Gwynn was really that good!
TheThrill
Posts: 130
in Sports Talk
In the last week or so, I have seen a few topics about future Hall Of Famers. Some were on players left out. Some were on player on tier below. Some were on specific players such as Lofton or Raines.
In one of those topics, I saw a comparison of Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn. Kind of got me interested.
I have always loved the history of the game. Im not HUGE on stats. Of course they are history. Who knows someone who watched Ty Cobb play. Rogers Hornsby? Not many I think. So we look at stats and read the stories and watch the movies.
Funny thing is that some numbers that stand out about Gwynn arent his. It's the numbers of other players from the past that make him " really that good" to me.
Gwynn is tied for 14 place all time with a .338 lifetime Avg. Funny thing is that of the 13 above him. Only Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker have 3000+ hits. Im sure many of you know that, but for the ones that do not know this makes it amazing to me. We all know that age is the primary number in the decline of a players ability.
The older you are the slower you get. Injuries, power, ect.
3000 hits takes time right? Just that number alone is a milestone. A ticket to the Hall I think. But when you factor many people above Gwynn in Avg, a couple have 2900+ hits, a couple have 2800+ hits, but many have 2100-2500 total hits. What would there Avg be if they played out till 3000 hit club? I think many would be loosing many points off those averages. If you look at many of their last seasons, they were not what they were in the prime. Thats a no-brainer. But to stick around for the long haul, join 3000 hit club, and still have a .338 is amazing.
Boggs hit over .350 in the 80's. Thats 1982-1989. An 8 year span with an Avg over .350! Unreal. finished with a lofty .328 lifetime. But age and other factors caught up to him. What if all the others in front of Gwynn did the same? I wonder what that list would look like. With only Cobb, Speaker in front of you with 3000+ hits and a huge Avg. That is amazing. He is truely a student of the game.
Stan Musial is another story. Him and Ruth are in a class all their own for Avg with power. Unreal.
Just wanted to share this with anyone who didnt know. I didnt care about Gwynn's Avg with 2 outs, 2 strikes ect. Those are amazing. But this impressed me!
In one of those topics, I saw a comparison of Tim Raines and Tony Gwynn. Kind of got me interested.
I have always loved the history of the game. Im not HUGE on stats. Of course they are history. Who knows someone who watched Ty Cobb play. Rogers Hornsby? Not many I think. So we look at stats and read the stories and watch the movies.
Funny thing is that some numbers that stand out about Gwynn arent his. It's the numbers of other players from the past that make him " really that good" to me.
Gwynn is tied for 14 place all time with a .338 lifetime Avg. Funny thing is that of the 13 above him. Only Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker have 3000+ hits. Im sure many of you know that, but for the ones that do not know this makes it amazing to me. We all know that age is the primary number in the decline of a players ability.
The older you are the slower you get. Injuries, power, ect.
3000 hits takes time right? Just that number alone is a milestone. A ticket to the Hall I think. But when you factor many people above Gwynn in Avg, a couple have 2900+ hits, a couple have 2800+ hits, but many have 2100-2500 total hits. What would there Avg be if they played out till 3000 hit club? I think many would be loosing many points off those averages. If you look at many of their last seasons, they were not what they were in the prime. Thats a no-brainer. But to stick around for the long haul, join 3000 hit club, and still have a .338 is amazing.
Boggs hit over .350 in the 80's. Thats 1982-1989. An 8 year span with an Avg over .350! Unreal. finished with a lofty .328 lifetime. But age and other factors caught up to him. What if all the others in front of Gwynn did the same? I wonder what that list would look like. With only Cobb, Speaker in front of you with 3000+ hits and a huge Avg. That is amazing. He is truely a student of the game.
Stan Musial is another story. Him and Ruth are in a class all their own for Avg with power. Unreal.
Just wanted to share this with anyone who didnt know. I didnt care about Gwynn's Avg with 2 outs, 2 strikes ect. Those are amazing. But this impressed me!
Man I miss the 80's!!!
0
Comments
I did some calculations. If Boggs would have retired after the 1996 WS victory, he would have had 2697 hits and .333 lifetime average. Knowing he played mostly in the 1980s is even more impressive because it was much harder to get that high an average. Boggs was an outstanding hitter, got on base and would hit those doubles with frequency to help drive in runs. Gwynn extended his close to prime years better than Boggs, but both were equally as capable in their primes. Some will downplay Boggs because he hit in Fenway where he was best designed to hit. I cannot buy that argument too much because most players hit better at home anyway. When Boggs went to the Yankees, he studied his new home field and hit better there than when he was in the Red Sox uniform. So, Boggs took full advantage of Fenway, but he has also proven that he could adjust to other ball parks with very good success as well if the situation deemed it. No way Boggs was only good because of Fenway inflated numbers. He definately had big time hitting talent.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
hits RBI . avg
1976 Elmira Pioneers A 47 15 .263
1977 Winston Salem Red Sox A 140 55 .332
1978 Bristol Red Sox AA 110 32 .311
1979 Bristol Red Sox AA 132 41 .325
1980 Pawtucket Red Sox AAA 128 45 .306
1981 Pawtucket Red Sox AAA 167 60 .335
had a monster season in 81'
As he packed his van for the long drive home to Tampa in late summer 1981, Wade Boggs watched some of his teammates pack their bags for the majors. The routine had been the same for Boggs for six consecutive years.
Boggs was beginning to wonder if he would ever play at Fenway Park, especially after the season he enjoyed at Triple-A Pawtucket in 1981. Boggs set career highs in batting average (.335), hits (167), doubles (41), home runs (5), RBIs (60) and walks (89).
``When I finished the season in Pawtucket, I broke 17 records as a left-handed hitter in the league and I'm going home,'' he said. ``There are guys hitting .230, .240, going to the big leagues. I'm thinking: `Wow, I don't know what else to do.' So then I went to winter ball, played in Puerto Rico and then in December, they finally invited me to the 40-man roster and to spring training in '82.''
Boggs finally made his major-league debut on April 10, 1982, and as they say, the rest is history. But on his way to Cooperstown, Boggs made stops in places like Elmira, Winston-Salem, Bristol and Pawtucket. It was during six full minor-league seasons that Boggs refined not only his batting stroke, but also his appreciation of the opportunity in front of him.
``I was playing baseball,'' Boggs said. ``That was my passion. You just have to wait for a break. That's what a lot of kids don't realize nowadays. They're just too anxious to wait for a break. They're sitting there going, `Well, I should be in the big leagues.' Well, you're hitting .235 in Triple-A, dude. It's just not going to happen.''
Other than a .263 average at Elmira in 1976, his first professional season, Boggs hit .300 or better every year in the minors. Still, he had to climb his way through Boston's farm system until finally breaking into the majors at age 23, considered advanced for the top prospects of the 21st century.
Gehrig, Williams, and Hornsby all missed 3000 hits because they walked so much. But they all played long before Gwynn, when the game was different. What about modern players? Less than 25% of Gwynn's hits were for extra bases, for Vladimir Guerrero it is close to 40%, with a batting average close to Gwynn
But Guerrero hasn't yet had a full career to possible hurt his percentages. You compare a .338 average from Gwynn with a .328 average from Boggs. That is one hit in 100 at balls, how much is that really worth? And Boggs walked 13% of the time, Gwynn 8%, that's an extra six times per 100 plate appearances. Now consider that it is so much easier to find a right-fielder who can hit compared to a thirdbaseman who can hit -- there are twice as many rightfielders in the Hall-of-Fame as thirdbaseman. Both were Gold Glove winners
Gwynn was really good. At hitting singles. Possibly the best ever, taking into account the era he played in and how long he played for. That is enough to earn him a spot in the Hall-of-Fame, but try to understand that it doing one thing at such an outstanding level often means dozens others who did several things very well did better
But as was mentioned, look at on base percentage, and you see Boggs shreds Gwynn (who was a great hitter, but he was no Boggs). Boggs led the league 6 times in OBP, Gwynn did it once.
When I think of a ball player, he always comes to mind.
Didnt run pretty, not a "perfect swing", just did it his way. And that way worked.
I Sure wish he would have gotten into the majors a few years earlier. Maybe add another 400 hits or so. He was awesome from the first swings he ever took.
As for the other replies, I dont look at stats with a microscope. O.B.P., walks, extra base hits, and all the other stuff is fine. The topic was a respectful look at Gwynn. A class act, and a true professional. A player who masterd hitting. Not a debate on whose better, or who got on more often.
I was trying to show that only a few people achieve what he did. 3000 hit club. A milestone of longevity, combined with a .338 lifetime Avg. Each are amazing. Combined makes him really special.
Ted Williams once said " Hitting a baseball is the single toughest feat in sports" Thats from a legend. Not Baseball-reference.com or Mlb.com.
If you twist enough numbers, anyone can look bad. But why?
I'll take Gwynn, Carew and Boggs on my team anyday.
Erik
I'll take Schmidt, Morgan, and Raines. All else being equal, my team will kick your team's butt. If you want to consider Carew a first baseman, I can pick one not going to the Hall (Will Clark) and still kick your tail.
<< <i>I'll take Gwynn, Carew and Boggs on my team anyday. >>
I'll take Schmidt, Morgan, and Raines. All else being equal, my team will kick your team's butt. If you want to consider Carew a first baseman, I can pick one not going to the Hall (Will Clark) and still kick your tail. >>
Thank you for proving Morgoth's point.
<< <i>If you twist enough numbers, anyone can look bad. But why? >>
Just to be argumentative
Gwynn was a class act, the ultimate pro, and a great teammate.
If someone didn't want him on their team, just shows how much they know about baseball.
that solves that problem.
Raines can lead off, followed by boggs, then gwynn, than schmidt, morgan can hit 5th, then carew. then 4 schlubs
sadly i have no starting pitchers....sigh. Boggs will have to pitch. he's done that a couple of times
Gwynn was really good. But if we can't determine who was better than him, how can he know who he was better than?
Interestingly, as Gwynn's batting average increased, the value he had to his team decreased. Though you already pointed out that is normal and he does deserve credit for being an All-Star into his late 30s
And making arbitrary cutoffs such as 3000 hits or a .338 batting average is most certainly twisting numbers
Even with that voice and being pretty inexperienced, he is still a good broadcaster
randy
Horrible singles hitter ... maybe the worst of all time ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
But, to the rest of you that are Poo-Poo about Gwynn.......I say "HORSEHOCKEY"!
While some of those other players did get the doubles, triples and yes....home runs, how many times
in situations did they strike out?
My point (And I am sure The Thrill's point) is when you hit .338 lifetime, that means you don't take the
bat out of your teams hands in various situations.
In looking at stats...check these stats out:
Gwynn.........average .338..........at bats 9288.....struck out 434 times.......slugging pct .459
Morgan........average .271..........at bats 9277......struck out 1015 times.....slugging pct .427
Schmidt.......average .267.........at bats 8351......struck out 1883 times!....slugging pct .527
So, if we talk about value in certain situations, how many situations was say, Mike Schmidt
in, when he struck out one of his 1,883 times?! How about Joe Morgan, his slugging percentage
is actually LESS than Gwynn's!
We could go on and on with stats and percentage numbers and such, but the big number IS
the lifetime batting average of .338.
I would NEVER EVER say that Gwynn was better or worse than any of those two or anyone
else, but, I would certainly say that Gwynn has one impressive career!
Tony
KalineFan
In all honesty, It may sound stupid. bit I NEVER have, and NEVER will judge players just by stats.
I do know the importance of them for history.
But watching Gwynn play did it for me. Mastering hitting, no matter what the situation, always the same swing.
Just knowing that Ted Williams thought so highly of him, tells me everything I would ever need to know.
He reminds me of the work ethic of Larry Bird. Master the fundamentals. Good things will come.
He wasnt a power hitter, didnt attract attention to himself. Just played hard. Alway made good contact. He always expected to get a hit. Everyday he played, every game.
<< <i>the Thrill.....Check it out my friend......
But, to the rest of you that are Poo-Poo about Gwynn.......I say "HORSEHOCKEY"!
While some of those other players did get the doubles, triples and yes....home runs, how many times
in situations did they strike out?
My point (And I am sure The Thrill's point) is when you hit .338 lifetime, that means you don't take the
bat out of your teams hands in various situations.
In looking at stats...check these stats out:
Gwynn.........average .338..........at bats 9288.....struck out 434 times.......slugging pct .459
Morgan........average .271..........at bats 9277......struck out 1015 times.....slugging pct .427
Schmidt.......average .267.........at bats 8351......struck out 1883 times!....slugging pct .527
So, if we talk about value in certain situations, how many situations was say, Mike Schmidt
in, when he struck out one of his 1,883 times?! How about Joe Morgan, his slugging percentage
is actually LESS than Gwynn's!
We could go on and on with stats and percentage numbers and such, but the big number IS
the lifetime batting average of .338.
I would NEVER EVER say that Gwynn was better or worse than any of those two or anyone
else, but, I would certainly say that Gwynn has one impressive career!
Tony
KalineFan >>
Batting Average may well be the most overrated stat in baseball. For the record, Morgan had a higher OBP % than Gwynn, despite a BA that was nearly 60 points lower. Schmidt's OBP was about 2% lower than Gwynn.
Gwynn had a great career and was a no brainer selection for the HOF; the point I was attempting to make earlier is that Raines is in the same category. Gwynn was not as good as Morgan or Schmidt.
There are people that think Nolan Ryan was one of the best five pitchers of all time. They are wrong. People who think that Gwynn is in the upper tier of HOF outfielders are equally wrong.
Of course, I do not expect anyone to take my word for it. I suggest they read James, Neyer, Pete Palmer, and Baseball Prospectus to get the perspective of people who have spent a lot of time studying the game. My opinions came from their research.
<< <i>
In looking at stats...check these stats out:
Gwynn.........average .338..........at bats 9288.....struck out 434 times.......slugging pct .459
Morgan........average .271..........at bats 9277......struck out 1015 times.....slugging pct .427
Schmidt.......average .267.........at bats 8351......struck out 1883 times!....slugging pct .527
So, if we talk about value in certain situations, how many situations was say, Mike Schmidt
in, when he struck out one of his 1,883 times?! How about Joe Morgan, his slugging percentage
is actually LESS than Gwynn's!
Tony
KalineFan >>
Kaline fan, the good thing about the information you are guessing on is that it is available and you do NOT have to guess how many times Schmidt's strikeout's cost his team. You can look at every single strikeout and every situation. In fact, you can do that for every player from 1959 to now. It isn't a mystery. The strikeout is only a sliver more harmful than a batted ball out. In some cases, it is MORE beneficial to strikeout than make a contact out.
I disagree with Mark with batting average being the most overrated stat...it is striking out that is. Are people that big of fans of pop outs and ground outs? Kalinefan, do you realize that Gwynn actually made MORE outs than Schmidt? Yeah, I know...a ground out can move a runner. Yes it can, but that isn't a mystery how many times it has happened. In fact, some good systems apply that already. This info has been posted tons of times already, and I don't know why I bother again. If one thing comes out of this, please save the same scorn for Gwynn's pop outs, tappers, and his 260 GIDP as is done for Schmidt's k's.
Second, Gwynn's numbers above include his time in the live ball era. You don't take that into account when you compare him to two vastly superior players. Check out his numbers pre live ball era, and notice the jump and benefit he received from the live ball era.
Yeah, I know, you guys are just praising him, but then praise him rather than make comparisons to superior players that don't really have merit, and don't make guesses on things that are already known(and then assume a value to those events that are already known).
-Skinpinch
<< <i>By simply not striking out, a player has a decent chance to get a hit. A lot of weakly hit groundballs and popups end up as hits >>
Funny you mention that. The BoSox did that just the other night and look what happened.
A weak grounder, can't make the play, rally happens, momentum swings...
And sorry in advance but the caps will help stress the point.
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CANNOT PUT A NUMERICAL VALUE ON, PERIOD.
But the point I was making about Gwynn, had nothing to do with that at all.
Im not saying he wasnt a team player. Or selfish in any way.
I was reffering to the most simple element of the game.
Hitting a bseball.
Getting a safe hit. Single, double, triple, homerun.
Any or all of the above.
The art of hitting a 95 m.p.h. fastball, curveball, slider, split-finger, ect......
So as far as career batting Avg goes, it is the single most important individual statistic for a hitter. It is simple. How many times do you Hit the ball safely when you swing at any pitch. As I stated, INDIVIDUAL statistic. Rarely does another member on your team acheive a safe hit for you. I get that sometimes, fear of the guy behind you gets you a more favorable pitch. But you still have to hit the ball. The pitcher has all the advantage. Choice of pitch, location, different pitches, speeds. The batter has to do all the adjusting. Hence, he has to master hitting. Gwynn did just that.
So as far as walks, O.B.P., extra base hits, steals, ect.....
They mean nothing as far as individual hitting skills. At least on the most basic level.
Boggs was also great, no doubt about it. I agree that he held on a bit too long, which hurt his career avg. I also agree that you can't just look at BA alone when rating great players (although anything about .325 carreer is great no matter what your OBP is).
Bottom line, you gotta look at the big three: AVG/OBP/SLG and then throw in other important factors such as speed and defense, if you're rating the overall player and not just their hitting aspect. This also reminds of a potential HOFer thread I once responded to making a case for Ichiro.
Anyway, look at this:
Gwynn: .338 - .388 - .459
Boggs: .328 - .414 - .443
Ichiro: .333 - .379 - .437
Based on these numbers alone, I'd have to say that Boggs has a slight edge over Gwynn, and Gwynn a slight edge on Ichiro (for batting only). However, when you throw speed into the equation, Ichiro gains some ground. Boggs is obviously the big loser here, with 24 SB and 34 CS career. Gwynn did show good speed early and ended up with 319 SB and 125 CS (71.8%). Ichiro already has 272 SB & only 66 CS (80.5%). He will almost certainly surpass Gwynn's total and his SB% is amongst the best all-time.
Fielding: both Boggs and Gwynn were decent, but Ichiro is one of the best fielders of all-time, so he has a big edge on both of them there.
Ichiro does strike out more than both Boggs and Gwynn though and frankly, Gwynn's K% of less than 5% is mind-boggling! While it's true that a K may be just and out, I still think it's generally much more valuable to hit the ball than to not.
A bit about OBP. Yes, I'd generally agree that OBP is where it's at for hitters. However, I also think some people over-estimate the walk. Sure, getting on base is great, but a walk rarely drives in a run. To be fair, many would argue the same about the high number of infield hits that Ichiro gets. Anyway, let's just say that a hit is usually more valuable than a walk, but walks are still a big part of presenting your team with scoring opportunities.
Right now, the big question for Ichiro is if he can continue his torid hitting pace throughout the remainder of his career. In most cases, I'd say players will slow down, and that would hurt Ichiro's avg due to the high number of IF hits he gets. However, the guy takes care of himself like few others in baseball. Given that, I don't think he will diminish as much as some poeple do. Granted, until Ichiro gets at least 10 years in, it's really not fair to compare him to these guys. Boggs and Gwynn are easily among the all-time greats. However, assuming Ichiro at least plays through his contract (5 more years), it will be very interesting to see where he ends up on the scale. If I had one wish, it would have been to see Ichiro play his entire career in MLB. He would have most certainly had a good shot at taking down Pete's hit record.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
It's funny how people fall into certain catagories for hitters. At least most of the time.
When you ask someone who are the greatest hitters of all time....
Some pick .300 hitters with power, some say 500+ homer guys, some go with O.B.P. players and so on.
I always go with pure, natural hitters. Great swing, alway's making contact. That's just what I consider a great hitter to be.
There are exceptions of course. Musial, Ruth, Williams, ect....
But I alway's marvel at Cobb, Carew, Gwynn, Boggs, Ichiro, ect....
Im not saying it is any better than anybody elses choice of course. Thats just me. Love those great, smooth swings. Watching the ball go into the glove. Mastering their swing, puting the bat on the ball. Hitting it to all fields. Amazing! The kind of hitter that will not let you throw a stike without paying for it. At least most of the time.
Hard to beleive that anyone can not only hit the ball at will, but right were they want it to go.
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
But Ichiro is very special. His speed really sets him apart.
I wish he was here for the start of his career. 7 straight seasons with 200+ hits. Great base stealer. Great Avg.
Can you imagine if he had his previous 4-5 seasons in the U.S.
His impressive numbers would be off the charts.
I never judge a player by years played. 10 years or 20 years. To me it's what you do in those years. Some get injured and loose their career. That's just how it goes. What he has done with his 7 years here is amazing.
Puckett was one of my 80's favs too. He really caught a bad break with his vision. His last year was great. He had many, many great years left in him. No doubt. He was a winner, through and through.
Rarely do I ever say " what if, or he could have" but in his case, he was 3000 hit club all the way, Great .320 hitter, good power, doubles like crazy, Gold Glove. And a great leader. Talked the talk, walked the walk.
Thanks for the reply, I love to hear from others on this stuff.
Of course that is true, but then that is being measured already in the number of hits etc...
If the simple goal of baseball was to make contact, then a player should bunt every time and never strikeout. Of course, that would preclude him from doing anything that really produces runs, like extra base hits. He would have low strikeouts, but no runs to show for it.
The thing that matters is how negative is a strikeout compared to how negative is a batted ball out. Very easy to put a number to that, and every instance is available since 1959 to show.
Stown, if you are talking about a specific game situation where an error occurs, then of course that is important. But then don't forget to scorn the player in those situations where a simple tapper ends up as an out (as about 99% of them do). Also, every time you see a guy hit into an inning ending double play, think that a strikeout would have been more beneficial.
But remember, it is most likely only close because other hitters have put the game close from the hits that really make a difference.
THE BOTTOM LINE is, when Schmidt and GWynn are compared, you have all their offensive numbers laid out(adjusted for era of course), and then you get to the extra 1,000+ strikeouts. People think those 1,000+ strikeouts are extra outs, but they are merely different forms of outs as Gwynn actually made MORE outs. What you need to look at is how many of those batted ball outs actually advanced runners, and compare that to Schmidt's batted ball outs. You will be surprised on how small the difference is. In the end, for about every 100 strikeouts it is worth two to three runs in the negative. It makes a difference, but a SMALL one.
The one thing that a number truly can't be put on is the extra pitches a batter makes a pitcher throw when he is striking out! The contact guys see less pitches per at bat, compared to the Schmidt type guys, and this is an area where a number is hard to put on. A number is EASY to put on on the value of a k though.
FYI on the walks vs. singles...a walk has apporx. 2/3 the value of a single, being that appx half the walks and singles occur with nobody on base(those are equal)
WOW! It is not possible to argue with someone who, for whatever misguided reason, believes the above statement. I suggest that The Thrill does some research to attempt to validate his assertion. I suggest that he starts by looking at two teams. On one team, he can but the players with the highest career batting average, and on the other team he can put the players with the highest OPS (or slugging or OBP). I will take the latter team.
<< <i>So as far as career batting Avg goes, it is the single most important individual statistic for a hitter >>
Perhaps the most important if the goal is having impressive statistics. If the goal is winning games, it is not even close to most important
And another comment that I wanted to comment on... in many cases, it doesn't take an extra base hit to knock in a run. That would only be the case with the bases empty or a runner only on first. With a runner on 2nd and/or 3rd, or the bases loaded, runners can score (via RBI) on an OF single, IF single, BB, SF, Squeeze, etc.
I think the thing that many people tend to overlook with power guys is that their numbers (RBI's anyway) are somewhat cooperative/dependant on those pesky singles hitters like Ichi, Boggs & Gwynn. That's what baseball's suposed to be about right... getting a lineup with table-setters, bat-control guys, power guys, contact guys, etc. They work together to make the most in scoring runs. Without any group, the other group's numbers would suffer.
One example I like to bring up is Ichiro's 2004 season... the year he broke the all-time hits record with 262. He was on base 311 time via either BB or hit and only ended up scoring 101 runs (32.4% of the time). By contrast, in 2001, he was on 272 times and scored 127 runs (46.7% of the time). That's a huge difference and can mainly be accounted for by the M's showing great 3/4 slot RBI/power in 2001 and the complete opposite in 2004. If you just look at Ichiro's 2004 season, most people would probably say he should have score 140+ runs, but due to lack of production (choking) from the supposed run producers, he barely broke 100! Same thing goes in the opposite situation with guys who hit 40+ HR's and don't (or barely) make the 100 RBI mark. If the guys aren't out there on the bases, they can't knock 'em in!
All-time favorite athletes:
Steve Sax, Steve Garvey, Larry Bird, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Andre Agassi, Karch Kiraly, Wayne Gretzky, Ichiro Suzuki, Andres Galarraga, Greg Maddux.
"Make the world a better place... punch both A-Rods in the face (Alex Rodriguez and Andy Roddick)!"
His ablity to make contact with a baseball.
His mastering of the science of hitting.
This IS NOT a stat war.
This is not about anything else but one man's ability to HIT the pitch SAFELY. That is all.
Not Walks, O.B.P., slugging and all the rest of Baseball-reference.coms numbers. Not team wins or loses.
Just Gwynn hitting a baseball. THAT IS IT.
Markj111, WOW IS RIGHT! It IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT WAY TO MEASURE A HITTERS ABILITY TO HIT A BALL! That is not misguided. That is FACT. No research needed. His lifetime Avg. shows that he was more succesfull SIMPLY HITTING THE BALL SAFELY when he goes up to bat than most players in the history of the game. Even more so in the modern era. NO BRAINER.
If ANYONE HAS an argument with this simple thing, it is because you dislike Gwynn. Or You are Looking at this WAY too close.
TomGshotput, yes you are right. Nothing to do with winning. That is what I stated at the begining. This is only about a Human being, who played a game. He hit the ball with his bat for a hit, better than 1000's and 1000's before him. AVG is VERY important on measuring your skill in hitting safely.
WHAT ELSE IS THERE? Myth? UH..... I think he got a hit. LEGEND? UH.....Someone told me he got a hit. ESP? UH..... I think he's going to get a hit. NO. Only Avg shows how succesull you are at the plate. WITH ANY KIND OF HIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE MASTERED HITTING. THAT IS FACT. TED WILLIAMS AGREED.
TED WILLIAMS SAID " Hitting a baseball is the single toughest feat in sports" TED Williams is not misguided. He is a legend at the sceince and approach of HITTING. NO RESEARCH NEEDED.
This was put up as a FAN, not a sports writer. Just watching tells you all you need to know. Then a quick look at his lifetime and you see that your right. Nuff Said!
<< <i>Boggs also languised in the minors for a couple of seasons while Carney Lansford manned 3rd base.
hits RBI . avg
1976 Elmira Pioneers A 47 15 .263
1977 Winston Salem Red Sox A 140 55 .332
1978 Bristol Red Sox AA 110 32 .311
1979 Bristol Red Sox AA 132 41 .325
1980 Pawtucket Red Sox AAA 128 45 .306
1981 Pawtucket Red Sox AAA 167 60 .335
had a monster season in 81'
As he packed his van for the long drive home to Tampa in late summer 1981, Wade Boggs watched some of his teammates pack their bags for the majors. The routine had been the same for Boggs for six consecutive years.
Boggs was beginning to wonder if he would ever play at Fenway Park, especially after the season he enjoyed at Triple-A Pawtucket in 1981. Boggs set career highs in batting average (.335), hits (167), doubles (41), home runs (5), RBIs (60) and walks (89).
``When I finished the season in Pawtucket, I broke 17 records as a left-handed hitter in the league and I'm going home,'' he said. ``There are guys hitting .230, .240, going to the big leagues. I'm thinking: `Wow, I don't know what else to do.' So then I went to winter ball, played in Puerto Rico and then in December, they finally invited me to the 40-man roster and to spring training in '82.''
Boggs finally made his major-league debut on April 10, 1982, and as they say, the rest is history. But on his way to Cooperstown, Boggs made stops in places like Elmira, Winston-Salem, Bristol and Pawtucket. It was during six full minor-league seasons that Boggs refined not only his batting stroke, but also his appreciation of the opportunity in front of him.
``I was playing baseball,'' Boggs said. ``That was my passion. You just have to wait for a break. That's what a lot of kids don't realize nowadays. They're just too anxious to wait for a break. They're sitting there going, `Well, I should be in the big leagues.' Well, you're hitting .235 in Triple-A, dude. It's just not going to happen.''
Other than a .263 average at Elmira in 1976, his first professional season, Boggs hit .300 or better every year in the minors. Still, he had to climb his way through Boston's farm system until finally breaking into the majors at age 23, considered advanced for the top prospects of the 21st century. >>
All those years in the minors makes me wonder what his stats would have been like in the ML. Maybe he would have just retired earlier and it would have not made a big difference??
Maybe to eight year olds who lose confidence. RIchie Sexson was bad this year. He would have been equally as bad if he had zero strikeouts and instead had 150 more fly outs. If you are saying if he would have gotten 30 more singles than strikeouts, then obviosly, but that isn't the point.
The point is made because somebody posted Schmidt's, Morgan's, and Gwynn's stats, and they added false claims on the value of the strikeout. They made it seem as if Gwynn's ability to make contact is enough to overtake the huge gains those guys have on him(he also made the mistake of not accounting for the era).
It isn't rocket science, the average player moves up enough baserunners per contact out to the value of appx two to three runs for every 100 contact outs. This is based on millions of actual plays from 1959 to now. It isn't a guess, it isn't a hypothesis, it is how often runners are moved up with contact outs, and weighed by the negative of the double plays that come with more contact.
The trust in you has nothing to do with it.
You are a fan of the team, and i don't trust any fan that has an emotional stake in the evaluation of a player...it severly clouds their judgement.
You say it is demoralizing to strikeout. Do you have an orgasim when a guy taps out or pops out? Those few instances that he moves up a runner are included in player evaluations...no need to overblow the strikeout.
But then how demoralizng are you when a guy hits into a double play?
Thrill, Gwynn has the highest modern average(greatly helped by the live ball era though), great, praise away. The mistake was made in the thread when that ability was raising his stature to other guys who didn't have that ability...but had different abilities of greater importance!
I only stated the greatness of mastering the skill needed to hit the ball. Safely. Anykind of hit.
To me, thats tough enough.
Thanks for the reply.
If you don't use stats, what do you do? Look at him and say, "Wow, he's good!"
I always thought stats were used as a measurement to define how good a player
was. What else could you possibly use? I know, I know....clutch situations
and blah blah blah blah.
But, seriously, without stats, how WOULD you measure a player's performance?
I see a lot of people on the boards talk about stats mean nothing, but, come on!
If you compared Tony Gwynn to say, oh......Mark Belanger, you could say Belanger
was a much better player. But, you know this isn't so.....and how do you know?
LOOKING AT THEIR STATS! Anyone that says stats don't mean much, can't
be serious!
Tony
PS--Any Mark Belanger fans, please don't think I am knocking Mark Belanger,
because, he was a good shortstop for the Orioles, just trying to show the
importance of stats.
<< <i>TomGshotput at hitting I don't see where he makes a statment that they are better in every aspect than Mazeroski. You are making argument fallacies here as I didn't argue that they weren't good players as well just that James uses more than stats to make his judgments unlike most stat heads. Maz is just like rubbing salt in a wound for the HOF crusaders. >>
James says that they were better as total baseball players, using the same criteria he uses to evaluate Mazeroski. That is not a fallacy (nor was it much of an argument so much as a statement of what he wrote)
Mazeroski is an acceptable choice for the Hall-of-Fame because he is so famous for his defensive skill and World Series homerun, not because he was a great player. And Bill James most certainly agrees there are several second baseman not in the Hall-of-Fame who were better
And again the whole "better in every aspect" argument which I made, the aspect I am hinting at is defense, in which Mr. James says he was the best ever at any position so it's safe to assume he doesn't think they were better than him in that "aspect". I did not rank Maz in terms of greatness or whom was better or worse. These are your arguments not mine. I was pointing out again, that James uses more than stats to figure out who should be a HOFer. He argues against using the if this guy is in so should this other guy because of just stats alone. I also feel the world series HR is just a footnote and Maz gets in without it.
James also argues against the type of comparison your making in his HOF standards section on page 183 he states "Look at the list above Ben Chapman 45 percent, Bill Mazeroski 18 percent. Does anybody really believe that Ben Chapman is a better qualified Hall of Famer than Bill Mazeroski? I sure don't but. But Chapman unquestionable has better numbers than Mazeroski, if you don't count the fielding numbers.
Oh and just for fun at the bottom of the page, "The fundamental problem is that we can't measure everything in statistics, and for that reason statistical comparisons will only be accurate sometimes."
Man James is a pretty smart guy to actually state that there are limits to what stats can tell us.
TomGshotput I have read every quote in this book about Maz please provide a quote were he states that Maz "falls short of being as good a player as the voters standards for a Hall-of-Fame second baseman" he might show you certain stats that might show were he ranks in certain categories like HOF standards but he actually argues for his inclusion and that those stats are not accurate in measuring worth so basically you are taking his statements out of context another argument fallacy.
I would guess Chapman ranks somewhere in the bottom half of the top 100 rightfielders, but that could be wrong