We need to recognize these guys for their rare skill not bash them for 'not doing it right'
1948_Swell_Robinson
Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭✭✭
I guess I am tired of hearing people lament how things were better back in the day, or how some humans rip other people because they do something different than what THEY were used to doing, and then go on to demean them for 'not doing it right'. This could be in every day life, but this post is related to sports(baseball here).
In another thread I had a long exchange in regard to Joey Gallo and Gallo was getting ripped, and it was being said that he should have been playing softball instead of MLB baseball. Not to knock softball as I did a stint in the beer leagues, but that type of thinking is meant as a dig and it is common...and baseball fans and former players may be the most guilty people in society who just can't get past that the way they grew up on things on doesn't mean it was the right way and it certainly isn't the only effective way. It was just the way they were used to.
So I am going shine some light on Gallo and others who don't get credit for being able to do something at an elite level that 99.9 percent of other humans cannot do...even many humans within their respective game.
Joey Gallo, despite having a career batting average of .197 with a mountain of strikeouts, was a deserved MLB player who could do things that almost no other human could, and provide a positive value to a MLB team.
People focus on or misappropriate the negative value of a low batting average or the act of striking out. What they then do is use the small truths that are negatives within those things, but then they use those small truths to wipe away the large positive truths within that players' resume to support their conclusion that the player doesn't belong. This is bias narrative building.
Take Gallo for instance. Immediately and instantly, just seeing that he averaged 37 home runs per 162 games should automatically show ANYONE that he had a very in demand skill useful for a major league baseball team. Seeing his walk rate is another.
There is not a softball player in the beer leagues right now that can walk into MLB and hit home runs at a rate of 37 per 162. So right away, "he doesn't belong" here is wrong.
For his career Gallo has a 108 OPS+ and for most fans that makes them understand that despite Gallo's shortcomings that he has been a slightly above averaged MLB hitter for his career. 100 OPS+ is league average.
Others refuse to acknowledge the 108 OPS+ because it does not jive with their bias or their bias induced ignorance on its validity.
So if we speak on the same wavelength of the people that do not recognize OPS+ we get the following.........
For his career, Gallo averaged 80 RBI per162 games. All stubborn old school fans love RBI as a key benchmark
As a comparison, the guy that 'did it right' according to the bias was Bill Buckner. Buckner never struck out and he hit for a high average...the complete opposite of Gallo.
Bill Buckner, only drove in 64 RBI per 162 games in his prime age 23-32 seasons. I used only his prime years since Gallo has only played his prime years.
So if Gallo drove in 80 per162 and Buckner only 64 per 162, then something has to give, because if their notion that you had to make contact and hit for average to be effective, then Buckner should not be that far below than Gallo since Buckner did those things WAY better than Gallo.
Granted, getting on base is being ignored here, but if you do runs scored in that comparison the results are the same.
Of course Buckner had a 105 OPS+ in that span, so we already know that Gallo's hitting rate was superior that way too. But since Buckner played more games per year his total value ends up a little higher.
So why does Gallo belong on a softball team but not Buckner? Maybe Buckner should have been on a wiffle ball team if that is the case? They both belonged in MLB so end it there.
So people are mad because Gallo got his RBI quickly by hitting a home run, while Buckner had to get his with the help of two guys getting on before he hit a single?
Or are they mad because Gallo didn't hit .280 while hitting 40 Home Runs as if he could just decide to do that(which would make him a superstar).
Either way you slice it, Gallo got his RBI more effectively than Buckner. Doesn't matter the route.
Some might say, "Gallo had only three 80+ RBI years in his career." That is true, but it is also ignoring that he got hurt in what was being his best season and he had 49 RBI in 70 games, and that in some of his seasons he didn't have a lot of runners on base.
Funny thing is, Tony Gwynn in his career and all his contact and batting average exploits only had two 80+ RBI seasons and he averaged 76 RBI per 162 games. Gwynn was great at the getting on base portion and that is why he is a HOFer and Gallo not.....but Gallo shows that he belongs when he has more RBI per 162 than the great Gwynn who never struck out. If you look only at Gwynn's pre live ball prime years it is the same results(with even less RBI)
So maybe instead of allowing one's bias and senses to obscure ALL the facts and data, lets realize that guys like Gallo earned their way to MLB and did more than hold their own. They did stuff 99% of humans could only imagine doing.
They did things that 90% of former college players could only imagine doing 
Gallo could be a softball player any year now...but his MLB career has not been as one, despite his low average and high strikeout rate because he got on base well, ran well, and had ultra elite power. That is why he was employed.
Dave Kingman, Rob Deer, Pete Incaviglia...I tip my hat to you guys tonight. I bet for your life you have heard many digs thrown your way. Digs that were either from bias or misinformation. You guys all belonged where you made it and were better than most understand...even some of your former colleagues who couldn't get past the 'thats not the way I was taught' mentality who got to the same place a different way, but maybe not even as effective.
Comments
Interesting post and thread for that matter. I think you dug pretty deep for whatever reason but it was a well written post that has a lot of value.
I respect the hell out of you for your knowledge and your well written posts so don't take this the wrong way because I don't de value what any ball player does because they are getting paid millions for having whatever it takes to make them a part of a pro sports team but you have to remember that they are on a platform that gets viewed by millions of fans and right wrong or indifferent we all have our opinions, whether it's justified or not we are entitled to them and it comes with the territory for these guys.
Gallo is going to be just fine no matter how many fans call him out.
🍻
One thing about Dave Kingman, when watching a game on TV, nobody ever got up for a break when he was at bat.
Dead pull one trick pony HR hitter isnt a rare skill.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
There is a perfect example of a bias narrative. Or misinformation ignorance.
You are only showing the fact that a player was a dead pull hitter and leaving out the most important fact that he was pulling the ball off of MLB pitching and hitting it over the fence at a rate that very few men in history have done.
So you are showing on the surface what 'might' be a small negative that he is only a pull hitter and trying to use the possible small negative to wipe away the monumental positive of having elite 37 HR per 162 game power as a result of being a dead pull hitter.
Also, Ted Williams was also a dead pull hitter as were many other successful hitters....so being a dead pull hitter isn't really a negative in of itself. It only would be if all it resulted in was pulling the ball for the sake of pulling it and resulting in only ground ball outs(which I know is your favoirite event).
You are also leaving out the fact that the players On Base percentage was higher than Bill Buckner's.
Why are you so mad that he did better than what you were taught to do? Since it is your 'right way' doesn't mean it is the best or most effective way.
You tell me.
How rare is it for a human to have hit 198 home runs in MLB?
How rare is it for a human to have hit home runs at a rate of 37 per 162 games in MLB?
How rare is it for a human to have averaged more RBI per game than Tony Gwynn AND have more 80+ RBI seasons than Gwynn?
How rare is it for a human to have hit 198 home runs while maintaining a .320 on base percentage?
Yup. While watching live too. Fans stopped walking in the aisle.
But according to @Basebal21 , hitting 442 HR and driving in 1,200 runs iin MLB sn't hard for humans to do. They prefer to have guys with the number one goal of not striking out, then hit to all fields with composite bats in college...then end your baseball career while watching another player hit 198 home runs in MLB.
Kyle Schwaber same type significantly better, Joc Pederson same type significantly better in limited playing time, Adam Dunn same type not even a debate who was better. Gary Sanchez, Dan Uggla, Rougned Odor all the same type of players that struck out a lot and were better.
Theres a ton of dead pull hitters, they just usually arent allowed to keep starting hitting under .200 without producing. Its a very long list of players like that and the others didnt have the benefit of having 50 percent of the field wide open with no one there from a shift.
Gqynn would have hit at minimum .600 and probably close to .800 if you gave him half the field with no one there
Why do you continuously feel the need to try and make things personal with me? Are you related to Gallo, thats the only thing that would make any sense
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
The first paragraph is correct, now keep going with the list. How many humans did what Gallo did? Those guys are all better than Gallo, but what is also correct is all of them, including Gallo, have been above a league average MLB hitter. If they are above league average hitting that is extremely rare itself, even within MLB.
But you maintain Gallo belongs in softball league. If all you are saying is Schwarber and Dunn are better then there wouldn't be a rebuttal from me.
The GWynn statement is pointless. Gallo's method of hitting was what he was good at. What he did was better than MLB average and infinitely better than human male average for every baseball playing athlete at every level.
So you are mad that Gallo couldn't hit the way Gwynn did? Why does that make you mad?
Being better than league average hitter isn't a good enough accomplishment just because it wasn't as good as Tony Gwynn?
Or is it not good enough because he hit 80 RBI's per 162 games in a different method than the way Bill Buckner hit his 67 RBI per 162?
BTW, Gallo is 5th all time in HR per At Bat and he maintained a .322 OB%(with a year of .350+) and that is why he played. That is very rare to replace.
Schwarber could replace him. Nick Madrigal could not... and Madrigal does it the way you like and Madrigal was a stud in College.
Softball players certainly could not come close.
It is not personal against you.
Apparently someone criticizing a player means theyre mad so theres no reason to continue on.
I will agree that the Gwynn statement is pointless because even attempting to compare the two like they are even remotely close to equals was absolutely pointless
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Nothing wrong with criticizing.
I don't understand though why you think he should be in a softball league when he was already hitting above MLB average?
Or why it wouldn't be considered rare to be 5th all time in HR per at bat while maintaining a .322 OB%?
Or why would it matter if he got 80 RBI via mostly a home run and Bill Buckner got 67 RBI via mostly singles and doubles and Gallo would belong in a softball league while Buckner was hailed as a God due to low strikeouts and high batting average?
Or why it is considered "clogging the bases" when someone draws a walk? So you are saying a team would not score more runs if a guy walked as opposed to making an out? Why would a walk clog the bases but not a single?? Especially when most happen with nobody on base anyway? Even more so when a guy ran better than league average like Gallo?
Then furthermore if you have disdain for a walk because it clogs a base, then shouldn't you be praising a HR like no other because that is the best way to "unclog" the bases? And Gallo hit home runs like no other...so he should be the guy you are praising not ripping.
Its nothing personal.
You are right, Gwynn is much better...but with all Gwynn's batting average and lack of strikeouts, the fact that Gallo could out RBI per game a guy like Gwynn, and do it from the bottom half of the order, just shows that Gallo more than belonged in MLB...and certainly not in a softball league.
I dont have a dog in this fight, so I have no motivation to do the research, but I wonder who drove in a higher percentage of runners in scoring position? Buckner, Gallo or Gwynn.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Of the runners on base in order it would be Gwynn, Buckner, then Gallo. Galllo drove himself in the most.
The question is then, if Buckner drove in 67 by driving others in mostly and Gallo drove in 80 by driving himself in mostly...he still drove in 80 and Buckner only 67.
Of course, the number of base runners on base for each would affect that too and would have to be equalized.
For instance, in 2017 when Gallo hit.209 with 41 home runs and drove in 80 runs in 532 plate appearances and whopping 197 strikeouts, a league averaged hitter with Gallo's plate appearances and with the same number of base runners on base, drove in 62.
In 1974 Buckner hit .314 and only struck out 24 times in 620 plate appearances. He only drove in 58 runs.
The average MLB hitter that year in the number of Buckner's plate appearances and number of runner on bases drove in 62 runs.
So Gallo not only drove in more than Buckner in total number, but he did it even better considering Buckner had more plate appearances AND more runners on base, despite Buckner doing the exact opposite of what people get on Gallo for(low batting average and high strikeouts).
Gallo had a118 OPS+ and Buckner 117 OPS+
So even if you added all the small stiff that could make Buckner's year a little better(which in my mind Buckner's year was a little better), there is no logical way to come to the conclusion that Gallo deserved to be on a softball team(or deserve to be called a bad hitter because he struck out so much and hit for a low average), and then give Buckner all this Godly praise because he didn't strike out and hit for a high average.
Their years were very similar. Though again, for our reading challenged people, I'm not saying Gallo had a better career than Buckner. It is merely highlighting that Gallo's value is far higher than people's negative perception they have of him due to his low batting average and high strikeout total.
Obviously the on base portion is half the equation and that is where Gwynn was so good that he was a HOFer and deservedly. Buckner on the other hand, not so much. OPS has that information so no need to go much further than that.
Gwynn hit .430 and slugged .607 with guys on 3rd less than 2 outs. Even with guys on 3rd and 2 outs he hit .363 and slugged .505 for his career. His overall career stat line for runners in scoring position was .349/.432/.491. He just spent the majority of his career on really bad teams
Joey Gallo whose supposedly a good player has a stat line of .191/.348/.437 with runners in scoring position and half the field didnt even have players standing there for him. Hes not even a good version of the type of player he is
Buckner was a career .284/.331/.411 with runners in scoring position.
Theres absolutely no comparison between Gywnn and Gallo/Buckner and even Buckner was better than Gallo
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Gallo does have a higher wOBA than Buckner so those who ascribe merit to sabermetrics would, I suppose, value Gallo above Buckner.
That said. Rob Deer stands atop the mountain! Hail to the Original! Go Brewers!
And yet Gallo still had better RBI per 162 games.
Because at some point you have to give proper credit to his home runs of which you are really giving none.
Of the runners on base in order it would be Gwynn, Buckner, then Gallo. Galllo drove himself in the most.
The question is then, if Buckner drove in 67 by driving others in mostly and Gallo drove in 80 by driving himself in mostly...he still drove in 80 and Buckner only 67.
Of course, the number of base runners on base for each would affect that too and would have to be equalized.
For instance, in 2017 when Gallo hit.209 with 41 home runs and drove in 80 runs in 532 plate appearances and whopping 197 strikeouts, a league averaged hitter with Gallo's plate appearances and with the same number of base runners on base, drove in 62.
In 1974 Buckner hit .314 and only struck out 24 times in 620 plate appearances. He only drove in 58 runs.
The average MLB hitter that year in the number of Buckner's plate appearances and number of runner on bases drove in 62 runs.
So Gallo not only drove in more than Buckner in total number, but he did it even better considering Buckner had more plate appearances AND more runners on base, despite Buckner doing the exact opposite of what people get on Gallo for(low batting average and high strikeouts).
Gallo had a118 OPS+ and Buckner 117 OPS+
So even if you added all the small stiff that could make Buckner's year a little better(which in my mind Buckner's year was a little better), there is no logical way to come to the conclusion that Gallo deserved to be on a softball team(or deserve to be called a bad hitter because he struck out so much and hit for a low average), and then give Buckner all this Godly praise because he didn't strike out and hit for a high average.
Their years were very similar. Though again, for our reading challenged people, I'm not saying Gallo had a better career than Buckner. It is merely highlighting that Gallo's value is far higher than people's negative perception they have of him due to his low batting average and high strikeout total.
Obviously the on base portion is half the equation and that is where Gwynn was so good that he was a HOFer and deservedly. Buckner on the other hand, not so much. OPS has that information so no need to go much further than that.
Buckner did have a better career because he did it longer and Gallo will peter out quicker(and he platooned more).
Rob Deer was given more grief than Gallo has gotten because Deer did his thing in the height of the batting average strikeout bias.
Finishing with a 109 OPS+ in 4,500 lifetime plate appearances in MLB...how many humans can raise their hand and say they did that? Rare.
Don't forget Gorman Thomas. The scorn he got for hitting .225 lifetime and averaging 152 strikeouts per 162 games.
Who else finished with a lifetime 114 OPS+ in 5,400 at bats. 30 HR and 88 RBI per 162 games.
Count them. List them. Someone listed a few players. Keep going. Out of the multi millions upon millions of people who played baseball....how many people could do that?
There are thousands alone who played MLB and could not do it...let alone all the guys who never even got drafted or out of the minor leagues
Yes better than Gallo too. Some people missing the point on Gallo, but oh well.
They all more than belonged in MLB and certainly not in a softball league.
There are only 379 men in history to have hit 198 or more home runs in MLB.
There are 999 men in history have maintained a 104 OPS+ or higher with a minimum of 3,000 plate appearances.
If you belong in either of those clubs then you are/were a rare commodity, even among your professional colleagues as there are about 21,559 who ever played MLB baseball.
Then all the others who played minor league or college baseball that never sniffed MLB with aspirations of doing so.
All the young men who played high school baseball with those same aspirations that never could make it much futher.
Gallo is actually 5th all time in home runs per at bat with a minimum of 3,000 plate appearances. Why that gets ignored is part of the reason I am talking about it.
Gallo isn't a star or close to one, but he was a well deserved starter for four and a half years and then as an employable platoon player. He is much better than people who simply dismiss him due to an inaccurate understanding of hitting and the value of each event of which they usually misappropriate.
The comment about any of these guys belonging in a softball league is laughable.
Yup and that is really the thrust of why I am even talking about it.
I played softball for several years. One year there was a guy in our league who made it to triple A ball. He was absolutely amazing, no business playing with the likes of us.
No one gave Buckner praise other than being better than Gallo
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
You didn't. The prevailing sentiment of 'not striking out' and high batting average is what I am referring to there and Buckner is the prime example of those attributes.
I have heard people say that Bill Buckner should be in the Hall of Fame. As noted, Buckner was a slightly above average hitter. Throw in his fielding, or rather the lack thereof, and he was a slightly below average baseball player. He is, by a mile and a half, the worst baseball player I have ever heard discussed as a HOFer, so I can second the motion that he has been the recipient of far more praise than he deserves.
Buckner was brought into the conversation by you. For some reason you seem to really love Gallo and thats okay, but it doesnt change the fact that hes not even a good version of his type of player.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
@dallasactuary
I think we have had this discussion here before. And while I disagree with your harsh commentary as to Buckner, I agree he is not a candidate for the HOF. There are others on the outside looking in that have been denied mainly because careers in MLB can be overshadowed or overlooked. Buckner was likely the best contact hitter in MLB for at least a 15 year period during his career. He had a great swing and was a challenge to strike out. I do not see him as slightly below average as a MLB player. The grief that he lived with for the 1986 World Series exceeds the praise you feel he does not deserve.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think the ‘softball player’ comment has more to do with the style of hitting; Joey Gallo hit a missile once every 5 at bats and struck out in 3 of the others. That’s softball player-esque as most guys are just there to swing as hard as they can and do what Joey Gallo does - strike out a lot an hit the occasional missile. I don’t think people are saying he ‘belongs’ in a softball league and is undeserving of his MLB status. Chris Davis was similar - now the term is probably ‘a three true outcome’ hitter.
The other thing is the ‘rate stats’ that are being put forth that are kind of misrepresentation of Joey G. First, he’s played ten seasons and while his 162 game average is 37 HR, his actual HR per season is about 19.9. The other thing is that Gallo - in his best seasons - seemed to build a lot of that productivity into a short period of time. He gets locked in for a 6 week period and then is just a consistent out for very long stretches. The league seemed to ‘figure him out’ and stopped throwing him as many fastballs and he has been on a downward trend ever since. Some of it is probably health, too, as consistently being out there increases the likelihood of a ‘good stretch’ but it’s tough to have a guy like Gallo in the lineup when he’s slumping as it is a strikeout or pop up nearly every time.
I don’t think he ‘stinks’ at all. He is by all rights a really, really good guy in the clubhouse, a pretty decent defender and a nice 4th outfielder at this point.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
So the self proclaimed baseball experts are saying HR and RBI are extremely important……, unless the year is 1987 and your name is Andre Dawson, in which case your 49 HR and 137 RBI don’t mean a thing and you should be stripped of your mvp and it should be given to a SS with 600 at bats and 0 home runs.
To be fair it was Dallas that said Ozzie was one of three viable mvp candidates in 1987 and Dale Murphy wasn’t even one of them.
Let’s just say in many, many posts on this forum Dallas is yet to have his finest hour but I’m praying at some point he posts something that makes sense.
Once you remove "contact hitter" and "challenge to strike out" from your list of evaluation tools, as you really should, you'll see that there's nothing left for Buckner. As hard as he was to strike out he was even harder to walk, which he is why he was on base less often than John Mayberry, Leon Durham, Jeff Burroughs, and a whole host of others who are all but forgotten despite being much better hitters than Buckner.
Regarding the original premise of the thread, yes, Buckner belonged in the major leagues. But, like Gallo, he was not a good major league player, he was just taking up space. Taking up space he had earned, but taking up space nonetheless.
My numbers aren’t exact but the point is there are only 630 humans on the planet playing MLB. If they are or were, they are all amazing talented
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
This is a good explanation of it. There are a lot of guys that were the same style of hitters that had far more success without facing such extreme shifts that Gallo had. I'm fine with him as a backup fielder but he started to long for what he was able to do. He wouldnt be hard to replace
The rate stats is spot on. Youre either on the field or you arent have getting hot for a month doesnt mean thats what you would do all year long. Theres a lot of guys that have hit 15 homeruns in a month that was close to half their season production. It goes back further for RBIs but Dimaggio had 53 RBIs in August of 1939 and finished with 126. Its a lot easier to have better rate stats if you get hot and play fewer games than the guys that play full seasons
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Wait a minute there. You say 10 seasons and are counting this year as a season? Then in his first two seasons those were cup of cofffee type of season and are counting those as season?. You are also counting 2020 as a season as that was limited to 60 games due to covid?
He only played full seasons in 2017, 2018, 2021 and 2022. He got injured in 2019(and was having his best year).
I get what you are trying to say and I said it already, he was a starter for five seasons and a platoon player thereafter and hence why I said he won't have as good a career as Buckner.
So Gallo's per 162 is approrpriate to use based on that and all above still stands in regard to Buckner.
The whole point of the thing is that Gallo is viewed so bad and Buckner so high(based on his contact) that they are not that far apart as hitters in a similar time frame.
Buckner is going to end up having the better career because Gallo will most likely burn out quick from this point on.
Actually, the softball player reference was that "he belonged in a softball league" and was pretty clear.
In the end, just making contact for the sake of making contact isn't anything valuable. All that really matters is the BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR that occur in relation to the total number of outs made to achieve them...and a contact out is 98% the same as a strikeout in negativity.
No pne brought up Buckner until you mentioned him. I havent seen anyone try and say he was great
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Buckner's name in this example could be replaced with any hitter that played with a high contact rate and hit .280 with a .310 OB% and little to no power.
I just used Buckner because everyone knows who he is and many think he is actually a HOFer.
For today's sake, Nick Madrigal is a .280 hitter with a vastly higher contact rate than Gallo...and those are things so coveted by many people, yet Gallo's method actually produces more runs for the team....and Gallos is viewed as a "softball player"
BTW, many softball players are not HR hitters either...many just place singles...and softball players don't even strike out. So Gallo isn't even a good analogy to a softball player.
Ichiro slaps the ball the other way like many successful softball players do too...and leads to a lot of empty singels.
Empty singles. Those happen often. That is why Gallo produced runs at a better rate than those high contact high making outs guys. For clarity, Gallo did not produce more runs than Ichiro, though Ichiro is a severly overrated hitter.
Outs are not good. Any out.
Same with Madrigal. When the slap hitters in softball come up to bat the outfield moves in really close like the MLB outfielders do to Madrigal.
So while Madrigal is doing what our old fans want, "make contact and hit to all fields," the result is he makes contact often, gets some singles, and then does a great job at grounding out to short or second.
So circling back to the beginning premise, with Gallo just being a recent example and poster boy for the point.
Fans show great disdain for the high strikeout low batting average hitter, and show great praise for the high contact higher batting average hitter.
The reality is neither of those matter because what matters in the end is OB% + SLG%...to get an OPS. But fans don't agree with OPS because it hurts their senses that the high contact higher batting average player is not automatically better than a guy who strikes out and hits .210.
They will then say things like "contact leads to more runs on outs," but they severely overblow how often that actually happens and they completely ignore the outs made that don't lead to any positive outcome(which is most common).
So take Buckner and Kingman. The complete opposite of the spectrum on contact and batting average.
If making contact was leading to so many more runs produced then how come,
In 10,0008 plate appearances Buckner drove in 1,208 runs
In 7,429 plate appearances Kingman drove in 1,210 runs.
Neither were OB machines, and Buckner a little better.
But we don't need to worry how many runs an out drove in and all that little stuff, because ALL of that is baked into something like Run Expectancy with men on base.
Buckner produced 80.4 runs above average.
Kingman produced 128 runs above average.
OPS+ tells you the same important thing:
Buckner 100
Kingman 115
Both OPS+ and Run Expectancy are telling you the same thing that Kingman drove in more runs in 2,500 less plate appearances than Buckner.
Fans don't understand OPS+ or Run Expectancy but they certainly understand RBI....and that is why I used RBI to show(when in reality I know RBI are a poor measure).
Run expectancy also includes the thing that high contact players also do good, which is hitting into double plays.
It includes the 101 times Buckner ended an inning with a man on first by hitting into a double play.
It includes the 26 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and second with a double play.
It includes the 25 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and third with a double play.
It includes the 8 times Buckner ended an inning with the bases loaded with a double plays.
It also includes all the times Kingman ended innings on strikeouts or left men stranded on third. It includes the times Buckner ended innings with a man on third by tapping out to the pitcher.
it includes ALL their successful times too.
In the end, the OPS+ shows Kingman was actually the better hitter, despite striking out a ton and hitting for a low averge.
Run Expectancy shows it more.
Then if you don't believe in those, and want to stick to your guns on 'real runs', then:
In 10,0008 plate appearances Buckner drove in 1,208 runs
In 7,429 plate appearances Kingman drove in 1,210 runs.
Have a good day.
alright, this is what I was looking for. Gallo is pretty putrid with guys on 3rd/no outs.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In all seven of his career plate appearances there? lol. Yet he still had an .829 OPS there.
Read below, again.
So circling back to the beginning premise, with Gallo just being a recent example and poster boy for the point.
Fans show great disdain for the high strikeout low batting average hitter, and show great praise for the high contact higher batting average hitter.
The reality is neither of those matter because what matters in the end is OB% + SLG%...to get an OPS. But fans don't agree with OPS because it hurts their senses that the high contact higher batting average player is not automatically better than a guy who strikes out and hits .210.
They will then say things like "contact leads to more runs on outs," but they severely overblow how often that actually happens and they completely ignore the outs made that don't lead to any positive outcome(which is most common).
So take Buckner and Kingman. The complete opposite of the spectrum on contact and batting average.
If making contact was leading to so many more runs produced then how come,
In 10,0008 plate appearances Buckner drove in 1,208 runs
In 7,429 plate appearances Kingman drove in 1,210 runs.
Neither were OB machines, and Buckner a little better.
But we don't need to worry how many runs an out drove in and all that little stuff, because ALL of that is baked into something like Run Expectancy with men on base.
Buckner produced 80.4 runs above average.
Kingman produced 128 runs above average.
OPS+ tells you the same important thing:
Buckner 100
Kingman 115
Both OPS+ and Run Expectancy are telling you the same thing that Kingman drove in more runs in 2,500 less plate appearances than Buckner.
Fans don't understand OPS+ or Run Expectancy but they certainly understand RBI....and that is why I used RBI to show(when in reality I know RBI are a poor measure).
Run expectancy also includes the thing that high contact players also do good, which is hitting into double plays.
It includes the 101 times Buckner ended an inning with a man on first by hitting into a double play.
It includes the 26 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and second with a double play.
It includes the 25 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and third with a double play.
It includes the 8 times Buckner ended an inning with the bases loaded with a double plays.
It also includes all the times Kingman ended innings on strikeouts or left men stranded on third. It includes the times Buckner ended innings with a man on third by tapping out to the pitcher.
it includes ALL their successful times too.
In the end, the OPS+ shows Kingman was actually the better hitter, despite striking out a ton and hitting for a low averge.
Run Expectancy shows it more.
Then if you don't believe in those, and want to stick to your guns on 'real runs', then:
In 10,0008 plate appearances Buckner drove in 1,208 runs
In 7,429 plate appearances Kingman drove in 1,210 runs.
Have a good day.
Got no dog in this thread, but when I saw Bill Buckner, I thought I'd toss in my little 2 cents...
Bill Buckner...
As a serious life-long Red Sox fan, it was painful to see that ball go through Buckner's legs in 1986. We in Red Sox Nation had long suffered the lack of winning a World Series, and the Buckner incident was like slamming a car door on your fingers.
I can't imagine how badly Billy Bucks felt when he knew the ball had passed him by. I'm sure he suffered immeasurably through the years thinking about it constantly and having to bear that burden. Credit to the Red Sox management who welcomed him back to Fenway on many occasions, and fans for always giving Bill a standing ovation whenever he came back to Fenway. His greetings were akin to those afforded Mariano Rivera, loud and proud. Buckner was long ago forgiven for his paux pas. The link says it all about Buckner. He carried a heavy burden till he died at the age of 1969 from Dementia.
Billy Bucks...RIP
https://www.mlb.com/news/remembering-bill-buckner-after-his-death
I think Joey Gallo was a pretty good ball player. I thought I said as much. My softball teammates called me Rob Deer; another guy who could probably fit the argument being made. I always thought it was a compliment…
I think, ideally, a good baseball team is eerily similar to the concept of the players in Nintendo’s Ice Hockey; you’ve got to have players of different body types with different skill sets to create a balanced attack that leads to winning.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I agree too with the lineup construction.
And will take this moment to make clear that I'm not ragging on Buckner, just sticking up for the guys getting unfairly bashed(and they do get bashed, not necessarily on here, but all over the place).
Unfairly bashed!
The Royals put guys that struck out 33% of the time in their team HOF.
Which they are going to do this summer and is an insult to the players that actually deserve it. A few highlights where you climb an outfield wall or throw out Harold Reynolds at home does not make you a famer especially when you only played about 4 years with KC
I can remember watching Bo play a lot and the main thing I remember was him killing rallies by striking out
This summer if they struck out on every out they made, but everyone on the team hit .300/.400/.500 they would score the most runs in the league by far. All types of outs suck.
They should hire guys who get most BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR within the least amount of outs made(any out made). Focus on that instead.
The Chicago White sox too. THe Sox are actually in the top half of the league in making contact. But they are the worst hitting team in the league. They are just really good at grounding out to second or short. Maybe I should start cheering on every three hop ground out to second since it is so important, lol.
Bo Jackson was a little overrated as a hitter. He had a lifetime 112 OPS+(just above Gallo's current 109 in similar amount of PA's)....difference is people say Gallo belongs in a softball league while fans would say Bo was headed for the MLB HOF.
The fans that say Gallo belongs in a softball league are underrating him. The fans that say Bo was headed to the HOF were overrating him.
The OPS+ of 112 and 109 rate them quite appropriately in relation to their peers.
GIDP are the real rally killers.
It includes the 101 times Buckner ended an inning with a man on first by hitting into a double play.
It includes the 26 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and second with a double play.
It includes the 25 times Buckner ended an inning with men on first and third with a double play.
It includes the 8 times Buckner ended an inning with the bases loaded with a double plays.
@Darin Steve Balboni won your only World Series for you in the Brett era. He was second on the team in RBI in the regular season despite leading the league in strikeouts...and got the second biggest hit in the series in that 9th inning.
Brett got a bunch of empty singles in that series with only 1 RBI and he struck out 7 times. The strikeout king saved you on the narrative that Brett was a winner.
You should be praising the strikeout king Balboni as without him the Royals don't even win the division that year. He was their third best hitter with a 112 OPS+...if everyone else below him on the team had an OPS+ of 112 with the same strikeouts they would have won the division by more than one game.
As such tey Royals needed every one of those 166 strikeouts because it also resulted in 88 RBI. So whatever rally he was killing with a strikeout, he was still driving in more runs that every other player on the team(except Brett).
Or would you have been happier if Balboni never struck out all year but he hit three home runs and drove in 27 runs? They would not have won the division in that case.
https://tht.fangraphs.com/quantifying-the-trade-off-between-power-and-contact/
I just wanted to point out this analysis which does a lot to support the argument that players like Gallo offer a lot of value to their teams. The article actually mentions Gallo as well.
I also don’t think anyone meant to say that Gallo or players like him belong in the beer leagues - at least I’m hoping it was simply hyperbole.
TLDR; scroll down to the table and look at the names and numbers.
You failed to mention what Brett did in the regular season as well as the Toronto series. Without Brett the royals don’t sniff the playoffs.
So Brett had an ops+ of 179 and you’re talking about how great balboni’ s 112 was?
Lol
Love the Nintendo Ice Hockey 🏒
Blades of Steel was a great classic on the NES.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
So now at least you recognize the value of OPS+ and giving Brett and Balboni their proper credit for their value as opposed to just focusing on strikeouts. As such, ignore the rest below...
No, but according to you striking out makes you awful and Brett struck out 7 times in seven games in the WS...so by your definition he was awful and a choker...and he only won the WS because of his teammates.
Without Balboni and his 88 RBI(despite 166 K's) the Royals don't even make the playoffs.
Without Balboni's key hit in the WS they don't win the WS.
So without Balboni, Brett is Jim Kelly in your own definition of 'winning player".
You obviously failed to see the point. I already said Balbonis was their third best hitter. Brett clearly their best hitter...but Balboni was their third best hitter and without him they don't win the division, despite 166 K's that you think are so awful(without looking at what else really matters).
It is your misappropriation of the negative value of K's that is way off.
If you want to continue to misappropriate the negative value of K's then that also means Brett choked in the 1985 WS with seven k's in seven games...and he also choked in the 1980 WS with the biggest strikeout in that series too.
Feel free to do so.
Actually I never mentioned balboni and his strikeouts, I said Bo struck out 33% of the time and you can’t tell me that if he could have cut down on the k’s he wouldn’t have been a lot better hitter.
With his speed he would have gotten on base a lot more just putting it in play.