Greatest 3rd Baseman, etc.
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,336 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
If they only had one stat to use to tell how good a player was offensively, most people would probably pick batting average. There are worse stats to pick, but there is one that is clearly and significantly better, and I don't think I have ever seen it mentioned in any thread: secondary average. Secondary average is basically a simple sum of a player's offensive contributions that are not captured by batting average, which is to say it is roughly twice as useful as batting average. If you want to calculate a few of your own, or check mine, the formula is (TB - H + BB + SB - CS) / AB. Very roughly speaking, it captures OBP and SA with a bit of baserunning thrown in. Again very roughly, a secondary average will generally be in the same ballpark as a batting average; .300 is very good, .400 is great. .594 is Babe Ruth.
It struck me that the chasm that exists between Schmidt and the other great third basemen is not being fully appreciated by everyone involved in that thread, and I wanted to check the secondary averages of the relevant players to see if they confirm it. They do. The secondary averages of a few great third basemen (plus Pie Traynor, who was not great):
Schmidt: .450
Mathews: .411
Santo: .323
Brett: .299
Robinson: .215
Traynor: .193
The most interesting thing about secondary average, to me anyway, is how useful it is in identifying underrated and overrated players. The most overrated player of all time is George Sisler; I know many people don't agree with that, but it's true nonetheless. Sisler's secondary average - which, again, tells us much more about a player than his batting average, was .215. And that's without making any park-adjustments!
My off-the-top-of-my-head picks for a few of the most underrated players of recent times: Jimmy Wynn (.388), Gene Tenace (.410), and Darrell Evans (.365). In general, if a player has a batting average higher than his secondary average he is probably overrated; if it's a big gap then he's almost certainly overrated (I'm open to hearing an exception). The reverse is also true: secondary averages much higher than batting averages identify the great players we all know (Ruth, Mantle, etc.) and also the ones we don't know or realize.
I encourage anyone with the time and inclination to test a few players; calculate their secondary average and compare it to their batting average. See if the results surprise you.
{There's lots of disclaimers on this: don't try to use it on 19th century players, don't try to compare secondary averages of players in the 1920's to players in the 1960's, and so on. It's not park-adjusted, "runs created" is a better stat but it's a mother to calculate, and a bunch of other perfectly valid criticisms - I know. But, it is a much better stat than batting average, it's easy to calculate, you can check it out for any player, and you will learn something useful about that player if you do.}
It struck me that the chasm that exists between Schmidt and the other great third basemen is not being fully appreciated by everyone involved in that thread, and I wanted to check the secondary averages of the relevant players to see if they confirm it. They do. The secondary averages of a few great third basemen (plus Pie Traynor, who was not great):
Schmidt: .450
Mathews: .411
Santo: .323
Brett: .299
Robinson: .215
Traynor: .193
The most interesting thing about secondary average, to me anyway, is how useful it is in identifying underrated and overrated players. The most overrated player of all time is George Sisler; I know many people don't agree with that, but it's true nonetheless. Sisler's secondary average - which, again, tells us much more about a player than his batting average, was .215. And that's without making any park-adjustments!
My off-the-top-of-my-head picks for a few of the most underrated players of recent times: Jimmy Wynn (.388), Gene Tenace (.410), and Darrell Evans (.365). In general, if a player has a batting average higher than his secondary average he is probably overrated; if it's a big gap then he's almost certainly overrated (I'm open to hearing an exception). The reverse is also true: secondary averages much higher than batting averages identify the great players we all know (Ruth, Mantle, etc.) and also the ones we don't know or realize.
I encourage anyone with the time and inclination to test a few players; calculate their secondary average and compare it to their batting average. See if the results surprise you.
{There's lots of disclaimers on this: don't try to use it on 19th century players, don't try to compare secondary averages of players in the 1920's to players in the 1960's, and so on. It's not park-adjusted, "runs created" is a better stat but it's a mother to calculate, and a bunch of other perfectly valid criticisms - I know. But, it is a much better stat than batting average, it's easy to calculate, you can check it out for any player, and you will learn something useful about that player if you do.}
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
1) Using runs and RBI is very dependant on your teammates. I posted in another thread on the value of each offensive event. Use those figures.
2) Pie Traynor...please get him off of the list of any all time great. The first thing you should know about Traynor is that his lifetime OB% of .362 is made of glass, because the league OB% during his time was .353! His numbers are simply a product of his time and environment where it was rather easy to acquire high batting averages. Yeah, he has a lifetime .320 average, but the league average during his time was .295!! Slugging was .435 to league avg of .416.
3) The most overrated players in history come from Pre War times...even the best of measurements still struggles at putting them into their proper place in history(the second era of most overrated players is right now). As Dallas said, that measurement he used does not take into account the differences in era's, thus not to use it to compare cross era's.
Dallas, I disagree with RObinson being the most overrated for a couple of reasons...1)He is the best defensive 3B ever(at worst second if Schmidt is viewed better, but Brooks beats Schmidt in some measurements, and the eye measurement). 2)His overall batting totals are being weighed down a bit by some very early time in the bigs...and some poor old man years. He was a very good hitter for about ten years...excellent in a few. For example...
Here are Brooks's Batter Runs from Bp (runs batted above average). He has a lifetime total of 151. Check out how it broke down though.
Age
18......Negative 5
19......Negative 2
20......Negative 2
21......Negative 18
Age 22-34....222 Batter Runs
35......Negative 2
36......Negative 6
37......14
38.......Negative 30
39......Negative 13
40.......Negative 5
Yes, those years do count to his totals, but it doesn't portray how good he actually was with the bat for the prime of his career. This is where 'how one views things' comes into play. Was he best measured as the hitter of the 222 BR, or the 151? Which is better/more important, or captures him more? That is debatable. As for getting the most accolades as compared with true merit? I don't know...I never really searched those guys out. Sisler would probably be that guy though for me. At least Brooks can hang his hat on his 'out of this world ' defense, if nothing else.
It is fun to debate relative merits of ballplayers, based on a variety of factors. Baseball lends itself very well to this type of discussion, due to the vast amount of measureable statistics and the fact that since 1901, the rules have remained basically the the same.
The truest way to really measure a player's worth is to see how he compared to his peers, how he did against the rest of the league when conditions were the same for everyone. Conditions change by era, diet, training, expansion, game philosophy, and many other things evolve or are altered as time goes by. How one rates with his comtemporaries is still one of the best judgements of "Greatness".
GEORGE SISLER "Overrated" ???????? No way, one of the all-time greats to ever play the game !
It seems some like to downplay his accomplishments, but his performance shows otherwise.
A lifetime BA of .340, very few have better !
257 hits in a 154 game season, still the record, no big publicity or talk of an asterick. A .400 hitter twice, joins the likes of Cobb and Hornsby as the only multiple .400 batters since 1901. League leader in stolen bases four times . Has been the leader one or more times in various categories; runs scored, total bases, triples, hits, stolen bases, Batting average. Has been runner up ( to Babe Ruth by the way ) in slugging pct. and home runs. Was described by sportswriters of the time as very quick and agile ( as supported by his stolen base speed ) and the best feilding first baseman, who could get to many balls a slower man would not attempt to field.
George had the "misfortune" ? to play mainly for a pretty inept ST. Louis Brown team, in a small market. He was very reserved and avoided much publicity. He has no "major" sporstscard issues, like T-206, Cracker Jack, or Goudey, and thus a small amount of casual fans. If compared to the Cobb/Ruth/Mays type players he is a bit shy. Compared to the next level of players he fares quite well, as confirmed by his HOF election in 1939, just 3 years after it's inception.
<< <i>Dallas, I disagree with RObinson being the most overrated for a couple of reasons...1)He is the best defensive 3B ever(at worst second if Schmidt is viewed better, but Brooks beats Schmidt in some measurements, and the eye measurement). 2)His overall batting totals are being weighed down a bit by some very early time in the bigs...and some poor old man years. He was a very good hitter for about ten years...excellent in a few. >>
Now I didn't say Robinson was the most overrated - that's Pie Traynor at third and George Sisler overall. I won't go over again the multitude of reasons why Sisler just wasn't that good except to say that they are so numerous they have already filled several threads.
And to emphasize two things about secondary average - it doesn't take any account of defense so it's just a measure of offensive performance, and it's only an average so it takes no account of longevity. I think Brooks Robinson is a bona fide Hall of Famer despite his relatively low secondary average mostly because of his defense and longevity; I also think Ron Santo was better and among the most underrated players of all-time.
Yes, secondary average gives a big premium for power hitters - as it should. But how about comparing a couple of leadoff hitters. I've heard Ichiro compared to Rickey Henderson; Ichiro's lifetime BA stands at .331 to Henderson's .279. Their secondary averages? Henderson .437, Ichiro .219. Ichiro is about half the ballplayer Henderson was; if you think he's much more than that, you're overrating him.
George Kell's secondary average was .202.
Since 1901, the generally accepted start of the modern era with similar rules in effect...............
Only 12 men have a higher lifetime batting average.
Only 2 men have hit .400 in a season more times than George.
Only 9 men have more stolen base league leading seasons.
Only 2 men have ever batted higher than his .420 in 1922.
Only 18 men have more lifetime triples.
Only 1 man, with 8 more games to help, ever got more hits in a year than Sisler.
What's NOT that good?
No one claims he is the best ever, however he ranks among the top peformers of all time. The only debate might be in the amount, is he in the top 10, the top 25, the top 50 ?
Sometimes Bill James cant see the forest for the trees, various stats are convaluted, extrapolated, pasturized, and glamorized, often disregarding some hard facts. He appears to have some kind of "grudge" against George and writes somewhat negatively about him. The stats do show Sisler as a great player, even if he would have never led the league in total bases, runs scored, stolen bases, or triples, which he did in fact, his lifetime .340 batting average alone should allow him to be called at least pretty good !!!
<< <i>Yes, secondary average gives a big premium for power hitters - as it should. But how about comparing a couple of leadoff hitters. I've heard Ichiro compared to Rickey Henderson; Ichiro's lifetime BA stands at .331 to Henderson's .279. Their secondary averages? Henderson .437, Ichiro .219. Ichiro is about half the ballplayer Henderson was; if you think he's much more than that, you're overrating him.
George Kell's secondary average was .202. >>
The formula of secondary average gives far too much weight (in my mind at least) to stolen bases.
Rickey Henderson was an absolutely fantastic player, who is vastly underrated. But to say that he's twice the player that Ichiro is (based solely on stolen bases) is tragically flawed.
Giving that much weight for stolen bases gives guys who steal bases. Vince Coleman's secondary formula?
.275.
Are you going to tell me that Vince Coleman was that much better a player than Ichiro?
Tim Raines' secondary average is .355.
I would take Ichiro over either Coleman or Raines...anyday.
<< <i>Giving that much weight for stolen bases gives guys who steal bases. Vince Coleman's secondary formula?
.275.
Are you going to tell me that Vince Coleman was that much better a player than Ichiro?
Tim Raines' secondary average is .355.
I would take Ichiro over either Coleman or Raines...anyday. >>
Taken one at a time:
Coleman had a very hard time staying healthy, and he wasn't much of a fielder. Overall, of course, I would take Ichiro over Vince Coleman. But, per at bat, Vince Coleman was probably a little bit more valuable than Ichiro on offense.
Tim Raines, on the other hand, was a LOT more valuable, offensively, than Ichiro. In fact, the gap on offense is so huge that it doesn't matter how much better Ichiro is at defense - there's no way to make up that gap playing the outfield. Tim Raines was better than Ichiro. All the other measures already show it, but secondary average is a simple way to confirm it.
And jaxxr, when I say Sisler wasn't "that good", I mean "as good as he's made out to be". Sisler was good, I'd even go so far as to say he was very good. But he wasn't great, he's among the worst players in the HOF, and if I had to pick between Norm Cash or George Sisler I'd take Cash in a heartbeat.
Here is why a stolen base isn't worht the same as a Total Base: On the surface it would seem they are the same...each instance means you are moving up one base, however, a batted total base not only advances you a base, but it has much potential to advance base runners as well. For instance, a guy gets a single, and then a stolen base, compared to a guy who just hits a double. Each guy would have a 1.000 secondary average. The guy with the double has greater expectancy to score more runs. For instance...
A single will advance a guy from third most always, a double always. A single will advance a guy from second to home just over half the time. A double will advance a guy from second to home most always. A single will advance a guy first to third about 40% of the time. A double will advance a guy from first to third always. So you see how much more runs a double will create in the long haul in terms of advancing runners. But what about advancing oneself?
Advancing oneself: a double will leave the team with a man on second, and so will a single and a stole base. So each one presents the team with the same scoring opportunity. Add to the guy batting possible hitting in a hole from the result of the stolen base, and that is actually a bit worse. It takes a study of
Coleman isn't better than Ichiro. Ichiro is nowhere near in the ballpark as Henderson though. Ichiro is also much inferior to Tim Raines, who by the way will get snubbed from the Hall of Fame, even though he merits induction.
1) You are taking Raines's entire career, which includes the inevitable drop in ability that goes with it....while you are using Ichiro's prime. Do that study again, but use Raines's best six year stretch, and see what happens.
2) You are not giving any weight to the environment each hitting was done in. Ichiro's numbers were accomplished in an era where it is much easier to hit, while Raines's prime occured during a much more difficult era to hit in.
'82 .353 and 78 SB
'83 .393 and 90 SB
'84 .393 and 75 SB
'85 .405 and 70 SB
'86 .413 and 70 SB
'87 .429 and 50 SB
Here are Ichiro's numbers, in an easier era to hit in...
'01 .381 and 56
'02 .388 and 31
'03 .352 and 34
'04 .414 and 46
'05 .350 and 35
'06 .370 and 45
Raines's SB percentage was higher, his SLG% was also higher, and very importantly, he DID IT IN THE TOUGHER ERA TO HIT IN. This cannot be discounted.
IN a nutshell it translates into runs the following way....Raines prime vs. Ichiro's prime...
Raines 294 BR....+ a very large lead in SB runs with appx an addition 47 SB RUNS!!
Ichiro 142 BR
Yes, it is a large margin. Ichiro makes up about 37 of those runs via fielding, still waaay below Raines.
If the number is expressed like an OPS+ number, with 100 as the baseline for average, then you can see it better. It would look kind of like this 150 BR vs 125. Expressing it this way shows that he is not twice as good.
I belive bill James win shares express total value, and not above average player.
As for the Raines mistake, I get the per 150 games, but you didn't calculate his six year prime...you reposted his caree rates again. You have his six year prime with a .385OB%, well that is his career mark...his prime mark is over .400. I believe you made the same mistake in all of his prime numbers.
Like I posted, Raines has him by over 150 Runs in their prime. He adds 47 more via SB, and loses 37 more via defense. That puts him at over 160 more...no not twice the value, but simply 160 more. Over six years, that is appx 26 per year, and that is a large margin, large enough where there really isn't much of a debate.
Please...............
Be serious and look at the stats, in Cash's best year he was not nearly as much better than his peers if compared to Sisler's dominance.
Cash won only ONE batting title, that year he was 4th in RBIs, 2nd in total bases, 2nd in Slg. Pct. He led in hitting avearge and base hits and was 105 points above the league average.
Sisler has several title years but choosing 1920, Sisler was 2nd in HRs, 2nd in Slg, Pct., 3rd in RBIs, 2nd in Doubles, 2nd in stolenbases, 2nd in triples, 3rd in runs scored, and 1st in total bases. He led in hitting average and base hits and was 124 points above the league average.
Please READ the above and try to understand, Sisler had a very much better year than Cash's best when compared to other players of their repective times. In fact two of George's seasons rank among the very best ever by a batter from any era !!
<< <i>Norm Cash over George Sisler ??? >>
Yes, and by a very clear margin.
Norm Cash's best year was actually much better than any year Sisler ever had. Comparing Cash's 1961 season to Sisler's 1920 season (his best):
Cash had 20 fewer plate appearances but made 37 fewer outs.
Cash got on base 22 more times
Cash's OBP was 38 points higher than Sisler's, and his slugging % was 30 points higher
Adjust it all for parks and eras and it gets even worse for Sisler, but even if you don't Cash wins.
For their careers:
Sisler's OBP was 6% better than average, Cash's was 14% better than average
Sisler's slugging was 18% better than average, Cash's was 25% better than average
Cash played 14 seasons where he was much better than the average player - that's every full or nearly full season he played. Sisler had 7 such seasons - in the seven others he was, in total, worse than the average player.
Neither one of them was much of a fielder, but every stat I have ever found shows Cash was better.
Norm Cash was a better player than George Sisler. If they were all that close I'd add "IMO", but they're really not that close.
And Norm Cash was not great. A comparison of Sisler to a great first baseman (like Johnny Mize, Dick Allen or Willie McCovey) would leave Sisler humiliated.
Sisler led the AL in total bases, Cash did not..
Sisler was ranked higher than Cash in Homeruns, Runs batted in, Triples, Stolen bases, Runs scored, and Doubles as compared to the rest of the league.
They were both the second best via Slg. Pct.
Cash made fewer outs ????????.
Well that makes it clear,
I guess a lifetime .340 batting average, and dominance in traditional stats like runs scored ( I thought they determined the outcome of a game by runs made, not fewest outs made ) and the others listed for their top years, shows nothing.
I do not think one can compare Sisler and Cash. They played in different eras.
Steve
Cash beat Sisler in both OB% AND SLG%, and he did it in an era where it was much tougher to hit...much tougher. Added together creates OPS, which cash was .862, and Sisler .847.
Relative to their peers, the league average OPS when Cash played was .719, and when Sisler played .754. I believe every comprehensive measurement will show the same.
Yes, Runs are the currency of the game, and whomever creates more is the better player. However, using Runs scored is giving all the credit to the player, which is faulty because his teammates and luck have a big say in how many Runs scored a player gets. For example...
If two guys each get nine triples, and one guy gets knocked in by his teammates 9 times, and the other guy only twice...then the runs scored stat is saying one guy is 7 runs better. However, that would not nearly be indicitive of how good each player was. That number would be crediting luck and the guys teammates for his seven runs, while ignoring the fact that they were equal...as the triples indicate.
By the way, Runs and RBI were much more prevlant in the 30's, because there were many more guys on base for two reasons, 1)the Ob% is much higher, and 2)The error rate was much higher. So every time Sisler would get on base, these two factors would give him a largely unfair advantage over Cash in the stat of Runs scored. The stat would be telling a mistruth on who was better. Same for RBI, Sisler would be presented with many more Opportunites because of these two reasosn.
1961 saw two new expansion teams enter the AL, adding some " not quite ready for the majors" hurlers for Cash to hit against. Eight additional games were included, giving many more chances to pad raw numbers. Many records, including individual and team homerun totals, were set in the first year of diluted talent in the Big Show. In 1961 almost 1500 more runs were scored in the AL than in 1920, and the average runs per team was higher in 1961.
In 1961 Cash got less hits , batted a lower average, and was ahead of the league batting average by a lesser margin than Sisler.
In 1961 FIVE players hit more HRs than Cash, who got 2.7% of the league's total HRs, 1920 has Sisler being topped by only ONE player in HRs and he got 5.1 % of the leagues's total HRs.
In 1961 Cash was league leader or runner-up in three offensive stats, BA, Hits, and Slg Pct., while 1920 has George the league leader or runner-up in nine offensive stats, BA, Hits, Slg Pct., as well as HRs, RBIs, Doubles, Triples, Stolen bases, and Total bases.
In 1961 Cash scored 119 runs, the currency of the game", and got .017 of the league and .141 of the Tiger's runs, 1920 shows Silser scored 17 more runs, with 136 and got .023 of the league with .171 of the Brown's runs.
Clearly Sisler was very much more above his peers from that Year/Era than Cash was.
WinPitcher, the only fair way to compare players from different eras is to see how they compare against their comtemporaries, or players from the same year or era, as I think is shown above. By the way 1920 was NOT the year Sisler batted an awesome .420 while leading the league in Average, Hits, Runs scored, Stolen bases, and Triples as he was "pretty good" several times.
For those who rely on exotic stats, winning percents, ballpark variances, times on base with hot-dog vendors yelling, and so forth.......
.........In 1942 Ted Williams led the league in BA, HRs, and RBIs, perhaps the Jamesian like sporstwriters of the time figured since Joe Gordon made less outs he was the real MVP !!!
The league's Battting average, OB% and SLG% during Cash's entire career were .258, .329 and .390.
During Sislers career it was.......................................................................................288, .356 and .398.
This isn't a one year representation, it is all the seasons they played combined. You keep saying the best way to compare is vs. their peers, and Cash is obviously outdistancing his peers to a much wider margin Sisler was. Knowing this, and knwoing that Cash outperformed Sisler outright, it is an easy victory.
There is nothing exotic about the better measurements, just that they are simply more accurate to who was more influential in creating runs.
You are putting all the stock into a batting average, and batting average tells only a small part of the story. It says a guy with 200 singles in 600 at bats is better than a guy with 140 singles, 20 doubles, and 20 Home runs in 600 at bats. In reality, the second guys is superior.
Jaxx, when one studies how runs are made most efficiently, and beneficial, one has to recognize that the biggest obstacle to scoring runs is making an out. This stuff isn't guessing, it is combing over hundreds of thousands of game, situations, and daily logs to see what is occuring, and how much each event is typically worth. Your gonna tell me that a simple batting average tells more than this? Gosh no.
Jaxxx, it does not mean that a guy who makes less outs is automatically better. It means that you have to weigh all of the events...singles, doubles, triples, HR, BB, and outs. Each of those leads to runs to different degrees, and making an outs detract from the chance of scoring runs. A guy can accumulate a lot of runs by hitting HR, but if he is making a lot of outs in the process, then his value is taken down.
P.S. As for expansion watering down the 1960's, compared to 1930's? Boy, this ain't even close. I can show you the number of available men available for each era, and it certainly ain't the 1930's. Not to mention, the 1930's was whites only. Basically, it was a very easy time for the stars to shine over their inferior peers.
<< <i>For those who rely on exotic stats, winning percents, ballpark variances, times on base with hot-dog vendors yelling, and so forth.......
.........In 1942 Ted Williams led the league in BA, HRs, and RBIs, perhaps the Jamesian like sporstwriters of the time figured since Joe Gordon made less outs he was the real MVP !!!
>>
As long as you group outs made and ballpark variances with "times on base with hot-dog vendors yelling", you will not be able to compare two players - whether from different eras or not. And I'm not going to look it up, but I will bet you my first-born that Joe Gordon made more outs than Ted Williams in 1942. That you considered it possible that he did not shows you are not fully appreciating how important that statistic really is.
BTW, I think 1942 was - at least until they started giving MVP's to relief pitchers - the worst MVP pick in history.
<< <i>baseball, a few things...
1) Using runs and RBI is very dependant on your teammates. I posted in another thread on the value of each offensive event. Use those figures.
2) Pie Traynor...please get him off of the list of any all time great. The first thing you should know about Traynor is that his lifetime OB% of .362 is made of glass, because the league OB% during his time was .353! His numbers are simply a product of his time and environment where it was rather easy to acquire high batting averages. Yeah, he has a lifetime .320 average, but the league average during his time was .295!! Slugging was .435 to league avg of .416.
3) The most overrated players in history come from Pre War times...even the best of measurements still struggles at putting them into their proper place in history(the second era of most overrated players is right now). As Dallas said, that measurement he used does not take into account the differences in era's, thus not to use it to compare cross era's.
Dallas, I disagree with RObinson being the most overrated for a couple of reasons...1)He is the best defensive 3B ever(at worst second if Schmidt is viewed better, but Brooks beats Schmidt in some measurements, and the eye measurement). 2)His overall batting totals are being weighed down a bit by some very early time in the bigs...and some poor old man years. He was a very good hitter for about ten years...excellent in a few. For example...
Here are Brooks's Batter Runs from Bp (runs batted above average). He has a lifetime total of 151. Check out how it broke down though.
Age
18......Negative 5
19......Negative 2
20......Negative 2
21......Negative 18
Age 22-34....222 Batter Runs
35......Negative 2
36......Negative 6
37......14
38.......Negative 30
39......Negative 13
40.......Negative 5
Yes, those years do count to his totals, but it doesn't portray how good he actually was with the bat for the prime of his career. This is where 'how one views things' comes into play. Was he best measured as the hitter of the 222 BR, or the 151? Which is better/more important, or captures him more? That is debatable. As for getting the most accolades as compared with true merit? I don't know...I never really searched those guys out. Sisler would probably be that guy though for me. At least Brooks can hang his hat on his 'out of this world ' defense, if nothing else. >>
Pie Traynor? Well, I guess u are too late? As he has been judged by history and his piers and voted into the Hall, as one of the best! U want him taken-off "all-time great" lists? Contact Baseball's Hall of Fame and ask them to cut him. Tell the "Hall" he doesn't rate!
From Wikipedia:
Harold Joseph "Pie" Traynor (November 11, 1899 - March 16, 1972) was a Major League Baseball third baseman who played his entire career with the Pittsburgh Pirates (1920-37).
Only 278 strikeouts in almost 8000 appearances at the plate
348 errors in 6410 chances
Traynor was born in Framingham, Massachusetts. He received his nickname for a fondness for eating pie. He is generally considered to have been the greatest National League third baseman before the 1950s. Although he played in the era before the Gold Glove award was created, he was regarded by most baseball observers as the best-fielding third baseman ever until Brooks Robinson came along. He had a lifetime batting average of .320, and was struck out only 278 times in 7,559 career at bats. Playing his home games at Pittsburgh's spacious Forbes Field kept his home run total low, reaching a high of 12 in 1923. However, those long distances also aided him in hitting doubles and triples, and he had over 100 runs batted in (RBI) in a season seven times. He also managed the Pirates from 1934 to 1939.
Pie Traynor is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame In 1948, Traynor was selected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, being the initial third baseman to be chosen by the BBWAA. He died at age 72 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, not long after the Pirates moved into Three Rivers Stadium and retired his uniform number 20. In 1999, he ranked Number 70 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players, and was nominated as a finalist for the Major League Baseball All-Century Team.
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>Pie Traynor? Well, I guess u are too late? As he has been judged by history and his piers and voted into the Hall, as one of the best!
U want him taken-off "all-time great" lists? Contact Baseball's Hall of Fame and ask them to cut him. Tell the "Hall" he doesn't rate!
>>
Oh, I wish it were possible to get these 20's and 30's mediocrities out of the HOF!
If we're picking all-time teams you can have Pie Traynor, and I'll take Sal Bando; you can have George Sisler and I'll take Norm Cash; you can have Tony Lazzeri and I'll take Bobby Grich; you can have Joe Sewell and I'll take Jim Fregosi; you can have Ernie Lombardi and I'll take Bill Freehan; you can have Heine Manush, Hack Wilson and Kiki Cuyler and I'll take Roy White, Jimmy Wynn and Bobby Murcer. On the flip side - since pitchers from that era are generally underrated - I'll take Lon Warneke, Carl Mays, Wes Ferrell and Tommy Bridges, and you can have Catfish Hunter, Vic Willis, Addie Joss and Chief Bender.
And my 0% HOF team will beat your 100% HOF team every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Steve
<< <i>Hunter may throw a perfect game and beat you.
Steve >>
True enough, even mediocre major leaguers have great days. In fact, I actually wouldn't expect my team to win any more than 75% of the time. Maybe 80%.
If you pit those lineups against one another you claim that your lineup will win 80% of the time?
doubtful.
not even in strato matic would they.
calling Hunter 'mediocre' when he was a number one starter on at least 6 teams is ludicrous.
Perhaps you meant to say 'above average'?
Steve
The reality is Pie Traynor was a great player, worthy of being in the HOF and lets compare apples to apples here... I have not been pursuaded that a valid comparison can be made here. Schmidt, Brooks, Matthews, Boyer and Brett were excellent players and trying to say who is best seems to be an obsession that sports fans have with numbers, rankings and trying to bring finality to things that just are too subjective.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There is an infatuation with lists, and most lists created are a little moveable, meaning the sixth ranked guy isn't necessarily better than the 10, and so on. But, nothing reasonable can make a sixth ranked guy worse than a sixtieth, and that is what some try and do.
The glove you bring up is also a big culprit in why batting averages were off the charts in Traynor's time, and one of the reasons why people view these guys artificially higher than they truly were. There were many factors that make their offensive performanc seem much better than it really as, as it is the environment creating it, and not necessarily the ability.
I used 1961 for comparing the players because it was the ONLY time Cash was ever the top in his leauge in ANY hitting stat, Sisler of course could choose many different years and many different stats as well, because he was MUCH more better in comparison to his peers than Cash.
Dallas,
When overvaluing the amount of outs one makes, do you realize there are so many variables in an out, it is not nearly as important or consistent as traditional stats such as Batting average, Homeruns, Stolen bases, Runs batted in, and the "currency" of the game Runs scored ? For example, how many double plays did one hit into, worse than a pop-up out with no one on? How many outs were the 3rd out of an inning? Which outs advanced the runner, perhaps even driving him in ? Is an out made in a tie game as nasty as an out made when your team is up by 7 runs ? How many with runners on base, or in scoring position ? Should stats on game ending outs be as important as game winning hits ? Would the game ending out made with the bases loaded and your team down by one run, be worth the same harm as a game ending out made if your team is behind by 6 six runs ?
Rbdjr1,
I agree Pie Traynor is a worthy member of the HOF, he led the league in an offensive stat one time ( same as Cash ) but was very much better than the others at his position ( unlike Cash ) during his time. His lifetime BA of .320 is surpassed by only 27 other ballplayers since 1901. His defense at his position was generally accepted as the best ever ( much like Sisler) until the early 60s when Brooks Robinson established himself.
The Hall of Fame, once a very important and near religious place for baseball fans, has been more and more diluted as time passes. Old-Timers and modern guys are both represented a bit incorrectly. Bobby Doerr and Bill Mazeroski dont belong just as much as Roger Bresnahan and Rhody Wallace. It is / was the Hall of "Fame", not the hall of good or very good or above average.
<< <i>calling Hunter 'mediocre' when he was a number one starter on at least 6 teams is ludicrous.
Perhaps you meant to say 'above average'?
>>
Capturing an entire career in a single word is not an exact science. Hunter pitched in 15 seasons; in 7 of those he was a below average pitcher, in three he was a hair above average, in two he was clearly above average, and in three he was very good. If he was "great" in any season, then I will have to expand my definition of "great" considerably. Mel Stottlemyre was the number one starter on the NYY pretty much his entire career; he was an "above average" pitcher and clearly better than Hunter.
Hunter was an average pitcher who had the great fortune to play with a host of other players far better than he; only one is in the HOF, but many others (Campeneris, Tenace, Bando, Munson, Nettles, White, Bonds) were bona fide stars and better than most of the faux HOFers from the 1930's. If I can use more than one word, I'll go with "slightly above average".
<< <i>Dallas,
When overvaluing the amount of outs one makes, do you realize there are so many variables in an out, it is not nearly as important or consistent as traditional stats such as Batting average, Homeruns, Stolen bases, Runs batted in, and the "currency" of the game Runs scored ? For example, how many double plays did one hit into, worse than a pop-up out with no one on? How many outs were the 3rd out of an inning? Which outs advanced the runner, perhaps even driving him in ? Is an out made in a tie game as nasty as an out made when your team is up by 7 runs ? How many with runners on base, or in scoring position ? Should stats on game ending outs be as important as game winning hits ? Would the game ending out made with the bases loaded and your team down by one run, be worth the same harm as a game ending out made if your team is behind by 6 six runs ?
>>
I don't think I overvalued that statistic, I was merely trying to stop you from ignoring it completely or lumping it with "hot-dog vendor" stats.
Traditional stats are fine unless, ironically, you overvalue them. Batting average is certainly important, but a player with a high secondary average is worth more (i.e., will create more runs) than a player with a high batting average. Home runs are terribly important, and are more prone to being undervalued than overvalued; it's where nearly all of Cash's margin of superiority over Sisler comes from - Sisler was a fine HR hitter for a couple of years, he was awful after that. Stolen bases are generally overvalued because caught stealing is usually ignored; they are far less important than walks, which are almost always ignored. RBIs and runs scored are hugely overvalued because, as has been pointed out many times already, they reflect at least as much on the player's team as on the player himself. Rank players by some combination of secondary average and OPS+ and you'll only have a little tinkering to do at the end; rank them by batting average and runs scored and you'll have a top 100 with 75-80 players from the 1920's and 1930's and you might as well start over.
All of your points about the circumstances of the outs are well taken, and if you have the time, resources and inclination to go through each out that Sisler and Cash made in their careers we will undoubtedly learn something interesting from the exercise. I have none of the above, but I am nearly certain that the exercise would not change the relative rankings of Cash and Sisler. Those sorts of things nearly always even out over the course of long careers.
WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE SITUATION OF EACH AT BAT(out and base situation)...based on the ACTUAL GAME LOGS OF HIS AT BATS, his Linear Weight Batter Runs turn into 437. This measurement is among the most comprehensive and accurate measurements. Adjust for ballpark, and he is at 399.
George Sisler's Linear Weight Batter Runs are at 253. Currently his game log is not complete, so each situation isn't recorded yet. But to know, of all the recorded players going back to 1957, the most runs anybody has added to their totals(when the situation is taken into account) is less than 100. So Sisler would have to dwarf that figure to start to come close to Cash. Most likely, he probably adds another 40 runs to his total.
The one thing I just noticed though, is the dearth of at bats that Cash has vs. lefties, and I think a McCOvey correction is in line here. He most certainly saved his percentages by avoiding lefties(and saved his BR as a result). Here are his career totals vs. lefties. BA .227, OB% .307, SLG% .384 ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE!
It means two things, he could be managed against and rendered ineffective by bringing in a lefty(which goes a ways in wins/losses), and his percentages are artificially high. This lefty avoidance(Ken Phelps) aspect is ignored by many analysts, and it brings credence to the 'list bashers', and it certainly hurts Cash's(or McCovey's), real life baseball value. It cannot be ignored.
I wouldnt' be against re-opening the case a bit, until one sees how bad the Ken Phelps factor is with Cash. God he was awful vs. lefties, and he missed a LOT OF AB's vs them!
Sisler has two things that could close the gap, 1) His men on hitting(an unknown), and 2)Cash's Ken Phelps factor. I don't know if it will be enough, but it could make it interesting.
Read my above post about BR, as it is a much more comprehensive look and takes every offensive event into account and gives it proper weight. Don't just use a BA, or a TB(on its own). Use the comprehensive stuff. You can't ignore any offensive aspect, and you cannot give improper weight to any event, if you want truth. That is the key!
I am pulling back a bit on the Cash argument though, just for the lefty avoidance factor I pointed out. Cash's percentages are high because he avoided hitting against lefties(whom he was terrible against). It may not bring him down to Sisler, but it certainly doesn't help.
A) If a player ranks 2nd in HRs against that years rest of the players in his league, AND he hits 5.1 % of the total HRs in the league that year, did he not outperform the other player,via home run ability within an era or year, when compared to his peers, as opposed to results of the other, a player who was 6th in the league in HRs and got a lesser 2.7% of the total HRs that year ???
Skinpitch,
The notion one should forget stats like, runs scored, total bases, batting averages, etc. is simply absurd !!
1A) Yes
1B) No
2) The guy who outdisntaces his peers higher, yes. Sorry, the question isn't phrased for straight yes/no
Your notion) No, I am NOT forgetting BA or TB, as those numbers are being measured in the comprehensive measurements, though all the other IMPORTANT offense occurances are as well.
I am not forgetting RUns and RBI either, as those are also basically represneted. A player who gets x amount of times on base should score x amount of runs. A player who gets x amount of hits(types of hits), should get x amount of RBI. Thus there is no need to look at the Total RBi or RUNs, because the play by play already tells me what to excpet in each of those. What it discounts is the role that teammates play in each of those events, AND the role of LUCK in each of those events. Neither of those roles have ANYTHING to do with a players ability, but they are very prevelant in RBI or RUns totals...and are NOT prevelant in the comprehensive Batter Runs totals...which leads to my yes/no type questions for you....
1)Would you rather have a measurement that isolates a players ability, or one that shows numbers that are heavily influenced by his teammates?
2) Do you want a measurement that treats 30 singles in 100 at bats as equal value to a player with 15 singles, 5 doubles, and 10 HR in 100 at bats?
3)Would you like to know what the chances of plating a run with a single are? The chances of scoring a run by getting on base via a single, 2B, 3B, BB etc...
4) Would you like to know EXACTLY how many times a non strikeout guy like Bill Buckner made productive outs, to give the true value of a batted ball out?
5) In a nutshell, do you want to find answers using criteria that flat out ignores important aspects of hitting, or one that takes all of it into account?
6) If you want one that takes all into account, then how much weight should be given to each? Do you want the weight(conclusions) based on perception, or based on what actually occured by taking into account each and every at bat, and situation for the past 40 years?
Baseball, I hate to not respond to your post, but looking at a single year doesn't really tell a whole lot, other than it was by far his best season(and that it still can't be taken away from him).
career fielding errors:
Schmidt: 328 (2,399 games)
Robinson: 264 (2,900 games)
Brett: 292 (2,200 games)
Traynor: 348 (1,941 games)
Chipper Jones: 172 (1,723 games)
Eddie Matthews: 313 (2,345 games)
Paul Molitor: 208 (1,495 games)
Ron Santo: 321 (2,201 games)
Frank Baker: 322 (1,548 games)
Wade Boggs: 232 (2,285 games)
Jimmy Collins: 478 (1,719 games)
career strike outs:
Mike Schmidt: 1,883 (8,352 at bats)
Brooksw Robinson: 990 (10,064 at bats)
George Brett: 908 (10,349 at bats)
Pie Traynor: 278 (7,559 at bats)
Chipper Jones: 1,006 (6,385 at bats)
Eddie Matthews: 1,487 (8,537 at bats)
Paul Molitor: 1,244 (10,835 at bats)
Ron Santo: 1,343 (8,143 at bats)
Frank Baker: 182 (5,984 at bats)
Wade Boggs: 745 (9,180 at bats)
Jimmy Collins: ???
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Please don't just use Fielding Percentage, as it totally ignores how many balls a player gets to...this is kind of the same question as #5 in my post above(but about fielding instead).
First, I think it's great that someone does have the time, resources and inclination to look at this stuff - great stuff on Cash and Sisler.
But before we go awarding Sisler any more runs for situational reasons, let's back him off (as you did Cash) for ballpark effects; if Cash played in a hitter-friendly park, then Sportsman's park would kiss you on the mouth and pat your fanny - "friendly" doesn't begin to do it justice. I'd be surprised if after you did both he wasn't even lower than he is now.
And while Cash certainly benefits from how often he sat out against lefties, adding less than 700 ABs against lefties (which would get his ratio equal to Kaline's) is still going to leave him ahead of Sisler (although by less), and can only expand his lead in runs created. Also, Cash sat out lefties at a far greater clip at the end of his career than when he was actually producing most of those runs - I don't think you would be able to justify a serious adjustment in any event.
<< <i>Rd, if you answer question number four in my post above, it would be helpful.
Please don't just use Fielding Percentage, as it totally ignores how many balls a player gets to...this is kind of the same question as #5 in my post above(but about fielding instead). >>
We can speculate all we want about stats, " written & unwritten stats". But it is hard for me (and u too!) to relate to "old time" players and compare them to "modern day" players, as modern players, owners, ups, stadiums, the fans, the equipment, the mound, the training, the diet, and sooooo much more has evolved in all kinds of ways, makes this whole subject almost silly.
I would think that most teams today could beat the best "olde-time" teams, most any day! Can u imagine starting a young "Randy Johnson" against a 1920s team?
It is about time to appreciate the stats of these "olde-time all-time greats" for what they did in their eras, and not try to compare them to "evolved modern-day players".
It's like comparing a 1920s car to a 2006 auto, or even a 1960's car!
or a 20s radio to a new century CD player!
or even a Pie Traynor to a Chipper Jones!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
A baseball player is born with the ability to throw 98 MPH ,or hit the ball 500 FT...and human evolution has not changed in the last 80 years to change that. What has changed is the game environment around those players, and that environment can make two identical ability players loook vastly different. What also has changed is the number of players they have to compete against...there simply weren't as many baseball playing age people to choose from in 1930 was there was in 1982, and that is pure fact....yes, even in relation to the number of teams used.
" there simply weren't as many baseball playing age people to choose from back in 1930 was there was in 1982, and that is a pure fact. "
Yes in fact there were less baseball playing age people, ....and less younger than baseball playing age people, and less older than baseball playing age people, there were simply less people.
Most historians could also see that there were very less professional athletic positions available in 1930 than in 1982. In 1930 baseball was the number one sport in the US, only Boxing was a viable alternative for a skilled athlete who wanted to make a living at sports. Pro Football was nowhere near as popular and the very little money paid to most football players paled in comparison to Baseball. Ice hockey had only six major league teams and while I have not read much about that sport in 1930, I am confident they were paid somehat little. Pro Basketball did not even exist. Pro golf was a rich man's game and very few played professionally or could make a living at it.
While mere specualtion, I would think that in 1930 Babe Ruth was so popular a figure that he probably inspired many more baseball playing age people to try to be a pro than any active player could possibly do in 1982.
Today the gifted fellow who is born with the ability hit a baseball 500 feet or throw it 98 MPH has so many more well paying sports to choose from. Baseball no longer automatically gets the best athletes who want to be paid professionals. Things have evolved, choice-wise, and baseball's overall talent may have suffered. Perhaps the fact that there now are also about twice as many teams / jobs available in major league baseball, may also contibute to talent dilution.
While the actual population of baseball playing age people may have increased from 1930, the amount of major league baseball playing people has increased as well. More importantly, the amount of other highly paid professional sport playing people has increased at a much higher rate than the population.
drink;
<< <i>Have you really tried out this Secondary Average formula? This formula is extremely flawed. If you are not a power hitter you have a bad secondary average. Tony Gwynn for instance has a secondary average of .226. Wade Boggs' is .267. Both have very good career OBPs .388 and .415 respectively. Gwynn does not have that many walks, but Boggs has 1410 and still has a bad secondary average. The more homers you have the more Total Bases you have, thus the higher secondary average you have. For goodness sakes, Dave Kingman, he of the .238 lifetime batting average, has a secondary average of .338. He doesn't have many hits or walks and an anemic career OBP of .302. One think he had butt load of, though, is homers. There are other power hitters from this same era, Jack Clark, Darrell Evans, etc. They all have very good secondary averages, and nobody would say any of them should be in the hall of fame. >>
reiny81 -
About secondary average what I said was "In general, if a player has a batting average higher than his secondary average he is probably overrated; if it's a big gap then he's almost certainly overrated", and "it is a much better stat than batting average". I stand by those statements. (Although I want to reiterate that I mean overrated AS A HITTER).
You say "If you are not a power hitter you have a bad secondary average". First, that is mostly true, because if you do not hit for any power then you are usually not being terribly productive; a batting average treats singles and homers as equal and they are far from it. And singles hitters are WAY overrated. Second, it is not entirely true; Rickey Henderson and Joe Morgan have secondary averages of .437 and .414, respectively. They had SOME power, as indeed any modern player must to be considered a great hitter.
Also, it is not so much the absolute value of the secondary average that is most interesting, but the difference between the secondary average and the batting average. In general, many fans rate players as great or not on their batting averages. Dave Kingman was not a great hitter, but if you dismiss him as "only a .236 hitter" then you are underrating him. In the end, he should be defined by both his batting average and secondary average; they each tell an important part of Kingman's story. Likewise, if you define Boggs or Gwynn as great because of their batting averages then you are overrating them. They were not as great as their batting averages alone would lead you to believe. Boggs is somewhat overrated, Gwynn is significantly overrated; they both were much better than Dave Kingman - secondary average is a useful tool, but it is not the be-all, end-all of analysis.
Incidentally, the two names you threw out (Jack Clark and Darrell Evans) are two of the most underrated players of my lifetime. If you are not convinced of that by their secondary averages, then at least use their secondary averages as a sign that they are players you should look at more closely. I'm not sure if you saw skinpinch's runs created analysis (which is a far better measure than secondary average but impossible for most people to calculate); it showed Clark and Evans (along with Hernandez) as the three players from that era not already in the HOF who created the most runs. In this case - as in many cases - secondary average is a useful shortcut to point you to great players. It's not perfect and should never be used in a vacuum, but if you look at batting average without considering secondary average you will rate more players incorrectly than correctly.
Gwynn is significantly overrated? You must be kidding. Even Ted Williams called Gwynn the greatest hitter of his generation.
Dave Kingman was awful, there's no other way to put it.
I also find it puzzling that you denigrate Kingman for the awful hitter he was (homers notwithstanding) in another thread while seeming to advocate for him here.
First, that is mostly true, because if you do not hit for any power then you are usually not being terribly productive
That is an inaccurate statement. There are many ways to influence the course of a baseball game than swatting a ball out of the park two or three times a week. Pete Rose had only 160 Homers in over 14,000 at bats.
Jack Clark and Darrell Evans
For good reason, neither one of these players will ever sniff the HOF. Darrell Evans' .248 career BA almost makes Kingman look good.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Likewise, if you define Boggs or Gwynn as great because of their batting averages then you are overrating them. They were not as great as their batting averages alone would lead you to believe. Boggs is somewhat overrated, Gwynn is significantly overrated; they both were much better than Dave Kingman - secondary average is a useful tool, but it is not the be-all, end-all of analysis.
>>
Boggs is somewhat overrated? Gwynn is significantly overrated? You've lost any shred of credibility you had left with this gem.
Boggs has a career .415 OBP, leading the league 6 times in the category. Gwynn led the league in batting eight times.
It's apparent you place far too much favor in HR and stolen bases. Not sure where this fascination comes from, but it's apparent from your posts that if a guy doesn't hit for a ton of power, or steal a ton of bases, they are useless in your mind. How else to explain your 'secondary formula' placing as much emphasis on a SB as it does a hit?
<< <i>Incidentally, the two names you threw out (Jack Clark and Darrell Evans) are two of the most underrated players of my lifetime. If you are not convinced of that by their secondary averages, then at least use their secondary averages as a sign that they are players you should look at more closely. I'm not sure if you saw skinpinch's runs created analysis (which is a far better measure than secondary average but impossible for most people to calculate); it showed Clark and Evans (along with Hernandez) as the three players from that era not already in the HOF who created the most runs. In this case - as in many cases - secondary average is a useful shortcut to point you to great players. It's not perfect and should never be used in a vacuum, but if you look at batting average without considering secondary average you will rate more players incorrectly than correctly. >>
Secondary average is useful in no way, shape, or form.
Jack Clark is underrated? Huh? How can this possibly be? You just got done saying Gwynn is significantly overrated, yet Gwynn bests Clark in OBP (.388 vs. 379) and barely trails him in SLG (.459 to .476). And Darrell Evans? Gwynn (again. Mr. Overrated to you) beats Evans hands down in those two categories.
Your 'secondary average' formula is fatally flawed, if these two guys are the most underrated in your eyes.
<< <i>Boggs is somewhat overrated, Gwynn is significantly overrated;
Gwynn is significantly overrated? You must be kidding. Even Ted Williams called Gwynn the greatest hitter of his generation. >>
Gwynn was a fine player and I do not mean to suggest otherwise; but if all you see is his gaudy batting average and that leads you to conclude that he is nearly as great as Lou Gehrig, or better than Stan Musial - as his batting average might suggest - then you will tremendously overrate him. Compare Gwynn to other .330-.340 hitters from comparable eras and he falls short of most, far short of quite a few. Ted Williams was a great player, but he is just plain wrong about Gwynn.
<< <i> Dave Kingman was awful, there's no other way to put it.
I also find it puzzling that you denigrate Kingman for the awful hitter he was (homers notwithstanding) in another thread while seeming to advocate for him here. >>
I did not say that Kingman was an "awful hitter", I said he was awful. Dave Kingman was close to an average hitter - as the combination of his batting and secondary averages would suggest - and probably the worst fielder in baseball history. The combination is an awful player.
<< <i>First, that is mostly true, because if you do not hit for any power then you are usually not being terribly productive
That is an inaccurate statement. There are many ways to influence the course of a baseball game than swatting a ball out of the park two or three times a week. >>
You're putting words in my mouth. "If you do not hit for ANY power then you are USUALLY not being terribly productive." The truth of that statement should be obvious. Morgan and Henderson - who in their best years hit about one homer a week - were very productive players. Modern players who hit a homer a month or less have to do something else EXTREMELY well to make up for it; very, very few do.
<< <i>Jack Clark and Darrell Evans
For good reason, neither one of these players will ever sniff the HOF. >>
I agree, neither one of them was HOF material - but of the players from their era not already in the HOF, they are the closest. They were each much better than Dawson, and frighteningly better than Rice. Clark, BTW, was the player who so obviously deserved the 1987 NL MVP that I'm sure Dawson will have to avert his eyes in embarrassment if they ever meet. It was, to my mind, about as bad a pick as Gordon over Williams in 1942. Give Clark the MVP he earned - and take it away from Dawson - and I suspect the HOF votes that Dawson and Clark have been getting would look much different. Again, MVP awards define stupid sportswriters at least as often as they identify great players. Jack Clark and Darrell Evans were both great players; maybe not HOF-great, but great nonetheless.
<< <i>Ted Williams was a great player, but he is just plain wrong about Gwynn. >>
I am glad you know more about hitting than Ted Williams. Baseball teams everywhere must be banging down your door for your wonderful insight into what makes a great hitter.
I never stated or implied that he was greater than Musial or Gehrig, but "significantly overrated" Gwynn is most certainly not.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Jack Clark is underrated? Huh? How can this possibly be? You just got done saying Gwynn is significantly overrated, yet Gwynn bests Clark in OBP (.388 vs. 379) and barely trails him in SLG (.459 to .476). And Darrell Evans? Gwynn (again. Mr. Overrated to you) beats Evans hands down in those two categories.
Your 'secondary average' formula is fatally flawed, if these two guys are the most underrated in your eyes. >>
You're confusing two very different concepts.
Jack Clark and Darrell Evans are indeed woefully underrated, and Tony Gwynn is overrated. How big a gap between them do you think there is? How big do you think the average fan thinks it is? I think the perceived gap is enormous, and HOF voting for Clark and Evans compared to what I assume it will be for Gwynn will support that. And I think it's as enormous as it is because people look at batting averages, see a huge difference, and stop looking.
All I'm saying is that the actual gap between them isn't as big as most people think it is. So, while I believe that Gwynn is significantly overrated and that Clark and Evans are significantly underrated, I still think Gwynn was better than either of them. Yes, there's a gap; it's not that big, though.
Finally, its not "my" formula; it's a statistic. Like any additional information, you will make more intelligent analyses if you use it than if you ignore it. Also like any statistic, if you use it by itself and not in combination with all of the other information, then you will nearly always be wrong. If you think of Darrell Evans as "a .248 hitter" - as I think most people do - then you've almost completely missed the boat. Secondary average is an easy way to see that there was much more to Evans than his batting average.