Who was better Reggie Jackson or Tony Gwynn"
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Discuss
0
Comments
If I was building a team I'd take Reggie just because I'm a HR guy
That's a great comparison; two players who were seemingly nothing alike, but who were nearly equal in value.
Bill James rates Gwynn 6th in RF, with Reggie right behind in 7th. I think James is more or less right on target with those rankings, but I'd flip them and put Reggie at 6 and Gwynn at 7. Each of these guys has their advantages over the other, so it really comes down to tie-breaker kind of stuff. If either one of them had been a good fielder, for example, that would have been decisive. For me, it comes down to Jackson lasting longer than Gwynn, and his WS heroics. At their primes, and on average over the course of their careers, they were essentially tied.
very very close for these two.
now there is no way to measure it, but anecdotally, I have always heard Gwynn was a great clubhouse/team guy, reggie not so much. should that figure in?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Tony Gwynn .338 AVG Reggie Jackson .262 AVG
I would take Gwynn with the much better AVG. which I think helps a team more. Reggie was very exciting always expecting a home run.
On my end of things since I said Reggie for the Slugger part of it I'd go with Gwynn instead if Reggie was a Diva before Divas were a thing, I cannot stand guys that ruin the brotherhood of the Clubhouse
For a guy who supposedly was bad for the clubhouse, Reggie's teams sure seemed to win an awful lot of games, win championships while he was there, and then fall apart after he left.
Oakland in the late 60's/early 70's was the hardest hitter's park in baseball; worse than the Astrodome. Had Reggie played anywhere other than where and when he played he'd have hit close to .300, hit more than 600 HR, and it would be a lot easier to see how great he was.
Easy answer is take Reggie in October and Gwynn April through September.
There is no wrong answer here.
Both are equal and I’d take Gwynn.
Munson hated Reggie and so did Martin.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
😊
There ya go Joe!
Mets made a huge mistake!
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
This must be about the biggest two different types of players that could be compared.
Usually, I vote for the slugger over the high batting average guy, but here I'll take Gwynn.
Tony destroys Reggie in batting average but is surprisingly close in SLG.
Obviously, Tony the far superior player defensively and better base runner.
Reggie was difficult to get along with, Tony doesn't seem to have any problems there.
Championships mean little here, Reggie played on better teams. The A's won the WS with Reggie hurt in 1972.
On the park factor subject, Reggie had tremendous power, so the Oakland doesn't effect him as much as the "average" player.
Finally, I see no relevance to posting Reggie's race allegations here.
Well, if Gwynn was close to as good defensively as Jackson, you can't prove it by me, but I know we disagree greatly when it comes to outfield defense.
With two players who played in different eras in different leagues, you'll have to do a lot better than that to convince that Gwynn was a better hitter.
I think i agree with Dallas on this one. Reggie slightly over gwynn. Reggie won a regular season MVP. He was also really good in the playoffs and especially the WS. 2 WS MVP.
while gwynn obviously had a much higher BA, Reggie wasnt all that far behind when it came to OBP.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
>
First of all, I hate comparing sluggers to high average hitters.
In this case, let's skip fielding.
I was surprised that Gwynn had a .459 SLG to go with a stellar BA of .338.
Reggie's BA was 76 points lower but his SLG was only 31 points higher.
Gwynn was more dominating in his type of hitting with 8 batting titles, Reggie led in SLG 3 times.
Reggie also struck out more than any other player in MLB history, Gwynn was almost impossible to strike out.
Tony was a better baserunner.
Tony ranks higher as a batting average guy than Reggie does as a slugger.
Diva possibly. I think it is more that they had clubhouses full of strong personalities, including Yankee management. Reggie certainly did not lack any outward confidence though
Polar opposites on their routes to basically being tied.
Another aspect is the stark difference in era's, more so only part of Gwynn's career that was in the live ball/steroid era.
Since they are basically tied I would say a slight edge to Reggie considering Gwynn's strange uptick in the live ball/steroid era).
I would say Reggie has a better peak too and that is more appealing than simply 'not growing old fast in the live ball era' that puts Gwynn on par to begin with.
Since it is close, in a real world scenario, I would also consider with Reggie the marketing aspect...as he was a bigger drawing card. It would make my team more money and could buy more players.
It's the interconnectedness of these two that is the key. Gwynn's peak appears to be better than Jackson's, but that is because, and only because, of the difference in eras. What Jackson did in 1969 - in Oakland! - was the best season either Jackson or Gwynn ever had. But if you're not focusing on the era (and ballpark), you won't see that.
As for the comments on fielding, I do think Jackson was better. But neither one them was particularly good, so since we're talking about right fielders I think fielding can just be ignored. And yes, I know that Gwynn won several Gold Gloves. Don't be fooled by those. I've heard Joe Rudi described as a great fielder and he, too, won several Gold Gloves (LOL). But when the A's needed someone to step in to CF they moved Jackson there, not Rudi, because Jackson was a better fielder than Rudi.
As for the comments on baserunning, I also think Jackson was better there, too. He wasn't particularly fast, and not as fast as Gwynn, but he was smart and it made him a very good baserunner. But here again, the difference isn't large enough to have much impact of the comparison; I'd throw it in the "tie-breaker stuff" category.
Very tough question... And without a clear cut answer. I suspect it might boil down to the team chemistry in terms of which player adds the most value.
My recollection of Jackson is that he had an incredible arm- something that should get some consideration with close comparisons
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Pretty much all right fielders have good arms, that's why they're in right field.
The general (nearly universal) rule:
of your three starting outfielders,
the best overall plays CF,
of the remaining two, the one with the best arm plays RF,
the remaining one plays LF.
When a Gold Glove goes to a RF or, God forbid, a LF it's nearly always a mistake. But, if a great OF is stuck in RF behind an even better CF, it could be OK. BUT, if a RF wins a Gold Glove and the CF on the same team didn't, it was a mistake. (Barring mid-season trades, injuries or other unusual circumstances).
The negative impact of strikeouts is underweighted. Tony puts the ball in play and I take him over Reggie everyday
The negative impact of strikeouts is the single most overweighted factor in all of baseball.
You're looking at Jackson and Gwynn and seeing a 2,163 difference in strikeouts. And wow, that's a huge difference.
But 1,382 of Jackson K's happened with the bases empty; for Gwynn it was 257. Obviously, it makes no difference how an out is made if there is nobody on base.
And 527 of Jackson's K's happened with runners on base, but with 2 outs; for Gwynn it was 55. Obviously, again, it makes no difference how an out is made in this situation.
That 2,163 difference once we eliminate the K's that don't matter is now a difference of 566. Take into account Gwynn's 76 extra GIDP and it's even smaller than that.
Gwynn put the ball in play more than Jackson and he got a lot more hits, and a higher batting average, as a result. And we're already giving him full credit for that. To go back and penalize Jackson for striking out more is double-counting. The strikeouts do matter, but your comparison of Jackson and Gwynn will be much better if you ignore them than if you think they matter much.
^unless you consider a "better hitter" someone who actually hits the ball when he swings at it?
I don't, for blindingly obvious reasons. But, be my guest, make a list of the greatest "hitters" that includes Bill Buckner but not Mike Schmidt and everyone can enjoy the joke. Hell, Dave Kingman was a considerably better hitter than Buckner.
If you are comparing two players and spending any time evaluating how they made their outs you should stop. Even on the list of "tiebreaker stuff", it's way, way, way down there.
Speaking of outs made, how many did each of these guys make?
Outs Made: Jackson - 7659, Gwynn - 6661
Runs Created: Jackson - 1771, Gwyn - 1636
Runs Created per 27 Outs: Jackson 6.2, Gwynn 6.6
Adjusted for Park/Era: Jackson 6.74, Gwynn 6.73
All of this stuff - strikeouts, outs made, etc. - is already in there, and the result is a virtual tie.
I broke the tie using WS heroics and length of career, each of which is only useful in virtual ties. Anyone breaking the tie in Gwynn's favor using other things isn't wrong, unless they're breaking the tie using things that were already considered in creating the tie in the first place. Everything that happened while Jackson and Gwynn were at the plate is already in there and the result is a tie. Look elsewhere to break the tie.
I'll say it's a tie.
If your looking for a slugger, Reggie, a table setter, Tony.
Can't lose either way.
Back when he was playing I never thought Reggie was a HOFer. The club was much more exclusive. Now in the Hall of Very Good he belongs.
Gwyn was great everyday.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
The only two teams who would want Reggie are the ones in the WS.
Every other team would choose Tony.
Head meets nail. That breakdown is right on the button and breaks it down to reality instead of assumptions. It really is just common sense when one takes a step back and looks at it like it is broken down here.
Same with base on balls and singles, the other misconception many baseball fans have.
For Tony Gwynn's career, he had 1,334 singles(Hits. Hitting the ball) with the bases empty. Why are those more valuable as a 'hitter' than if those were base on balls? They are not, yet when a player gets many base on balls they are considered not as good a hitter as their OB% shows because they are not striking the ball in that instance, which is the most common instance.
It is true that overall a single is worth more than a base on balls. A base on balls has about 2/3 the value of a single overall. Since most of them occur with nobody on base, that makes the majority equal. The situations that don't occur as much is what changes the value to a 2/3 overall value. All of that is already measured.
OPS measures it too. In OPS a single is counted twice whereas a base on balls is only counted once. So really OPS is undervaluing players who have more base on balls(not the other way around).
I know @dallasactuary knows all this...I am just quoting his quote because it is was so good.
Why? If one isn't going to value base on balls or discount the advanced measurements, then why not simply use the actual amount of runs each player platted or scored? Keep in mind, Gwynn's singles 'could' lead to a run, while Reggie's HR 'will' lead to a run(s).
If one were to just dismiss OPS or OPS+ based on fallacies and only want to look at what is perceived to be 'real' runs, then why not just go right to the real runs each plated or scored?
Reggie drove in 1,702 runs and scored 1,551. Minus his HR(which is double counted in Run scored and RBI) = 2,690 runs created.
Gwynn drove in 1,138 runs and scored 1,383. Minus his HR =2,386 runs created.
So using the most old school of the old school "real" runs created, Reggie beat him 2,690 to 2,386.
Which means that many of those singles that Gwynn hit did nothing for his team in terms of run production...which is the same BS reason we often hear about base on balls.
Whereas Reggie's HR always lead to some amount of runs scored.
When one considers that a good portion of Gwynn's career occurred during the live ball steroid era(where Gwynn was actually at his 'best'), it makes Reggie's lead even more impressive.
Now of course lineups play a role in all of that, but if discounting the better measurements, then one can't bring lineups into the equation, because the better measurements are designed to actually do that, to reduce the lineup factor and make a comparison more equal. So by bringing lineups up, then you are actually on the path toward the better measures...but then don't stop there. Keep going with objectiveness.
I am so sorry this happened to you. When baseball fans completely miss the entire career of one of the greatest players ever it just makes me sad. While there were a few (very, very few) better players who overlapped at the beginning and end, over the length of his career, Jackson was the best player in the AL by a mile and a half. And it's not like Jackson shied away from publicity, or played for bad teams, so I don't understand how anyone could have missed him.
1400 strike outs and a career.262 hitter. Yeah I sure missed those HOF career #’s.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Reggie presents a conundrum for many baseball fans. It is easy to see that many fans put a very high emphasis on batting average and 'not' striking out, while most of those same fans put an extraordinary emphasis on 'winning' and 'post season performance' to judge an individual player.
Forget for a moment all the objective evidence that eviscerates each of those arguments.
What Reggie presents is a dilemma for those fans, which is also woven inside the case of Reggie Vs Gwynn itself.
Reggie struck out a ton and his batting average was not high....but he won more World Series than most and his World Series heroics are well written about.
So for the fans that value winning, post season performance, batting average, and putting the ball in play....by their own theories, Reggie has to be considered one of the absolute greatest players ever by virtue of his Five World Series rings and legendary World Series performances, despite striking out more than any player in MLB history.
Which, by their own theories, means those strikeouts and lower batting average are not as detrimental as they believe if Reggie can win five World Series.
Mike Schmidt struck out 1,900 times and was a career .267 hitter. If you tell me that you missed his career, too, I will just weep.
I will repeat: if you are including HOW a player made his outs in your evaluation of that player, well, you should just stop trying to evaluate players at all.
As a corollary, if you are basing your evaluation of a player on his batting average, and not his OBP and slugging, then, well, you should just stop trying to evaluate players at all.
@dallasactuary Is this a good time to ask the question again? Why do Tony Gwynn's 1,344 singles with nobody on base get included into his 'batting average' to raise it to .338, and then also get him all this recognition by virtue of putting Gwynn into the 3,000 hit club....
but...
Joe Morgan's 1,052 base on balls with the bases are completely removed from his 'batting average' and get no recognition, when a single and a base on balls have the exact same value when they occur with nobody on base?
This is common sense and needs to be added in, so it does....
When treating those base on balls for Morgan the same way Gwynn's bases empty singles, that raises Morgan's career 'hit' total to 3,569 and his career 'batting average to .345.
Instead, fans only see .271 batting average for Morgan and .338 for Gwynn and then assume Gwynn was a much better hitter.
Of course, some singles do have more value than base on balls(with men in scoring position), so those value differences are added in (among other key things). Gwynn also has bases empty walks too, so that can't be ignored and wont. That is common sense and all needs to be added in, so it does:
Gwynn 132 OPS+
Morgan 132 OPS+
However, how well you hit with men on base and your base running are important to scoring runs and winning. That is common sense and needs to be added in. So it does:
When you add all those with men on base environment(clutch hitting), BUT also include Morgan's vastly superior baserunning over Gwynn, then you get:
Gwynn 538 Runs created above average
Morgan 694 Runs created above average
Morgan is a superior offense player than Gwynn and by a lot....yet it is Gwynn that gets all the memes and people making ridiculous claims based on his batting average and his ability to ground out to second base so frequently.
What is not a 'common' in sense is Morgan's defensive value at second base compared to Gwynn. I am the first to say that it is nearly impossible to hammer that value done to the preciseness of the offensive measurements, but again, common sense days say that playing second base is much harder than playing RF, and Morgan's value, while not sure of the amount, widens that gap between him and GWynn by even more.
It's all just fun and games when we're talking about Reggie Jackson, but if there exists a baseball fan who believes Tony Gwynn was better than Joe Morgan I hope they never post here. I'm old and my heart couldn't take it.
one of the better posts I've read in a while
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Since I believe they were about equal as hitters (Gwynn better in 4 of the 5 "tools" BTW)
Jackson, if I had a great team and need a slugger.
Gwynn the other 90% of the time.
They are basically a tie so not far off either way.
However, if looking at Gwynn being a partial product of the live ball/steroid era, then you take Reggie in the eras before or after the steroid era, because Gwynn in that era was not as good at all, and not a tie. Gwynn needed the live ball or steroids to up his production.
First of all, there's no evidence of either player using steroids, secondly, any evidence of park factor or live ball is not as relevant to great hitters as it is to average and below average ones.
An average (or below) hitter, is/was going to have trouble hitting in Oakland. It didn't effect Jackson, because (when he made contact) he hit the ball so far. His numbers were better at home than away. Forget park factor here.
"Live ball" era for Gwynn, since Tony didn't really hit home runs, it didn't really help him that much, a few more doubles....maybe.
It's difficult (foolish?) to compare to completely different players.
Tony Gwynn's production in Run Expectancy increased 49% in the live ball era(1994-) when he was aged 34-41, compared to what he did previous to that 1993-1982.
The live ball/steroids helps the better hitters than it does the lesser hitters.
Something certainly helped Gwynn when he was an old man
Not terribly difficult at all.
I will take Tony Gwynn over Reggie Jackson.
I still don't buy the argument that a walk is as good as a hit, even with no one on base. If you've played baseball or even softball, you will realize that a single is better than a walk. It can be contagious and gets the entire team engaged and excited.
Morgan was very good from 65 to 77 and then his numbers tailed off. I think he's overrated (as I do with Lynn Swawn -
.
Erik
Played both circuits...and you are right a walk isn't as good as a hit. Overall it has about 2/3 the value.
The nobody on base you are incorrect. It isn't a matter of what one feels and certainly doesn't matter what happens in softball or not at the MLB level. Someone can say, "I feel a walk puts pressure on a pitcher and it gets in his head blah blah blah so therefore a walk is more valuable than a single." That would be wrong too. Though a walk does lead to more pitches thrown etc.
None of that matters above.
The millions of MLB play by play data disagrees with you, as the actual runs scored after a walk and single with nobody on base are the same.
Morgan's numbers were very good for most years from 1965 to 1984. But his numbers from 1972 to 1977 were not "very good", they were phenomenal. He was the best player in baseball for that stretch by a margin over #2 (Carew) that is Ruthian in its magnitude. You won't see it if you think his walks weren't 2/3 as valuable as a single, and you won't see it if you ignore his 359 stolen bases at an 83% clip, but once you see everything Morgan's greatness is obvious.
Aside from the fact pitchers hate giving up hits more, hits prove you can actually hit, and the momentum, a hit is better than a walk for the simple fact you can get a single with an error and up up on 2nd on even an in the park homerun. Same goes for putting the ball in play vs strikeouts. The guy with 200 hits vs 200 walks will very likely have more total bases as will the guy with 200 balls in play over 200 strikeouts. You obviously take the walk if thats whats given to you, but a hit is better
Dropped third strikes and beating it out are extremely rare. Even with the league pressuring scorekeepers for a decade to be more hesitant to give out errors and call more things hits there still is an error in the majority of games. The whole narrative that strikeouts dont matter is based of the computers that say youre only going to get x number of hits off of the pitching so make them count. Swing for power everytime instead of focusing on contact with 2 strikes which is what happened in the past.
Power is what gets players promoted and gets them paid in arbitration. If they say I only struck out 35 times last year its meaningless and not part of what arbitrators rule on, if they say they had 35 homeruns theyre going to get a nice raise. The players and baseball people all know this which is why they take the approaches they do.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
What a load of nonsense! Of course a hit is better than a walk and of course a ball in play is better than a strikeout (unless it results in a double play), but that's all covered in even the most rudimentary stats. But we're not looking at spec, but on actual results. A guy who has 200 more hits compared to a guy who has 200 more walks will, all else being equal, have contributed more to his team, but it's not all equal. I mean when guy number one hits the ball (with the bases empty) and you could guarantee that he'll reach first base safely, you'd prefer him, but if you know that he'll only reach first, there is no reason to prefer him to the guy who walks.
Similarly, if we know that the guy who puts the ball in play will make an out without advancing any runners, there is no reason to prefer him to the guy who strikes out.
And we do know what happened on every play, so your hypotheticals have no value.
And I don't understand your last paragraph. You seem to be arguing against the above, saying strikeouts don't matter where above you said they were far worse than outs on balls in play.
For context and completeness since a player on a higher level than Jackson or Gwynn got dragged into this thread, the stats for Joe Morgan:
Outs made: 7,174
Runs created: 1,804
Runs created per 27 outs: 6.79
Adjusted for park/era: 7.30 (Jackson 6.74, Gwynn 6.73)
Joe Morgan was a considerably greater offensive force than either Jackson or Gwynn, and he did it playing second base well as opposed to taking up space in the outfield. It pains me when anyone who follows baseball can't recognize that Joe Morgan was one of the greatest players in the history of the game. If you are one of those people (and I know many of you aren't, so you can just ignore this), please keep looking until you can see it. Once you can, it will open up a whole new world for you.
On the topic of walks, Bill James wondered what would have happened if pitchers had walked Babe Ruth every time he came up. So he ran a simulation (two actually, one where they pitched to him and the other where they walked him). And he didn't use Murderers' Row as Ruth's team, he put together a patchwork team of players somewhere between replacement level and average; a team that would have come in last in the AL most years and never been in contention for a pennant. The result was that walking Ruth led to FAR more runs than pitching to him. And that's Babe Ruth; for a lesser hitter the value of a walk as opposed to an average at bat is even greater.
Morgan runs produced (R+RBI-HR) was 627.
Buckner runs produced (R=RBI-HR) was > @dallasactuary said:
Yes. Same with Bonds when he was on the juice, though he got close to the tipping point.
I tried taking the 'anti-walk' stance as an exercise of fun for myself by arguing the 'meathead' point of view, and @dallasactuary I even tested your patience a few times on it. You shined bright, no worries.
In the end, after turning over every stone, there is no getting around it. A walk is 2/3 the value of a single and they are of equal value with nobody on base.
The crazy thing is how walks are completely ignored in evaluations by many people...yet those same evaluations include the 1,300+ bases empty singles from Gwynn etc...and those are the exact same value walks.
Even crazier is some say "walks only matter for guys who can run and when there are good hitters behind them who can drive them in," and then those people STILL ignore MORGAN's walks, lmao.
In the end, any evaluation the eliminates walks from the run value is completely worthless. Any evaluation that gives something drastically worse than 2/3 the value of a single is just incorrect. There are tiny variances in lineup spots for walks(for all the other events too) but those are tiny.
Fellas, remember, you may not like walks(because not macho enough) or sabermetrics(because you call them nerd stats), but a huge nerd invented your favorite stat, the RBI. Yes, the kid on the Tuba invented your favorite stat.
And while arguing that, I went to the field and still hit a few baseball over the fence, and then threw a bunch of weights around, enjoyed the company of a pretty lady yada yada yada, so one doesn't have to be 'nerd' in that sense to see the accuracy in the nerd stats. The nerd stats are just more accurate.
We are all nerds anyway collecting baseball cards...and proud of it.
PS, I say meathead in an endearing way and it is fun tapping into that side of our personalities.
My last paragraph has nothing to do with whether they matter or not, its whether teams or players care about them. The money and what teams emphasize for promotion is why players dont care about them anymore.
As far as walks vs hits and strikeouts vs balls in play, if youre starting with the notion that we know it will only be one base or an out thats already a flawed assumption or youre just ignoring plays. Errors happen in the majority of games. Thats just with the bases empty and not even counting guys on base that would get moved over. Throwing errors happen, singles turn into a guy on 2nd or 3rd or a HR counted as a single and an error, balls in play turn into a guy on first or second if not more on a fielding error or throwing error.
Theres been over 2000 errors committed this season, that means that over 2000 times someone got on base or got an extra base from a ball in play. Its not the most significant thing, but yes hits and balls in play are not equal to strikeouts and walks
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I mean you could bunt to the pitcher every time to put the ball in play because the pitcher "Could" throw the ball into right field.
Or Ted Williams could swing at a pitch eight inches outside the zone because you can only hit the ball if you swing and it COULD result in a single...and just ignore that 90% of the time it will result in a tap out. Or you could let that pitch go and either take the BB or swing at the pitch you can hit hard somewhere for a greater chance at hitting a ball for extra bases.
The reality is, if a player has hit balls into play, those are accounted for and valued accordingly. If a player has drawn a base on balls those are accounted for and valued accordingly.
There is no need "Could" unless a man stood there and never swung the bat a single time or if a man bunted every single time.
Gwynn hit X amount of tap outs to second base where the player COULD have thrown the ball into the dugout...but the 2B didn't. On the ones he did, great tick that up a hair(but don't forget that player who hits the ball harder tend to get more errors from fielders percentage wise).
For the amount of times GWYNN put the ball in play he Reached On Error 139 times.
For the amount of times Reggie FAILED to put the ball in play he still reached on error 122 times.
We don't have to guess on COULD. WE know what they did.
And these are the two most extreme guys for contact and K.
But, don't forget that Gwynn also rolled into 259 DP
Reggie rolled into 183 DP
As for Morgan whom I know @Basebal21 doesn't value properly, he ROE 123 times and only hit into 125 double plays, rendering GWynn's extra contact as a negative aspect compared to Morgan's exceptional on base and running ability and making less outs.
That is why Morgan was vastly superior to Gwynn offensively in creating runs and winning. Add the defense and there is no comparison.
Theres only 3 ways to get on base without putting a ball in play. You get walked, hit by a pitch, or a third strike hits the ground. Theres almost no chance that Reggie struck out 122 times and reached first base safely on a strikeout that hit the dirt. If that is actually true which I highly doubt then the the Vietnam draft impacted the level of talent much more than I think and the 60s and 70s were just very bad decades of baseball
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007