Alfonso Soriano, a horrific defensive second baseman.
So my entire argument was that Griffey was a) injured less than @Basebal21 would like us to believe, b) by either a rate or counting basis nothing special offensively, and c) a terrible defensive CF and RF before moving to DH full time. So his defense subtracts all the value his dubious offensive achievements provide, and baserunning doesn't help, either.
Look, I'm not saying that Griffey wasn't a great player, even if not quite as good as his reputation, but my point is that if he had retired after the 2000 season, his career would have looked even better. It seems that the only counterargument to this is the 192 home runs that he added, but it's fewer than the likes of Jorge Posada, or, ironically, Mike Cameron who was traded for him and who was a really good defensive center fielder.
He was an effective player though. No ones arguing that injuries werent an issue but when he was healthy still producing in basically every year. Wells and Overbay were playing full seasons to match or even fall short of what he did despite being younger.
If were using Wells as a comparison 2004 Griffey matched him in 80 games and Wells played 134. Same thing happened in 2005. Overbay had one good year in 2006 and 2010 would be his second best year, He was an average player at best and 80 games of Jr was better than a full season of him.
Tejada was a much better than slightly above average SS who ended up finishing his career on some really bad teams in Baltimore and Houston
He was an effective player though. ... but when he was healthy still producing in basically every year. Wells and Overbay were playing full seasons to match or even fall short of what he did ....
... Griffey matched him in 80 games .... Overbay had one good year in 2006 and 2010 would be his second best year, He was an average player at best and 80 games of Jr was better ....
I would have to concentrate very hard to write this many words and avoid including any content whatsoever; you seem to do it effortlessly. So you've got that going for you, which is nice.
In case you don't understand, you used the words "effective", "producing", "match", "fall short", "matched" (again), "good year", "second best year", "average", and "better" to describe value, but none of those words mean anything in and of themselves. You have to define them, but you are stubborn as a mule in refusing to do so. This thread is absolutely overloaded with actual analysis of Griffey's and Morgan's and Votto's, and others' value. You wave it all away with a flick of your wrist and come back with nothing but undefined words, and not a number to be found.
I bring this up, again, because I fear you are suffering from the delusion that nobody has noticed what you're doing, or rather not doing. We have. We all have. This thread has been a source of some amusement and you've gotten people who know a world more than you do about baseball to play with you. But it won't work forever. If you really do want to have "conversations" like you claimed to want, at some point you are going to need to bring something substantive to the table.
You're welcome.
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.
Production wasnt his issue. Staying healthy was
What difference does it make? I mean, even if you assume that Griffey could have performed at a high level if he was healthy, he didn't. It really doesn't matter why Griffey wasn't an effective major leaguer. The point is, he just wasn't.
As I said, Griffey managed to play 991 games during that decade, and was almost completely ineffective in them. I mean, his "great" 2005 season wasn't any better than that of Randy Winn, and his 2007 was 254th in WAR, so Griffey's "great" season was almost as good as Julio Lugo.
For the decade, his batting runs, that is the component of WAR dependent on batting, were 104th. He was just between Lyle Overbay and Vernon Wells. So if you want to go by total offensive production, he simply provided very little value. Using OPS+, with the arbitrary qualification of 1000 PA in the decade, Griffey was 114th, if we want to completely damp out the effects of "only" playing 991 games in the decade, which is between and comparable to Miguel Tejada, a slightly above average shortstop, and Alfonso Soriano, a horrific defensive second baseman.
So my entire argument was that Griffey was a) injured less than @Basebal21 would like us to believe, b) by either a rate or counting basis nothing special offensively, and c) a terrible defensive CF and RF before moving to DH full time. So his defense subtracts all the value his dubious offensive achievements provide, and baserunning doesn't help, either.
Look, I'm not saying that Griffey wasn't a great player, even if not quite as good as his reputation, but my point is that if he had retired after the 2000 season, his career would have looked even better. It seems that the only counterargument to this is the 192 home runs that he added, but it's fewer than the likes of Jorge Posada, or, ironically, Mike Cameron who was traded for him and who was a really good defensive center fielder.
He was an effective player though. No ones arguing that injuries werent an issue but when he was healthy still producing in basically every year. Wells and Overbay were playing full seasons to match or even fall short of what he did despite being younger.
If were using Wells as a comparison 2004 Griffey matched him in 80 games and Wells played 134. Same thing happened in 2005. Overbay had one good year in 2006 and 2010 would be his second best year, He was an average player at best and 80 games of Jr was better than a full season of him.
Tejada was a much better than slightly above average SS who ended up finishing his career on some really bad teams in Baltimore and Houston
What difference does it make why Griffey wasn't effective? As long as he wasn't on the field he wasn't helping the Reds/White Sox/Mariners. When he was on the field, he wasn't helping much, either.
Not going to do a season by season comparison between Griffey and Wells or Overbay (or anyone else who makes Baines' enshrinement in the HoF look like an amazingly good pick), but I will note that Wells played 1366 games in the decade and Overbay 1138 to Griffey's 991, so yes, it took them more games to generate as much offense as Griffey did (but see previous paragraph), but when you factor in defensive and baserunning factors, both were quite a bit better than Griffey.
My apologies. Tejada was actually a very good shortstop. I was referring to his defensive abilities.
Comments
That is exactly right. I don't know how many people know this, but Morgan had among the highest SB% in history, and pretty much everyone above him was a skinny, slap-hitting singles hitter whose primary skill was running fast as opposed to hitting well. And Morgan stole bases a LOT. Of the people with 600 or more attempts, Morgan's SB% ranks behind only Raines, Wilson, Lopes, and Ichiro, and ahead of Henderson, Coleman, and Ozzie.
Taking into account the true value of a bases-empty walk, a stolen base, and avoiding GIDP, Morgan was every bit as productive as a hitter who didn't steal bases or walk much, but had a batting average north of .400 and a slugging average north of .650. At his peak, you can raise those to .450 and .700. Had Jim Rice batted .375 for his career, and slugged .625, he still wouldn't have been as good (as "productive") as Joe Morgan. I know few people see it, but I don't care that few people see it. Joe Morgan simply was THAT good.
The only close comparison to Morgan as the GOAT at 2B is Hornsby. Hornsby did hit .350 and slug close to .600, and he did walk quite a bit. But his baserunning was terrible, his defense was so-so, and while they didn't keep the stat back then, I suspect he also had a large number of GIDP. I give the nod to Morgan, but I can't say that choosing Hornsby is wrong; they were very close to equals whichever one comes out on top. But I bet that naming Hornsby as a Top 20 player would generate no raised eyebrows at all.
As an aside, Morgan not getting Rookie of the Year was one of the worst award travesties in the history of baseball. And while it would have been hard to deny Carlton the MVP in 1972, Morgan was a legitimate choice (he either did deserve it or was as good or better than the person who won it) for MVP in every year from 1972 through 1977. There is a reason that the Reds were known as the Big Red Machine when Morgan was there, and were known simply as "the Reds" when he wasn't.
And P.S. re your last post, speaking as the biggest fan of Craig Biggio on the planet and considering him one of the Top 50 or so players ever, I do recognize that he wasn't nearly as good as Joe Morgan. Biggio and Griffey were great players; Morgan was an elite player. I've said it in regard to Mike Trout, but the same applies to Morgan: what if you had the chance to watch one of the greatest players in the history of the game and you missed it because you were looking in the wrong places? It's sad, really.
Joe Morgan was very smart, he realized with Foster, Bench, and Perez batting behind him that there was tremendous value in drawing a walk.
George Brett was very smart, he realized with Balboni, White, Motley or whoever batting behind him that there wasn’t much value in drawing a walk.
Gene Tenace was very smart, he realized that as a .230 hitter it would help his team to draw as many walks as possible.
Different players, different situations. Plug Brett into that Red Machine lineup and he gets a lot more picky at what he swings at.
Put Morgan in that Royals lineup and he swings at a lot more pitches because he realizes he is the man.
So to a bigger degree Morgan’s teammates helped enhance his numbers probably a lot more than most players. He was in a perfect situation, yes he took advantage but many players would have done that well batting third in that lineup.
Maybe in part, but one thing all smart players have in common is that they realize that with the bases empty (i.e., most times they come up), a walk is the same as a single. You are addressing RISP at bats where the bases aren't loaded and, oddly, Brett was a lot more likely to walk in those situations (1 per 6.5 PA) than with the bases empty (1 per 14 PA). Tenace walked 1 per every 5 to 6 PA regardless of the situation, as did Morgan.
And we already know what Morgan would do if you put him on a bad team because he came up with the Astros and played with them for several years. And he did more or less the same things in Houston as he did with the Reds, although he had gotten older and much better by the time he got to the Reds. Smart players may adjust how they hit depending on their teammates, but smart players do not start swinging at pitches outside the strike zone no matter what else is going on. I suspect, but there's no way to prove either way, that there is a lot less to the point you're making than you think. Not that there isn't anything at all; just not very much.
The lineup theory is a completely different discussion. and does nothing to discount what the value of a base on balls is.
So right off the bat your unfounded assertions are wrong:
Joe Morgan led the league in walks at age 21 while on Houston so your assertion is wrong with him.
Joe Morgan led the league in walks at age 36 while playing on Houston again so your assertion is wrong again.
In 1981 he was second in the league in walks at age 37. He wasn't on the Reds.
Age 38 was sixth....not on the Reds.
Age 39 was 5th....not on the Reds.
At age 40 his OB% was .356 with the lowly A's. For perspective Don Mattingly had a lifetime .358 OB% and in some strong lineups.
Theory blown. Sorry.
Of course he did have his best years in Cincy as those were his prime years.
You are right, the Reds hitters were stacked. Ask yourself, why would they keep walking Joe Morgan then to put base runners on base for a stacked lineup, especially knowing Morgan ran so well? You said walks don't have much value, but then you see the value of having runners on in front of elite hitters. Which is it?
In 1978 with Cincy Morgan had a 105 OPS+, and then in 1979 he had a 107 OPS+ as he entered his middle 30's. If what you say about the lineup, then how come as he got older and left the Reds and went to different teams and he bettered those OPS+ with the Reds when he was no longer in his prime....
1980 was at 115
1981 was 115
1982 was 136 with SF
1983 was 116
1984 was 104 as a 40 yr old man.
Why do you hold Brett's singles in such high regard then?? He is just getting on base for bad hitters behind him? You do realize more than half the at bats come with nobody on.
Can't have it both ways
If Brett was so 'smart' in your description then he should have been hitting more home runs then
Seems if your theory was correct and hitters can use their 'smartness' to draw walks or hit away or not...then why didn't Brett just hit more Home Runs instead of getting singles and doubles in front of bad hitters? Seems he should have hit more out of the park then...not a very smart choice
So for guys like Brett, his walks don't have value if bad hitters are behind him? How much less value? What if Brett has a .460 Slugging percentage and he is refusing to take a walk for the hitter behind him with a .429 slugging percentage?? How big a difference in run production would that be? Brett's singles lose the same value too if you choose to do that...but how much? Do you really know the difference between a guy who slugs .460 and one sho slugs .420? You are acting as if the .,420 is a nothing. Or a guy who hits .250 instead of .280.
How much different of a value does a walk have if it occurs in front a .280 hitter vs a .250 hitter (with the same power)? You are acting as if the value goes to zero. You are nowhere near close to zero.
In 1984 the lineup spot behind Brett had a .298 AVG and a .422 SLG%, but better than a league average hitter. So you are saying a walk in front of that is of no value? If not of no value, then how much value does it lost from its value compared to a single??
@Darin so then why do you hold George Brett's 1,065 singles with nobody on base in such high regard if you feel getting on base in front of "crappy" hitters is pointless???
Why would Brett's 1,065 singles with nobody on be any better than Morgan's 1,042 base on balls with nobody on base?
I'm sure you are proud seeing Brett in the 3,000 hit club, but those 1,065 singles are meaningless in YOUR words because "Darryl Motley" hit behind him.
Brett should have hit 50 home runs then if he was so smart a hitter and based his hitting on that scenario like you said above. He shouldn't have been up there slapping singles so often like a punch and judy hitter with bad hitters behind. Seems dumb then. Should have been hitting home runs and "doing his run producing job" not just reaching first base for bad hitters.
A third of Brett's hits were basically pointless in your own definition thus making the 3,000 hit club a pointless club in your estimation. So no need to put that up there anymore for one of Brett's achievements.
Your theory is blown again. Sorry.
In the Royals', and Brett's, prime (mid 70's to mid 80's) the Royals tried a lot of people in the 4 spot and seemed to do a pretty good job. Darin didn't mention them, but the batters hitting behind Brett the most were Cowens, McRae, Aikens, Porter, Otis and Mayberry. And they had some pretty good seasons, too; some of them very good. I'm not seeing any reason why Brett would have felt any obligation to be "the man" and swing at bad pitches. At least, it doesn't look like that would have been the smart thing to do.
@Darin FYI Joe Morgan WAS the man with the Reds.
In 1975 Morgan had their teams best batting average. In 1975 he was third with a .508 SLG just behind .518 and .519.
In 1976 Morgan was second with .320 BA. He was by far FIRST with a .576 SLG%
If anything, Morgan was the guy that helped the rest of the lineup.
Add his .466 and .444 OB% to go along with all time base running ability.
How many times have you read on these boards how the disruptive base runners help the other hitters? So does this not apply to Morgan now?
You have it completely wrong. Morgan was THE MAN in that lineup in every way.
Anyway, I'm still wondering why 1,065 bases empty singles with "poor hitters" behind have any value at all...according to YOUR theory. Brett should have been hitting 50 home runs instead of slapping singles in your scenario.
Not to mention the all time hits leader hitting in front of him getting over 200 hits a season. Theres a significant difference between what Morgan did in a monster lineup with Rose leading off and what he did the rest of his career. Morgan was average in Houston, bad his final two years in Cincy and pulled out a last final good season in 82 in SF. He without question greatly benefited from the big red machine line up
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
@Darin
Here is what batted behind Brett. OPS:
1976 .725/.811......league average hitter was .681.
1977 .850/.777/.855. League average was .730
1978 .828/.808. League average was. 702
1979 .903/.753. League average was .727
1980 .766/.785. League average was .714
1981 .834/.657. League average was .689.
1982 .766/.862. League average was .713
1983 .815/.840. League average was .714
1984 .770/646. League average was .708
1985 .701/.673. League average was .714.
Some of those were actually very impressive behind him.
1985 was the only season where Brett had crap hitting behind him and they weren't far from a league average hitter.
Here is what Morgan had behind him with the Reds. Along with Morgan's OPS.
1972 .731/.916....Morgan .851
1973 .706/.804.....Morgan .899
1974 .873/.725....Morgan .921
1975 .846/.817....Morgan .974
1976 .739/.870.....Morgan 1.020
1977 .940/.907.....Morgan .895
1978 .895/.806.....Morgan .733
1979 .901/.829.....Morgan .756.
That wasn't much different than what is behind Brett. Bench was out of his prime by a ton by time Morgan got into his prime. Perez was too. They were still good, but Morgan made them by that time, not the other way around.
And some poster agreed when he brought up Pete Rose. If Pete Rose 'made' Morgan by getting on base, then Morgan MADE the hitters behind him by getting on base even more than Rose and disrupting the pitchers more with his all time elite base running;). Can't have it both ways.
PS then Willie Wilson did the same for George Brett as one of the best MLB base runners in front of him and getting hits lots of hits lol.
Morgan was THE MAN in the lineup when he was in his prime.
Morgan did his worst when they had the most punch behind him.y.
PS George Brett had Willie Wilson as one of the best MLB base runners in front of him to go along with excellent hitting behind him.
I find it funny how anyone with a clue says that Morgan was average in Houston with a 122 OPS+ before the Reds with elite base running. He had not entered his prime yet.
Morgan actually had three season with Houston with a 132 OPS+ then missed a full year with a knee injury.
Anyone who calls those years average really does not have a clue about baseball.
Morgan had his prime years in the middle of his tenure with the Reds and it wasn't because of the lineup.
He hit in the Reds potent lineup in 1978 and 1979 as a 105 and 107 OPS+ hitters. They were his worst years with the Reds and those were the best years with hitters behind him.
THEN he left the potent lineup and had five years better than those two years with the Reds potent lineup...and he was an old man doing it. So much for the lineup making him better. He got better from what he had become when he left the lineup.
Lineup impact has some truth to anyone, but that is small degrees.
Again, we have uniformed people making unvalidated claims about what the lineup did for Morgan and AGAIN it doesn't add up.
For the unsubstantiated go ahead and do that lineup theory with every hitter in the last 80 yrs in MLB and every before/after scenario and see how much water your theory holds. You will be surprised
.
The impact is minimal.
The impact does nothing to downgrade Morgan's lifetime 132 OPS+ and his all time baserunning ability and second base defense to boot.
@Darin they won two WS with Morgan and zero without him. So based on YOUR theories with Trout, tell me again how the lineup made Morgan??
What difference does it make? I mean, even if you assume that Griffey could have performed at a high level if he was healthy, he didn't. It really doesn't matter why Griffey wasn't an effective major leaguer. The point is, he just wasn't.
As I said, Griffey managed to play 991 games during that decade, and was almost completely ineffective in them. I mean, his "great" 2005 season wasn't any better than that of Randy Winn, and his 2007 was 254th in WAR, so Griffey's "great" season was almost as good as Julio Lugo.
For the decade, his batting runs, that is the component of WAR dependent on batting, were 104th. He was just between Lyle Overbay and Vernon Wells. So if you want to go by total offensive production, he simply provided very little value. Using OPS+, with the arbitrary qualification of 1000 PA in the decade, Griffey was 114th, if we want to completely damp out the effects of "only" playing 991 games in the decade, which is between and comparable to Miguel Tejada, a slightly above average shortstop, and Alfonso Soriano, a horrific defensive second baseman.
So my entire argument was that Griffey was a) injured less than @Basebal21 would like us to believe, b) by either a rate or counting basis nothing special offensively, and c) a terrible defensive CF and RF before moving to DH full time. So his defense subtracts all the value his dubious offensive achievements provide, and baserunning doesn't help, either.
Look, I'm not saying that Griffey wasn't a great player, even if not quite as good as his reputation, but my point is that if he had retired after the 2000 season, his career would have looked even better. It seems that the only counterargument to this is the 192 home runs that he added, but it's fewer than the likes of Jorge Posada, or, ironically, Mike Cameron who was traded for him and who was a really good defensive center fielder.
@dallasactuary @craig44
Lets examine Joey Votto's quite valuable ability to draw walks and get on base.
First off, Votto has 639 base on balls with the bases empty. For those that get giddy with George Grett's 1,065 bases empty singles, please understand that those walks and singles have the same value. So look at Votto's walks through a different lens and give him the same credit Brett and Ichiro are getting for their bases empty singles instead of ignoring Votto's walks.
Votto's career batting average is really .356. That is how you need to view Votto, as a lifetime .356 hitter, to truly understand his value.
The second most common time Votto drew his walks was with runners on first. He drew 238 walks with a man on first. Understand that singles only move a runner from first to third about 35-40% of the time. So there are another 100 of his base on balls that have the same value as a single. So his real batting average is getting close to .370.
People try to discount Votto's walks because they say, "he should swing away at bad pitches with runners on etc...because he clogs the bases." First off, it is not true that he clogs the bases. He scores 25% of the time when he reaches base(MLB average is 30%). So right there those people are just flat out wrong.
Second, those prime situations don't come up as often as people think AND in the most opportune times with a base open, Votto is so dang good a hitter that pitchers simply pitch around him. For example for his career with runners on second and third:
Votto only has 165 career plate appearances with runners on second and third when he is suppose to be 'swinging away' chasing those pitches. Of those 167 times he was intentionally walked 44 times....and that was his lowest situation with men on base in terms of his batitng average and OPS. That is the situation where he was pitched around the most. So if someone wants to knock a percentage or two off his career totals, then so be it!
HOWEVER, if you do knock him a little for his percentages with runners on second and third, then you have to accelerate his value for his hitting with first and third and all his other situations where he was a beast.
Bating with runners on 1st and 3rd Votto his .430! .430! .494 OB%. And .807 SLG%.
When @dallasactuary cites Votto's Win Probability it is because of things like hitting .430 with men on first and third why he has such a high WPA, NOT because the stat is bad. It is because Votto has been that good in the most important times.
Votto has come to the plate 146 times in the other scenario where he should be 'chasing bad pitches' according to some. The bases loaded. Good thing Votto didn't listen to those people because he did walk 18 times with the bases loaded, so there are some advancements to score a run right there lol. What did he do in his other 128 times he came to the plate with the bases loaded when he didn't walk?
He hit .336 and slugged .538...both much better than George Brett
...so if you love Brett as a hitter, you love Votto more 
When someone sees where the VAST majority of walks are coming(in situations where they have the same value as a single), AND that Votto hit like an absolute beast with men on and Runners in Scoring poistion....the walk detractors are simply completely wrong about their evaluation and judgement on the value of a walk compared to a single(a hit). They are so wrong it isn't even a debate(even though they rarely ever establish a value for the walk, they just make stuff up because it doesn't suit their narrative)
He was an effective player though. No ones arguing that injuries werent an issue but when he was healthy still producing in basically every year. Wells and Overbay were playing full seasons to match or even fall short of what he did despite being younger.
If were using Wells as a comparison 2004 Griffey matched him in 80 games and Wells played 134. Same thing happened in 2005. Overbay had one good year in 2006 and 2010 would be his second best year, He was an average player at best and 80 games of Jr was better than a full season of him.
Tejada was a much better than slightly above average SS who ended up finishing his career on some really bad teams in Baltimore and Houston
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I would have to concentrate very hard to write this many words and avoid including any content whatsoever; you seem to do it effortlessly. So you've got that going for you, which is nice.
In case you don't understand, you used the words "effective", "producing", "match", "fall short", "matched" (again), "good year", "second best year", "average", and "better" to describe value, but none of those words mean anything in and of themselves. You have to define them, but you are stubborn as a mule in refusing to do so. This thread is absolutely overloaded with actual analysis of Griffey's and Morgan's and Votto's, and others' value. You wave it all away with a flick of your wrist and come back with nothing but undefined words, and not a number to be found.
I bring this up, again, because I fear you are suffering from the delusion that nobody has noticed what you're doing, or rather not doing. We have. We all have. This thread has been a source of some amusement and you've gotten people who know a world more than you do about baseball to play with you. But it won't work forever. If you really do want to have "conversations" like you claimed to want, at some point you are going to need to bring something substantive to the table.
You're welcome.
^^We have a winner!^^
I just cant believe this thread has elicited over 100 replies. Crazy.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What difference does it make why Griffey wasn't effective? As long as he wasn't on the field he wasn't helping the Reds/White Sox/Mariners. When he was on the field, he wasn't helping much, either.
Not going to do a season by season comparison between Griffey and Wells or Overbay (or anyone else who makes Baines' enshrinement in the HoF look like an amazingly good pick), but I will note that Wells played 1366 games in the decade and Overbay 1138 to Griffey's 991, so yes, it took them more games to generate as much offense as Griffey did (but see previous paragraph), but when you factor in defensive and baserunning factors, both were quite a bit better than Griffey.
My apologies. Tejada was actually a very good shortstop. I was referring to his defensive abilities.