Options
Bill Buckner vs. Keith HErnandez
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Bill Buckner vs. Hernandez in a breakdown of hitting events.
Bill Buckner stepped up to home plate 10,033 times. He made 7,146 outs.
k. Hernandez stepp up to the plate....8,553 times. He made 5,493 outs.
Buckner had 2,715 hits vs. Hernandez 2,182...and this is the stat that gets everybody's panties all wet.
Buckner had 460 more Singles
Buckner had 72 more doubles
Buckner had 12 more Home Runs
Buckner made 1,653 MORE OUTS!!
Hernandez had 11 more triples
Hernandez had 620 more walks.
THe 620 walks and 11 triples by Hernandez have basically equal value as about 440 odd singles. So Buckner's advantage left is about 30 singles, 72 doubles, and 12 Home RUns. When you factor the cost of 1,653 outs made needed to achieve those extra events, you see an asttronomical difference between the two.
Did Buckner's hits mean more? Well, when you look at their men on hitting numbers, Hernandez got a higher proportion of his hits with men on base than Buckner did. So Hernandez's hits actually carried the more weight. I will get those numbers later.
Bill Buckner stepped up to home plate 10,033 times. He made 7,146 outs.
k. Hernandez stepp up to the plate....8,553 times. He made 5,493 outs.
Buckner had 2,715 hits vs. Hernandez 2,182...and this is the stat that gets everybody's panties all wet.
Buckner had 460 more Singles
Buckner had 72 more doubles
Buckner had 12 more Home Runs
Buckner made 1,653 MORE OUTS!!
Hernandez had 11 more triples
Hernandez had 620 more walks.
THe 620 walks and 11 triples by Hernandez have basically equal value as about 440 odd singles. So Buckner's advantage left is about 30 singles, 72 doubles, and 12 Home RUns. When you factor the cost of 1,653 outs made needed to achieve those extra events, you see an asttronomical difference between the two.
Did Buckner's hits mean more? Well, when you look at their men on hitting numbers, Hernandez got a higher proportion of his hits with men on base than Buckner did. So Hernandez's hits actually carried the more weight. I will get those numbers later.
0
Comments
<< <i>Bill Buckner vs. Hernandez in a breakdown of hitting events.
Bill Buckner stepped up to home plate 10,033 times. He made 7,146 outs.
k. Hernandez stepp up to the plate....8,553 times. He made 5,493 outs.
Buckner had 2,715 hits vs. Hernandez 2,182...and this is the stat that gets everybody's panties all wet.
Buckner had 460 more Singles
Buckner had 72 more doubles
Buckner had 12 more Home Runs
Buckner made 1,653 MORE OUTS!!
Hernandez had 11 more triples
Hernandez had 620 more walks.
THe 620 walks and 11 triples by Hernandez have basically equal value as about 440 odd singles. So Buckner's advantage left is about 30 singles, 72 doubles, and 12 Home RUns. When you factor the cost of 1,653 outs made needed to achieve those extra events, you see an asttronomical difference between the two.
Did Buckner's hits mean more? Well, when you look at their men on hitting numbers, Hernandez got a higher proportion of his hits with men on base than Buckner did. So Hernandez's hits actually carried the more weight. I will get those numbers later. >>
I like this analysis a lot and keep us posted of your future results.
Is there any way you can factor in the endoresements and TV appearances (Seinfeld) that hernandez did and Buckner did not?
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
620 walks and 11 triples by Hernandez have basically equal value as about 440 odd singles
Actually, 620 walks and 11 triples have basically equal value as about 620 walks and 11 triples.
We tell little kids that "a walk's a good as a hit" because we want the dorky kids who can't hit to feel good about getting on base. Clearly you're quite familiar with the expression.
Dork. I'm done.
A walk with nobody on is exactly the same as a single. Just over half of a players at bats come with nobody on. If you disagree with the value of a walk based on your perception, then I suggest you refute by going over every play by play in MLB for the last 30 years to refute it. Those values are pretty solid, very solid, AND BASED ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN MLB!!
If you wish to rely on your perception, then ask the guy who said tht Joe Carter hits game winning home runs every year at Fenway...Oh wait, that was you who said it. Oh wait again, he never even hit one! Thats how reliable your eyes and brains are.
As for the dork comment? The $2,000 is still on pal. Anytime. Put up or shut up!
As for telling kids a Walk is as good as a hit, that is incorrect, as it is as good half the time. If you want me to tell you what to tell a kid on that philosophy of hitting, I will, but I would probably request payment for the education.
As for "I'm done"? Probably the brightest thing you've posted
As for telling kids a Walk is as good as a hit, that is incorrect, as it is as good half the time
A walk has roughly 2/3 the value of a hit overrall
Is this another one of your mathematical phenomenoms? 1/2 = 2/3?
Also nice of you to completely ignored being called out for claiming 12% pts down is horrible while 12% pts up is also horrible.
Give it a rest.
The most glaring thing about Bill BUckner is the fact that his lifetime .321 OB% is lower than the league average hitter of his time of .333. A first baseman/left fielder with that bad of an OB% better be one heckuva slugger! Buckner's lifetime SLG% .408 vs. .396 league average, so he is barely above the average mark there.
And my response:
I've got to get my calculator out to be sure, but are you saying that the 12 % pt difference in OB% (.321-.333) means that he sucks, yet the 12 % pt difference in SLG% (.408-.396) also means that he sucks?
We tell kids that a walk is as good as a hit because (1) it almost is as good as a single, and (2) to encourage them not to swing at bad pitches, because a walk is better than the expected result of ANY at-bat.
The primary reason that Buckner was an average player, as opposed to even a very good player, was that the man would not take a walk (that, and his fielding). To come to the plate over 10,000 times and take an unintentional walk only 339 times has got to be some kind of record. That statistic startled even me so I need to add to my earlier list: Gene Tenace was a much better player than Bill Buckner, George Scott was a much better player than Bill Buckner, Chris Chambliss was a better player than Bill Buckner, Mike Hargrove was a better player than Bill buckner, John Mayberry was a better player than Bill Buckner, Andre Thornton was a better player than Bill Buckner, Lee May was a much better player than Bill Buckner, and Cecil Cooper was a much better player than Bill Buckner.
{These are Buckner's contemporaries at first base, and do not include the ones that were too good for Buckner to carry their Jocks such as McCovey, Allen, Garvey, Mattingly, Hernandez, Powell, Murray, Carew, Perez, Rose, etc.)
Nearly all of Buckner's career value is that he managed to remain an average player for a very long time. I found at least a dozen more contemporary first baseman (Thompson, Driessen, etc.) that were better than Buckner while they played, they just didn't last nearly as long.
I said a walk has roughly 2/3 of the value of a hit overall, and it does. Me saying that about half the walks come with nobody on highlights WHY a walk is close in value to a hit OVERALL, because with runners on a hit does take on more importance and that is what prevents the fallacy of a "walk being as good as a hit." Please tell me you understand this.
Maybe I can break it down for my 1st grade class...Kids, since about half of your walks come with nobody on base, it is just as good as a single in that situation. Getting a single with Runners on base is much more valuable than getting a walk with runners on. Added together, the overall value of a walk is about 2/3 that of a single!!
BUCKNER:
A .321 OB% for a first basemen, compared to a league average of .333 is bad. I said he had better be one heckuva slugger to make up for that (To back up your absurd HOF claim), so I went on to list his barely above league average of SLG% to see if he was indeed one heckuva slugger to make up for the poor on base percentage(to see if your claim had merit). I never said the SLG% WAS GOOD! That stinks too, not as stinky as the OB%, but stinky nonethelss! A first basemen with a SLG% that close to the league average is nowhere near HOF material. Add the BELOW AVG OB%, and you have to be kidding me for the HOF!
Your making about as much sense as White Goodman arguing with Peter Lafleur!
Dgs, you are really making yourself look bad with these claims that are totally inaccurate and are being totally misread by you. I geuss Robert McNamara was right "We see what we want to believe." I'm not as smart as McNamara, but I echo the same thing all the time.
You've argued many times before (especially in the case with Raffy) against others at his position...instead of comparing Buckner against every other player, what's Buckner's numbers look like against other first basemen in his era?
<< <i> Buckner was better than Keith Hernandez, and he had a much better 'stache. >>
Not saying Buckner's isn't good and maybe it's just because I'm from St.Louis but growing up Keith was the man and his moustache was very cool.
<< <i>The most glaring thing about Bill BUckner is the fact that his lifetime .321 OB% is lower than the league average hitter of his time of .333. A first baseman/left fielder with that bad of an OB% better be one heckuva slugger! Buckner's lifetime SLG% .408 vs. .396 league average, so he is barely above the average mark there.
And my response:
I've got to get my calculator out to be sure, but are you saying that the 12 % pt difference in OB% (.321-.333) means that he sucks, yet the 12 % pt difference in SLG% (.408-.396) also means that he sucks? >>
The 12% below in OB% means that he is a little bit worse than the average player; the 12% above in SLG% means that he is a little bit better than the average player. Combine the two and the result is about as obvious as it could possibly be - Buckner was an average player. That doesn't mean that he sucks, but then nobody said that he did. But, considering, (1) the league averages include pitchers, (2) the averages for first baseman would be MUCH higher, and (3) his fielding "skills", one could make a pretty good argument that Buckner was a below-average first baseman.
Plus, with the infrequency or total absence from any IMPORTANT leaderboard categories, it would take quite a bit more work than what I did with Palmeiro.
I do disagree with Cardsfan on one thing...Not to take anything away from the suave Hernandez, mustache or not, when Buckner was in his younger MLB days, he had Hollywood looks. Even in his shaggy days, most women loved him. Maybe dgs is a woman?
I must've failed 1st grade math, because I still don't see the logical of the conclusion above. Can someone else explain it? Seriously.
Kids, since about half of your walks come with nobody on base
They do? Again, another stat or trend you've either completely made up (likely) or just assumed because it fits your argument. How it fits, I don't even know at this point.
This is exactly the type of hypothetical, supposed, theorized, and extrapolated nonesense that ruins every one of your arguments. And at this point, I can't even remember what you argument was. I think it was that Buckner made more outs because he came to the plate more, and he didn't walk as much because walks are 2/3 or 1/2 of a hit depending on the day of the week and depending on how many men are on base.
I said Bill Buckner is grossly underrated and should be in the hall of fame. I feel he's grossly underrated because he had nearly 3000 hits and a .290 BA over a long career. Had he been interested in taking walks, he could've batted well over .300 and had a preciously high on-base %. By he, unlike you stat nerds, understood that a hit is better than a walk, and he went for hits, and he got a ton of them. With his bat control and eye for strikes, he could afford to swing away and put the ball in play without racking up a bunch of strikeouts. He didn't want to walk. You want to start talking hypotheticals, why aren't you considering the times he grounded out swinging at ball 4 with a runner at 3rd because he knew a groundout to the hole would produce a run, rather than take a walk and set up a double play. Personally, I think those groundouts are clearly worth 5/17ths of a hit, so please factor that into your formulas. If you're so bold as to "erase" some of his hits with walks, how can you ignore this?
Not to mention he was the hardest guy in MLB history to strikeout. Even tougher than Joe D. And yes, that does mean something. And it explains the walk total. Simply, he could and would put the ball in play. That was his game. Putting the ball in play, making things happen. And rather than dwell on a stupid OBP statistic, if you can acknowledge that and actually look at and consider the rest of his stats, a logical person might just conclude he was quite good. HOF material? Maybe not. My original comment was a bit sarcastic, although I'd gladly back it up especially against ridiculously stupid comments like your little lemming dallasactuary is making.
And finally, you can say it with as many capital letters, as arrogantly as you want, but why not just admit, FOR ONCE, that you are wrong, that you've been called out, you've been caught. Please. Seriously. You based your argument on the fact that 12% pt lower than league average was so horrible, yet 12% pt above league average is insignificant and meaningless.
Just give it a rest. 12 and -12 are the same distance from 0. I appreciate your efforts to prove otherwise, but it's become tiring at this point.
Skinny, in the future instead of "IMPORTANT leaderboard categories", replace that with "categories I personally think are important". Making such an assertive proclaimation is astoundingly arrogant, even for you.
For example, we can all check out the web site, but just for clarity and a point of reference, this is what you consider "infrequent or total absence from any important leaderboard" during Buckner's career -
Batting average - Top 10: 6 times, Top 5: 4 times, lead league once
Hits - Top 10: 7 times, Top: 5 5 times
Total Bases - Top 10: 5 times, Top 5: twice
Doubles - Top 10: 7 times, Tops 5: 5 times, Lead league twice
RBI - Top 10: 4 times, Top 5: twice
And just for kicks, here are Keith Hernandez' rankings in the same exact categories. As you can see, there are two MORE, seven LESS and two TIE.
Batting average - Top 10: 7 times (MORE), Top 5: 3 times (LESS), never lead league (LESS)
Hits - Top 10: 4 times (LESS), Top 5: 2 times(LESS)
Total Bases - Top 10: 3 times (LESS), Top 5: twice (LESS)
Doubles - Top 10: 8 times (MORE), Tops 5: 5 times (TIE), Lead league twice (LESS)
RBI - Top 10: 4 times (TIE), Top 5: twice (TIE)
Now I'm glad you choose to focus solely on OBP and walks, but I think others might dispute your claim that BA, Hits, TB, 2B, and RBI are not important. Feel free to call me stupid for thinking that. It wouldn't be the first time.
As for the strikeouts and productive outs? THat has been looked at. You can go through the play by play and see how many times he actually moved a runner over wiht an out, but don't forget to see how many times all the others did it to. IT IS ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE! In the end you will see it is a tiny, tiny, tiny difference, and does nothing to put a dent into the obvious lack of Hall of Fame credentials.
Do I feel like giving you a discourse on the true value of a strikeout vs. a non-K out? No. Because you won't understand it, because the first thing I will say is that about half your k's come with nobody on, and you already can't comprehend that?
And no, it isn't assumed about number of walks with men on and nobody on. You assumed the Joe Carter clutch comment, and you got undressed on that ridiculous claim when I went back to the game logs. You still didn't give up. I will let YOU go through the game logs of Buckner's entire career to find out how many productive outs he made, but don't forget the other guys productive outs.
P.S. Don't forget the times he hit into double plays where a strikeout would have been more beneficial
I won't call you stupid for the leaderboard categories you chose, just ill-informed. All those categories are reflected in OB% and SLG%, and OPS+, or the other good measurements that take it all into account. They are reflected as a whole.
FOR instance, the benefit of Total Bases are only valid when you determine the cost of getting those....OUTS MADE! That is SLG% double, triples, and Home Runs all go into that already.
RBI? I already know Hernandez was a better hitter with men on! RBI's are team dependent.
PLEASE READ THE INITIAL POST AGAIN TO GET A LAYMEN'S UNDERSTANDING
Do you really believe what you're writing, or are you just sucking up to Skinny? Seriously
Andre Thornton was a better player than Bill Buckner
Do you really want to make a claim like that? I mean, I know you just listed every player you could think of for the point of emphasis, but you should've stopped short of utterly ridiculous.
As far as the rest of the guys, here's what I think. I have no idea who Gene Tenace was so I have no comment, having watched nearly all of Boomer's career, to say he was a much better player than Buckner is just dumb, ditto for Chris Chambliss, Hargrove couldn't break a pane of glass as a hitter, I don't know who John Mayberry was, Thornton was clearly a joke, and Lee May was a high strikeout slugger more accurately compared to the likes of Rob Deer and Gorman Thomas than to a pure hitter like Buckner.
And Cecil Cooper, I do agree. I think overall he was possibly a better player than Buckner, if not definitely an equal. Not sure I would say "much better" though.
Also, having watched him play and looking at his stats, I always thought Buckner was a pretty good fielder. Certainly not a gold glover, but certainly not worthy of putting fielding "skills" in quotes so as to suggest it's a misnomer. What you basing this on?
You had one valid question in all of your posts, and that was the assessment or challenging of Buckner's defense.
But yes, never heard of him. Looking him up, looks like a part time utility infielder for the A's in the early 70s, turned full time utility infielder, turned Padre in 1977. Am I missing something?
Buckner had no "deficiencies at the plate", on the field, or with the ladies.
<< <i>Am I missing something? >>
My God, yes.
Lee May is thisclose to the "Buckner can't carry my Jock" group; if you ignore the difference in when and where May and Buckner played, or if you just don't understand why that's important, then May looks only a little bit better. But what you do or do not understand is not really relevant - Lee May was MUCH better than Bill Buckner.
Gene Tenace hit .241 for his career and still created almost a full run per game more than Buckner. His OPS+ was 135, the highest of any of the first baseman I listed, and indicates, roughly, that his offensive production exceeded Buckner's by 36%.
Thornton is a close call, since he played so many fewer games than Buckner, but - with the exception of hitting singles - he did everything else so much better than Buckner, I give him the nod.
And no, Hargrove couldn't hit the ball very hard. But he was willing to take a walk, and as a result he also created almost a full run per game more than Buckner. That Buckner gets trounced by Hargrove, 121 to 99 in OPS+, and Hargrove could not, as you say, break a pane of glass as a hitter, says more about Buckner than you are willing or able to admit.
And so on through the list; I stand by the names I listed as being better than Buckner - the fact that you haven't heard of them notwithstanding. And I did not throw out every name I could think of; in fact, I think it was about half, confirming yet again that Buckner was an average first baseman.
As for his fielding skill, I won't pretend that I have solved the problem of quantifying fielding excellence with a statistic when nobody else has ever been able to. What I do know is that Buckner never won a Gold Glove, was routinely lifted for defensive replacements late in close games (I'm an old fart, I saw it happen many times, so no, I did not check this against the game logs), and single-handedly lost a World Series with his fielding "skills". While the case for his fielding "average-ness" can never be made as air-tight as the obvious case for his offensive "average-ness", I think what evidence there is, at a minimum, shifts the burden of proof onto anyone who wants to make the case that he was better than average. It would seem a very hard case to make, but I am always open to a good argument if there is one.
1) A strikeout with nobody on is exactly the same as any other out.
2) So we are looking at Buckner's 209 k's with men on vs. Hernandez's 440. A difference of 231 K's. Now break it down further.
A strikeout with two outs is exactly the same as any other out. So you have to disregard all 2 out strikeouts.
A strikeout with a man on first is almost always the exact same as another out.
A strikeout wiht a man on second is not much different than putting the ball in play with a man on second.
Then you have to weigh the negative side of putting the ball into play on an out vs. a strikeout....DOUBLE PLAYS!
In the end, it is really only a strikeout with a man on third and less than two outs that has a big difference between putting the ball in play. However, even putting the ball in play in those situations does not always lead to a run! And striking out in those situations sometimes leads to a wild pitch to score a run. If one is interested in that, then look it up and find out how often a player did that vs. another player.
In total, when looking at how many times runners are actually moved up on outs, errors on balls on outs, and taking into the account of Double Plays, you get a only a small difference between the hardest to strikeout(Buckner) vs. the easy to strikeout (Schmidt).
When you are talking about the difference of k's between Buckner and a guy like Keith Hernandez, it is an extremely minor effect. On average a strikeout costs a team about .03 runs vs. a Non-strikeout out. So the difference of every 100 strikeouts is about 3 runs on average. If you can show a guy had a majority of them in the man on third/less than two out situations, then that number could change.
So the differnce between Buckner's K's vs. Hernandez's is about the same value as Buckner having a couple of more Home Runs added to his career total. It amounts to something, but really not much when you break it down and analyze it.
Here are Buckner's and Hernandez's Men ON hitting splits.
Buckner Nobody on: AVG .277, OB% .304, SLG% .394
Buckner Men on....: AVG .304, OB%.341, SLG% .425
Hernndez Nobody On: AVG .280, OB% .366, SLG% .404
Hernandez Men ON:...AVG . 315, OB% .406, SLG% .475
They both have good splits with men on compared to nobody on. But Hernandez has a marked increase in SLG% with men on, more so than Buckner's increase. That is really the main difference, so Hernandez has a slight edge in making his hits count for more than what the normal totals tell you.
P..S. Dallas, your philosophy statements about defense are 100% correct. One can only estimate on that with ALL THE VARIABLES involved. It is not as concrete as Hitting measures. If Buckner's htting were better, than a closer look at his fielding may be needed, but it doesn't look to be the case here.
I'll bite. Please explain. Here's what I see:
Thorton - played 14 seasons, although only about 7 full seasons, was a career .254 hitter, struck out a lot, topped out with 31 2B one year, had no speed, walked a lot, had a career fielding % equal to the lgFP (which I assume is league fielding percentage) as a 1B, was as slow as dried mud, and finished in the top 10 MVP 0 times.
Buckner - played 22 seasons, batted .290, never struck out, hit a ton of 2B and a decent amount of 3B, had a career fielding % equal to the lgFP (which I assume is league fielding percentage) as a 1B, had great speed up until his ankles left him in the mid 80s, and finished in the top 10 MVP twice.
So I guess you meant to say with the exception of singles... and doubles, and triples, and running, and fielding and hitting.
Why not just say "Andre Thorton walked more than Bill Buckner, therefore he is better". I can't imagine Skinny even backing you up on this one. In fact, I'd like Skinny to show he is actually objective and moderately intelligent and post a response about how wrong you are.
single-handedly lost a World Series with his fielding "skills".
I'm glad we got to the basis of your defensive claim. That my friend, is just about the most stupid, exaggerated, and factually untrue thing ever written on these boards.
On average a strikeout costs a team about .03 runs vs. a Non-strikeout out
I admit. That's the best stat you've ever presented. By best I mean the most completely, utterly, and totally theoretical stat that ignores the reality of baseball. A strikeout costs a team exactly one out. That's all. There's no averaging necessary. A strikeout costs a team exactly one out. If there are runners on base, a strikeout does not advance or score runners. It is the worst kind of out you can make, even if you take DP in to account. Often times it's even worse than a DP, for instance the case where a batter hits into a DP that scores a run. When you strikeout, you get out. When you don't strikeout, you put the ball in play. It's that simple.
<< <i>Obviously a walk isn't as good as a hit, and that is why I listed the numbers as such. A walk has roughly 2/3 the value of a hit overrall, and different values in different situations.
>>
i thought getting on base any way possible is the most important thing, so your team has a chance to add a run.
Like I said, you can easily look at how many times a man moved up a runner with an out. You can compare that to any other man. It isn't a theory, it is right there for you to look at. I will tell you now though, you will be surprised at the scant difference between players. Go ahead and check out how many times Buckner moved a runner up and compare it to Hernandez. Then you can even check how often one of those moved up runners will score.
This has been checked already, and the sum of it is what I said. But if you want a clear black and white picture check it out for yourself.
P.S. You cannot discount double plays! Buckner hit into 240 double plays. Compare that to a high strikeout guy like Schmidt, and he hit into 156 double plays. The more you put the ball into play(more importantly on the ground ala Buckner), the more chance of a DP. That at all cannot be discounted in this type of study!
Then see that Schmidt had 108 Sac Flies, and Buckner 97. There is one of your times of moving a runner with an out. Mike Schmidt who more than tripled Buckner in strikeouts actually moved a runner to home with a fly ball more than Buckner did. You can check ground outs that Buckner did the same. As you can see already, he is behind Schmidt, and Schmidt was King "K". In the end, only a small diference.
<< <i>
I'll bite. Please explain. Here's what I see:
Thorton - played 14 seasons, although only about 7 full seasons, was a career .254 hitter, struck out a lot, topped out with 31 2B one year, had no speed, walked a lot, had a career fielding % equal to the lgFP (which I assume is league fielding percentage) as a 1B, was as slow as dried mud, and finished in the top 10 MVP 0 times.
Buckner - played 22 seasons, batted .290, never struck out, hit a ton of 2B and a decent amount of 3B, had a career fielding % equal to the lgFP (which I assume is league fielding percentage) as a 1B, had great speed up until his ankles left him in the mid 80s, and finished in the top 10 MVP twice.
So I guess you meant to say with the exception of singles... and doubles, and triples, and running, and fielding and hitting.
Why not just say "Andre Thorton walked more than Bill Buckner, therefore he is better". >>
I would have said that the first time if that was what I meant. Given 162 games played, Thornton would hit 26 homers, Buckner 11; Thornton would walk 91 times, Buckner 29; Thornton would have an OPS of .811 (22% better than the park-adjusted "average"), Buckner .729 (1% worse than "average"). Thornton would also get HBP a little more, ground into a DP a little less, drive in more runs and score more runs. I concede a little hyperbole when I said he did "everything" else better than Buckner - I assume everyone but you understood that that had to be an exaggeration - but it's not an exaggeration to say that Thornton did MOST things better than Buckner, that the things he did do better were very important, and that as a result he generated almost an entire run per game more than Buckner.
Does Thornton's significantly superior offensive production make up for his significantly shorter career? I think so, but Skinpinch (or anyone else) is welcome to disagree; at least he will do so without resorting to name-calling and without all the grammatical errors.
Number of times reach on error.
Bill Buckner 128
Mike Schmidt 118
Mike Schmidt only TEN times reaching on error from MR. PUT THE BALL INTO PLAY. So all those times Buckner was hitting his weak tappers just to make contact, instead of waiting for a better pitch to DRIVE, or for a free pass...MIKE SCHMIDT, king of the strikeouts, was drawing walks and hitting home runs like an animal, and in the end Buckner's weak contact amounted to only ten more times getting on base via an error.
That strikeout argument is out the window. I already knew that as a player, and I already knew that based on play by play. Now I am laying it out in "common fan" terms and it is telling me the same thing.
So now we know that Schmidt(King of strikeouts) actually advanced a runner from third on sac flies more often, Buckner(king of contact) reached on error a scan ten more times with all that 'contact'. That term "breaking a pane of glass" seems far more applicable to Buckner, by the way. WE ALSO KNOW THAT BUCKNER'S CONTACT NETTED HIM 84 MORE DOUBLE PLAYS THAN SCHMIDT!!
All that is left for Buckner to gain ground is moving a runner home from third on a ground ball, and moving runners up from either first or second. Is that going to even be enough to make up for the extra 84 double plays he hit into? I highly doubt it.
This strikeout argument has gone right out the window.
Buckner doesn't have a leg to stand on
Thornton would also get HBP a little more
That is hilarious. The fact that you would mention that, let alone consider 4 HBP to 3 HBP somehow relevant to who had a better career, is hilarious. That's a straw and a half to be grabbing.
I always love the "162 game average" argument ignoring (or in your case trying to justify) the difference in games and years played, especially when you talk about percentage stats. According to the "162 game average", Wade Miller led the Red Sox with a whopping .667 OBP this past season. Hey, don't the fact that he only bat in 1 game cloud that argument.
Anyways, how about instead of considering hypothetically 162 game seasons, we just look at what really happened. Buckner played a lot longer and a lot more regularly, his career batting average is 35 points higher (which even you BA bashers would have a hard time discounting, or claiming with a straight face that he made up for that in walks). Fact is Thorton didn't play 162 games a year. I'm sure you can do the math as easily as I can, but he averaged 111 games/season in his career. In 5 of his typical 110 game seasons, he batted under .240.
So you're trying to prove a guy who barely played 65% of his team's games each year, who batted under .240 for 5 years and batted .255 for his career, was a better hitter and/or had a better career and/or was a better baseball player than a .290 hitter who banged out nearly 3000 hits over a long and consistently productive career.
You can love OBP all you want. You can talk about the value of walks all you want. It's always fun when you guys show up to try to make the rest of us recognize some obscurity only you understand or dispell some myth we all hold true. But you can only take that so far before it becomes absurd. Honestly, you're not making yourself look smart trying to prove this point.
By the way?
Buckner .729 (1% worse than "average").
The stat sheet that I'm looking at, that I assume everyone is looking at, that Skinny was looking at when he talked about career -12% OBP and +12% SLG vs average obviously nets out to exactly average. Where did the 1% come from?
p.s. To humor you, if you want to talk 162 game averages, personally I'd take the guy with 36 more hits, 7 more 2B, 1 more 3B, 40 pt higher BA, 7 more SB, 59 less strikeouts, and, since we're throwing everything but the kitchen sink into this argument, 2 more sacrifice bunts. And I'd take the guy who did that consistently, over many, many more seasons.
As for the THronton Buckner debate 1) Just the fact that Andre THornton is causing a debate vs. Buckner should tell people about how good Buckner actually was...no not the overvaluing of not striking out, or the total hits(with disregard to everything else more important) that usually over blows Buckners true value, but the reality of what REALLY causes RUNS to be created!
I can lay it out in a way that should be more clear on what is better for a team to have...Bill Buckner at his abilities for a long time, or THornton at his abilities for a short time. Part of the answer will lie in the philosophy of how one values a player. Are you measuring him vs. an average player of his league? Or are you measuring him vs. the average replacement player that would be playing in that players stead (during the mssing at bats).
P.S. Just doing a quick look at THornton's Men on Numbers to put value on what really happened (reality), he will be starting from a hole, as his numbers aren't that good there, and that is a Buckner strength.
The "strikeout argument" that you're so intent on disproving was that Buckner struck out less than anyone in baseball and that is a positive fact of his career. Disproving that is to try to prove he's a worse player because he didn't strikeout enough, which is insane.
Also..
All that is left for Buckner to gain ground is moving a runner home from third on a ground ball, and moving runners up from either first or second. Is that going to even be enough to make up for the extra 84 double plays he hit into? I highly doubt it.
Well yeah, that's a huge part of the value of not striking out. You can ignore it and doubt it, as it nicely fits your argument to do so, but it makes your argument rather incomplete. If you want to try to prove that point, fine. Look up how many times Buckner came to the plate with runners on and advanced/scored the runners with an out, or FC, or error or anything but a hit. Figure how often that happened as a percentage of his plate appearances with runners on base, excluding the ones where he actually got hits of course, then compare that with the regularity that he struck out in those situations, given his career AB/K ratio, and compare that with any other player given any other player's strikeout ration. Spend about a month compiling all the stats and come up with the conclusion - it is fact a huge plus for a guy who doesn't strike out much. That's the "strikeout argument". It is better for a batter to come to the plate and not strikeout.
Here's part of the research. With men on base, Buckner had 4177 at bats w/1269 hits (.304 average) and struck out 209 times. That leaves 2699 at bats where he did not strikeout or get a hit. He grounded into 247 DP, which leaves 2452 at bats. 2452 times he put the ball in play with runners on base = 58% of the time he put the ball in play (not DP). Schmidt had 3917 at bats with men on. He got 1068 hits (.273 average) and struck out 865 times leaving 1984 non strikeout/hit outs. He grounded into 156 DP, leaving 1828 at bats. 1828 times he put the ball in play with runners on base = 46% of the time he put the ball in play.
To break it down even more. Non-strikeout guy at the plate with men on base:
Hit 30% of the time
K stranding runners: 5% of the time
DP putting ball in play but making 2 outs: 6% of the time
Putting the ball in play for other things to happen, errors, advancing runners etc: 58% of the time
Strikeout guy:
Hit: 27% of the time
K: 22% of the time (1 of nearly every 4 at bats with runners on he struck out!)
DP putting ball in play but making 2 outs: 6% of the time: 4% of the time
Putting the ball in play for other things to happen, errors, advancing runners etc: 46% of the time
So, 58% of the time, the non-strikeout guy came to the plate with runners on base and put the ball in play. 46% of the time for the strikeout guy. Yes, this doesn't take into account 2 out at bats, but that is a detail of the big picture, and can't be used to disprove the big picture, so don't even try. Just see the forrest here...
Before/if you start, the point, at least as I understood, is not "what is better for a team to have".. The claim was made that Thorton was better than Buckner, in the context of HOF careers. Which is why I thought the 162 game average argument was invalid.
The point I make is it is really difficult to compare statistics.
Cy Young Fast Facts
I may not have time to dig into it tonight, my eyes are starting to hurt from looking at the darn computer screen!
But, what do you mean by "context of Hall of Fame careers?"
The pressing question is how you go about determining the value of Buckner's length of playing vs. Thornton's. What I mean by what is better for a team is this....
Is a team better off having Bill Buckner and his production for 9,500 plate appearances, OR
Is a team better off having Andre THornton with a higher rate of production, but also having to take the numbers of the guy that is filling in for Thornton while he isn't playing, or when he stopped playing all together.
So it is Thornton and his 6,000 plate apperances, and the 3,500 plate apperances of the players needed when Thornton isn't playing. THe philosophy part in this evaluation is, what are the typical numbers a replacement player would have in Thornton's stead? Some people just measure it vs. the league average, but a team usually does not have league average players sitting on the bench, or in the minor leagues.
Looking at the best measurements, Thornton is responsible for more runs vs. the league average, because Buckner was basically at average for many years, so he was getting 0 runs credit...ZERO MEANING AVERAGE, NOT NO PRODUCTION. Many players, produce below average and produce runs negative to what a league average player gets.
Looking at Buckner against a replacement level, puts Buckner's career into better light. Being average for many years HAS VALUE!! The trick is determining at what level a replacement player is used, and that is the philosophy part.
IF YOU LOOK AT BUCKNER VS. REPLACEMENT LEVEL PLAYERS, and add his men on hitting, and his contact ability, he is going to have more value than THornton, meaning he will produce more runs than Thornton and a typical replacement.
I was going to break it down more in laymens terms, like I did with Palmeiro vs. Frank Thomas before. Because I recognize that most fans balk at the talk I just wrote about above. It is possible to break it down into terms better for people to follow, people that aren't used to hearing all those sabermetric terms. Believe me, I've clashed with many sabermatricians to show the faults in a lot of their measurements.
I think though that the main point was the amount of first baseman from Buckner's time that were better or close to him. I believe dallas acknowledged that Thornton was debatable, and it is debatable depending on how you measure it.
I love Billy Bucks, as most do, but I like to try and keep bias out of it, and be objective. He just isn't a Hall player, but so what! He can still be admired, and that is what I tell my buddy all the time! Heck, that is my mothers favorite player!
Me too.
SD
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Now that you can really look at it with great clarity, it really settles a lot of those bar room debates, and it certainly settles the value of the hitting events. Now when my biased buddy comes up to me and says Buckner never struck out, and Schmidt always did, therefore Buckner is better etc... I can point him to exactly how many times that just making contact really mattered. It isn't a mystery anymore. Baseball hitting lends itself very well to these types of anaylsis, afterall, isn't baseball often presented as "Chess on grass?" It is certainly a numbers game.
Does it take away from some of the romance of the arguing, or of the game itself? Arguing about these types of things are a big part of baseball history. There are still philosophical things to debate about in baseball, like measuring vs. league average, or measuring vs. replacement level. I think the arguments have moved on to other issues as a lot of the others have been solved to a strong degree. Many fans don't realize all this information and that the clarity of some things have evolved. Many fans aren't inerested and just want to watch, which is fine. You do what floats your boat.
As for baseball without the numbers? Speaking for myself, I know how to appreciate the game and certain players for characteristics that aren't presented in numbers. Who could not admire Bill Buckner? You hit it on the head with the injuries, and his demeanor and grit. Heck, even his mustache and looks are certainly a part of his lore. King Kelly also owes some of his lore to the same thing! How could you not think that Eddie Murray's batting stance was the coolest! Anybody that watched Pete Rose play baseball just knows that he would be an asset to their team without ever looking at a stat sheet.
I love to argue/debate this stuff because it is fun(most of the time), and I think all deep baseball fans would benefit from broadening their horizons on how the game is looked at etc.... I like that some things have become clear and settled to a strong degree of certainty, and I know there is still enough things to debate about that will never be solved to a strong enough degree of certainty, and that is part of what keeps it a fun sport to follow.
Anyway, time for me to check out for a while. Maybe Monday, I will flame another debate, as I had a lot of fun with this thread!
I said Bill Buckner had a great swing and may have been one of toughest to strike out of his generation. Okay... a great swing is alittle subjective. Ted Williams said the same thing about Buckner 30 years ago. Frankly... I think the stats probably support that Buckner was was of the toughest to strike out. I always thought Yaz and Clemente were tough to strike out... Buckners numbers look much better.
I am not arguing with you because Hernandez is a terrific player. I just think that stats do not always tell the whole story when it comes to baseball. Sometimes there are no correct answers but that should not stop the discussion... I would not call it a debate...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mattingly (#12)
Hernandez (#16)
Powell (#27)
Cooper (#28)
Garvey (#31)
Watson (#33)
Hrbek (#40)
Hargrove (#45)
May (#47)
Mayberry (#49)
Thornton (#50)
Scott (#57)
Buckner (#66)
Chambliss (#67)
Gene Tenace is ranked by James as a catcher, at #23, behind Ernie Lombardi and ahead of Tim McCarver.
Since these are so consistent with what I expected (although he ranks May a fair amount lower than I would), I think it's fair to say that James and I both define "better than" in a similar way (I am not claiming that necessarily makes either one of us right), or at least in a way that yields similar results.
I think of "better than" as meaning, if you are the GM of a team and you know for a certainty how good two recruits are going to be and for how long, which would you sign? For example, if you could choose between Sandy Koufax and Jim Kaat (assuming they started at the same time and that you knew exactly what each would do), who would you pick, knowing that Kaat would still be winning 15 games a year for years after Koufax was gone? I'd take Koufax, I wouldn't worry about what might happen after he's gone, and I don't think I'd ever regret the decision, even as Kaat racked up 100 more wins than the guy I picked.
So, that's what I mean when I say Thornton was "better than" Buckner. Start them off in the same year, give me first pick and I'll take Thornton. If you define "better than" differently than I do and want to pick Buckner, that's fine. But, if you pick your entire team based on the belief that "hard to strike out" is even half as important as "takes a lot of walks", my team will kick your team's ass; but that's fine, too.
JMO
SD
<< <i>I would pick Koufax too, seeing that he won all those NL and WS titles.
JMO
SD >>
And he did it all by himself, too, right?
Sd
yes all alone he did it.
One thing that's nice about Skinny is no matter how hard I push, he'll never admit, and in fact furiously denies, that he is just pimping James' abstract beliefs on the boards. Dallas, you gave in too easily. Clearly a rookie mistake.
You mean you weren't looking before when you just happened to randomly list all the obscure and lesser known players that just happened to rank ahead of Buckner in Bill James' mind. I was certain it was the other way around.
<< <i>You mean you weren't looking before when you just happened to randomly list all the obscure and lesser known players that just happened to rank ahead of Buckner in Bill James' mind. I was certain it was the other way around. >>
None of the players I listed were obscure to anyone but you; they were the other first basemen contemporary with Buckner who were better than him. The ones worse than him truly are obscure, and there was no reason to mention them. So, hard as it may be to believe, I made all my posts yestersday from the office, and my post earlier today from my house (where my copy of James' book is). FWIW, I disagree with James strongly on his ranking of pitchers and several other groups; just within the ranks of the 70's and 80's first basemen I listed, I think he has significantly undervalued Lee May and Chris Chambliss, and significantly overvalued Cecil Cooper. But, all in all, the only thing of which I am positive is that he knows more about baseball than all of us combined; as such, his opinion is always worth hearing.
In addition to being the only one participating in this thread who had never heard of Gene Tenace, you are also the only one who has consistently - though not always - done all you could to make this personal. I see you do this with a few others pretty regularly, and I had assumed there was bad blood between you and some specific people - and didn't know or care whose fault that was. You'll have a much more pleasant experience, and provide one for many others, if you'd tone down the sarcasm, insults and name-calling. If someone makes an argument you don't understand or mentions a player you've never heard of, you'll learn a lot more with your mouth shut than you will calling people dorks. Just my opinion, accept it or call me a dork - you're choice.