<< <i>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
I never stated or implied that he was greater than Musial or Gehrig, but "significantly overrated" Gwynn is most certainly not. >>
grote - I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on much. If you've got Gwynn rated miles below Musial and Gehrig then you probably aren't overrating him; but I think the average fan - like Ted Williams - has an inflated opinion of him. And I'll admit that I may be wrong about Gwynn specifically; maybe public opinion isn't as strong for him as I think it is. In general, and of this I'm sure, large gaps between batting and secondary averages almost always identify an overrated player.
axtell (sigline: "Just say no to trolls...") - no
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
And I'll admit that I may be wrong about Gwynn specifically; maybe public opinion isn't as strong for him as I think it is. In general, and of this I'm sure, large gaps between batting and secondary averages almost always identify an overrated player.
That may or may not be correct. You are an actuary and I know as such you naturally gravitate toward statistical formulas like this one. My point was that I don't believe Gwynn is "significantly overrated" as you had first stated, and that the "secondary average" computation itself may be improperly skewed in some cases like these.
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.
heh now Ted Williams has been relegated to 'average fan' status - the man had forgotten more about hitting than most anyone will ever know. But your continuing fascination with 'secondary average' with its flawed premises will prove him wrong.
You have it set in your mind that this stat is somehow of value - that it's actually worth investigating. It's not. As soon as I saw the formula, and it's over emphasis on stolen bases (which is a stat that has been relegated to obsolescence in today's power game), I knew it wasn't worth investigating further.
I tried to tell you guys about Chipper in the other all-time 3b thread. This is just another stat that he matches up with anyone in. If my math is correct Chipper comes in at .418. Not to shabby coming from a player that you dont even have on your radar again.
<< <i>heh now Ted Williams has been relegated to 'average fan' status - the man had forgotten more about hitting than most anyone will ever know. But your continuing fascination with 'secondary average' with its flawed premises will prove him wrong.
You have it set in your mind that this stat is somehow of value - that it's actually worth investigating. It's not. As soon as I saw the formula, and it's over emphasis on stolen bases (which is a stat that has been relegated to obsolescence in today's power game), I knew it wasn't worth investigating further. >>
Someday, Axtell, I hope to be as smart as you. I still think airplanes brought down the Twin Towers, which will show everyone just how stupid I really am. Can you explain to me one more time about the controlled demolition that "they" used to bring them down?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So when your original points have been blown to bits, you deviate to something completely unrelated. Thank you for admitting your 'stat' of secondary average has no value in evaluating a player's value.
Ted Williams was one of the finest hitters the game has ever seen, and you're claiming his assessment of Tony Gwynn as a hitter was wrong?
Since 1901 baseball has remained pretty much the same , as far as rules are concerned, and it makes comparison of players from different eras somewhat possible, as far as to see how they compared to the rest of league in any particular season or time span. I believe, in the last 40 or so years, MLB has recognized only one new stat, that being saves for a pitcher. Bill James and others, may develop new ways of rating ballplayers, and there is some merit and novelty, to many, but the game still is determined by runs scored and most will understand the value of BA, HRs, RBIs, Stolen Bases, Slugging Pct., and other standard, time-tested ways to evaluate how a player rates and might contribute to his teams runs scored.
Tony Gwynn has a lifetime BA of .338, there have only been a very few men ( 14 I believe ) in the history of the game ( since 1901 ) who have a better average for their career. That alone should qualify him as one of the top players of all-time. The concept of overrated does of course depend on how high you rate him. If compared to the likes of Cobb, Ruth, Williams, and Mays, he would be quite overrated. If compared to the next level, of perhaps a dozen or so superstars, he might be slightly overrated. After that, he must rate very well .
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Comments
<< <i>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
I never stated or implied that he was greater than Musial or Gehrig, but "significantly overrated" Gwynn is most certainly not. >>
grote - I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on much. If you've got Gwynn rated miles below Musial and Gehrig then you probably aren't overrating him; but I think the average fan - like Ted Williams - has an inflated opinion of him. And I'll admit that I may be wrong about Gwynn specifically; maybe public opinion isn't as strong for him as I think it is. In general, and of this I'm sure, large gaps between batting and secondary averages almost always identify an overrated player.
axtell (sigline: "Just say no to trolls...") - no
That may or may not be correct. You are an actuary and I know as such you naturally gravitate toward statistical formulas like this one. My point was that I don't believe Gwynn is "significantly overrated" as you had first stated, and that the "secondary average" computation itself may be improperly skewed in some cases like these.
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.
You have it set in your mind that this stat is somehow of value - that it's actually worth investigating. It's not. As soon as I saw the formula, and it's over emphasis on stolen bases (which is a stat that has been relegated to obsolescence in today's power game), I knew it wasn't worth investigating further.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>heh now Ted Williams has been relegated to 'average fan' status - the man had forgotten more about hitting than most anyone will ever know. But your continuing fascination with 'secondary average' with its flawed premises will prove him wrong.
You have it set in your mind that this stat is somehow of value - that it's actually worth investigating. It's not. As soon as I saw the formula, and it's over emphasis on stolen bases (which is a stat that has been relegated to obsolescence in today's power game), I knew it wasn't worth investigating further. >>
Someday, Axtell, I hope to be as smart as you. I still think airplanes brought down the Twin Towers, which will show everyone just how stupid I really am. Can you explain to me one more time about the controlled demolition that "they" used to bring them down?
Ted Williams was one of the finest hitters the game has ever seen, and you're claiming his assessment of Tony Gwynn as a hitter was wrong?
Give me a break.
I believe, in the last 40 or so years, MLB has recognized only one new stat, that being saves for a pitcher. Bill James and others, may develop new ways of rating ballplayers, and there is some merit and novelty, to many, but the game still is determined by runs scored and most will understand the value of BA, HRs, RBIs, Stolen Bases, Slugging Pct., and other standard, time-tested ways to evaluate how a player rates and might contribute to his teams runs scored.
Tony Gwynn has a lifetime BA of .338, there have only been a very few men ( 14 I believe ) in the history of the game ( since 1901 ) who have a better average for their career. That alone should qualify him as one of the top players of all-time.
The concept of overrated does of course depend on how high you rate him. If compared to the likes of Cobb, Ruth, Williams, and Mays, he would be quite overrated. If compared to the next level, of perhaps a dozen or so superstars, he might be slightly overrated. After that, he must rate very well .