How about this dominating HOF 1B?

Skinpinch

Would anybody venture to guess how many intentional walks Cal Ripken had from 1982-1985(when Murray was in the lineup)?? We know Cal was an excellent hitter during this period, and with Murray not being the fastest runner, one would expect Cal to be walked to set up some double plays. Well during that four year span Ripken received a grand total of ZERO intentional walks when Murray was playing!

Who could blame the pitchers for that though? DUring this time frame Murray accomplished the best MEN ON BASE hitting feats of that era (Mid 70's to 1980's).

In that four year span Murray batted .339, had an OB% of .440, and had a Slugging% of .593 with men on base! That is THE BEST four year span from that time from from ANY player! Just think of how many runs that leads to and how many wins! There was not a hitter in the game that was as responsible for as many runs as Eddie was in this period.

It is funny how Murray is usually viewed as just a consistent player. The fact is, his biggest asset was how gosh darn good he was during his prime! Just look at that! That is domination.

The next two four year stretches that come close to Murray during that time frame are Schmidt 1980-83 with an average of .279, .403 OB%, and .603 SLG%, and Brett .77-'80. Brett batted .340, .406 OB%, .579 SLG% in his best stretch. Brett's carries a little less value as he didn't play as many games during his stretch.

DeutscherGeist

Murray, Brett, Schmidt, Mattingly and Frank Thomas all carried the torch of being the best hitter in baseball for a significant stretch in their primes. People think of Murray as being just consistent, which is true, but he had a 3-year stretch of dominance which people forget. Murray was a dominant player as well as the longevity player that many people on this board admire.

DeutscherGeist

Skinpinch,

I have long thought about a hitter's batting average with men on base. I thought this should be a valuable stat as it shows a player's value to a team and what position is best for him in the line up.

No one mentioned this stat until you came along. As for me, do you recall the 1993 season. That was the year Mattingly came out in an explosion during the summer as the hottest player in a two month stretch until September, when his carpel tunnel syndrome slowed him down. My point is that Sport Illustrated had an article on the season and it showed how Mattingly was batting around .400 for the season with men in scoring position! (he was in the top 10 in that category compared to his peers). I thought to myself, that this stat is important for a #3 or #4 in the batting order. His presence in the line up made the team better too compared to when he was not in the line up (the team stats were compared when Mattingly was on the DL and out of the line up compared to when he was in the line up) Mattingly was voted in the top 20 in MVP that year if I recall correctly.

Batting Average with men is scoring position is a very indicative stat of a player's value, but I don't know if it is the second most important one behind OPS+ (I just did not do the research to make a claim one way or the other).


On the flip side, what if a player bats better than with men in scoring position? That would be a leadoff guy I presume.

Axtell

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

the idea of a 'clutch' hitter is simply a myth...there is no such thing.

The sample size is typically way too small to be of any worth in determining how a player does in a particular situation.

Skinpinch

THe smaller the amount of at bats in a situation, the greater chance randomness is at work. The stats of men, on as opposed to nobody on, are over a large number of at bats(IN this four year stretch Murray had over 1,200 plate appearances with men on!). Usually it is near an equal split of at bats...about half with nobody on, and half with men on.

There is randomness in men on hitting too. THe men on aren't exactly 'clutch' stats, they are situational stats. Some of it is even just being able to take advantage of a pitcher that is backed into a corner.

Whether hitting with men on is a true ability, or basic randomness(it is usually a combination), there is no denying the value it provided to a team. When looking past tense as who were the most responsible for runs, seeing what they did with men on, this certainly provides some insight, which is perfect for Hall of Fame stuff. The more at bats you have and still have an outstanding split of men on vs. nobody on, the more significant it becomes.

When you start getting into the late inning pressure clutch stats, it is all a crapshoot because the sample sizes are all way too small, and Axtell is correct on that for sure.

As for Mattingly, he was o.k. with men on for his career. He wasn't astronomical ala Murray, Hernandez etc... He was certainly not poor ala Palmeiro.