Options
The "Decade" Triple Crown
frankhardy
Posts: 8,046 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Before I get started with the topic of this thread, I would like to preface this by saying that I enjoy watching Albert Pujols and the St Louis Cardinals play baseball. I think that is obvious. However, I realize the Mr Pujols is a very polarizing figure on these boards. There are a few that get very angered at anyone who dares to criticize Pujols or say anything bad about him. There are also those, on the other hand, who love to take shots at him (him, and those that take up for him). I have stated my opinion in the past (specifically about the 2006 and 2008 NL MVP), but I don't think I have let myself get out of hand. I don't think I have gotten involved too much in those "war of words" that goes on so much. I try to stay out of it for the most part.
I realize that this thread may get de-railed, but my intention is not to start a bunch of irrational arguments. I just simply thought that this would be a neat subject.
I ran across this article this morning. As much as I love the history of baseball and comparing the stats of players, I have never thought of this perspective before. This article has to do with the Triple Crown of a Decade.
After reading this article, what is more impressive to you? Someone who wins the Triple Crown in one year, or someone who wins the Triple Crown for a decade? Yes, the Triple Crown in one year is very rare and requires someone to have an incredible year. It has happened a few times, but not much. However, it is my opinion, that for someone to win a "Decade Triple Crown", it takes someone that is dominate and very, very consistent. I would have never guessed, but this "Decade Triple Crown" has only happened one time. It was by Rogers Hornsby. It looks like it is about to be done again by Albert Pujols. Now, here is a nice catch - he is about to do this giving the rest of the league a ONE YEAR HEAD START. He started his career in 2001.
Read this article, and I would love to get some of your opinions.
Decade Triple Crown
I realize that this thread may get de-railed, but my intention is not to start a bunch of irrational arguments. I just simply thought that this would be a neat subject.
I ran across this article this morning. As much as I love the history of baseball and comparing the stats of players, I have never thought of this perspective before. This article has to do with the Triple Crown of a Decade.
After reading this article, what is more impressive to you? Someone who wins the Triple Crown in one year, or someone who wins the Triple Crown for a decade? Yes, the Triple Crown in one year is very rare and requires someone to have an incredible year. It has happened a few times, but not much. However, it is my opinion, that for someone to win a "Decade Triple Crown", it takes someone that is dominate and very, very consistent. I would have never guessed, but this "Decade Triple Crown" has only happened one time. It was by Rogers Hornsby. It looks like it is about to be done again by Albert Pujols. Now, here is a nice catch - he is about to do this giving the rest of the league a ONE YEAR HEAD START. He started his career in 2001.
Read this article, and I would love to get some of your opinions.
Decade Triple Crown
Shane
0
Comments
Shane
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Kevin
I don't think it is really about Pujols ... for the most part.
Which is more impressive - someone who wins the Triple Crown in one year, or someone who wins the Triple Crown for a decade? A player could have a spectacular year and win the triple crown and then fade away. A player that wins the triple crown for a decade show dominance along with consistency.
Shane
Also, the triple crown stats are not the most accurate way to depict a players value. Someone who wins the double crown of OB% and SLG% would typically be more important of an accomplishment. Drugs or not, Barry Bonds dwarfed Pujols as a hitter from that era.
I wouldn't risk a single penny betting that pujols never took a performance enhancer.
Pujols is bashed on these boards mainly because Fandango has some weird love fest with him. Other than that, I don't think anyone has a beef with Pujols. Well, maybe when people stake their lives on Pujols being performance enhancing free they might(that is what I have a beef with).
Other than that, Pujols is going to be at the very top of every conceivable meaurement, how you want to measure it, or when you want to measure it, because he is a great hitter.
Like someone said above, you don't need some restrictive measurement to highlight his greatness. Those types of measurements are reserved for players whom people try to artificially inflate their value.
Shane
Robinson did it and he wasn't talked about how Pujols is talked about today. Give it some time, Albert is a beast yes, but time will tell!
JS
/s/ JackWESQ
P.S. A Decade Triple Crown is more impressive. While leading the league in BA, HRs and RBIs for one season is impressive, it is still only one season; and baseball history is full of players who had one crazy season out of nowhere (or even out of somewhere).
Regardless of the value given to any particular stat, or opinions of importance, Albert fares pretty well, he is truly an outstanding hitter. Among 1B, he will probably finalize his career, among the very best ever.
BA, a traditional single stat measure of hittting quality, in relation to Adj. OPS +, a combination of several stats, than PF added, min. 4500 AB, post 1900, all time rank;
Albert Pujols, # 14, and # 8
Lou Gehrig, # 10, and # 4
I don't think anybody forgets a hit is more valuable than a walk. Jaxxr, you really show your basseball ignorance as you seem to forget that a HR is of more value than a single, because maybe you don't realize that batting average counts a HR and a Single as of the same value. LOL!
If you were smart and knew what you are talking about, you would realize that OPS+ is actually double counting singles, because singles are expressed in both OB% and SLG%, and those are then added together.
But base on balls are really only being counted once in OPS+ (in the OB% portion). So walks are actually being treated unfairly in OPS.
In your Jaxxr wisdom you like to explain how a single is FAR more valuable than a walk? There is no need to guess how much more desirable a single is than a walk. A single is about 33% of more value. The actual MLB play by play data tells this, not some idiotic Jaxxr kingman/wagner method.
So knowing the actual difference in value between a single and walk is about 33%, you then realize that OPS+ is a bit unfair as it double counts a single, and only counts a walk once, IT ISN"T COUTING THE VALUE OF OB% ENOUGH! OB% actually needs to be weighted more.
The value of OB% and OPS+ doesn't just count what a walk is, it gives importance to how many OUTS a player is making as well.
Oh, I forgot, according to you an out could score a game winning run, so therefore outs shouldn't be counted against you in measuring! LOL!
And walks aren't the same value as a single, so they should be completely ignored! LOL. You like to ignore things. Have you found your car keys under the street lamp yet?? LOL
Oh, have you ever researched how many outs Jim Rice made to produce a game winning run? That was a cornerstone of your argument against outs made as an important factor in evaluative tools.
Finally, lets get a game going. You can pitch. You can walk the first nine batters you face. Since walks are of no value to you, you should be looking good! We can than play our home run derby on difference sized feels so you can understand that as well.
Finally, opinion comes into play if you like pepsi or sprite....not what the MLB play by play data says. Well, unless you use the Jaxxr method and ignore everything except for the things that make you feel better about yourself.
I was merely stating a fact in general, not directing it to only you, as you seem to feel everything some people post is primarily intended for your inspection.
This thread is about Albert Pujols,
I would hope you can refrain from inserting foolish comparisons as you did before, as well as trying to stay on topic, and realize this board contains thousands of members, and comments are often made for their digestion, not just for you personally.
In 2005, Pujols stole 16 bases, in just 18 trys, indicates, for that particvular season at least, some good speed and/or good baserunning ability.
I'm not showing your error because you feel that I think it is directed at me. I am showing your error, because you don't really have a grasp on what you are talking about. You spread misinformation, and often do it in a weasel like fashion to TRY and push some hidden agenda across.
I don't think anyone forgets or thinks that a walk is as valuable as a single, so why would you keep saying that? What you fail to understand is that it is an event that needs proper measurement, just like the other events. It shouldn't be ignored, or completely marginalized like you hope it would(so that some of your heroes could shine brighter than they really are).
OPS+ includes the value of a walk, and rightfully so. The problem with OPS+ is that it doesn't give the walk ENOUGH value, as it is more important than what that expresses.
The MLB play by play data gives extremely precise value to each event, and that data is FAR different than the Jaxxr Kingman/Wagner method where basically anything goes. That is the FAR you should be learning, not the FAR you presume between the value of a single or walk.
It isn't an opinion on its value, the value of it is what exactly happened in the millions of play by play data in MLB. Your jaxxr methods aren't going to change it, and your misinformation and weasel like appraoch isn't going to make your heroes any better than they truly are.
You are the only one to compare Honus Wagner with Dave Kingman, you also inserted your personally started post into 3 or 4 other threads, why you cant admit it, is questionable, although, I do have my suspisions.
You wish to ignore the subject matter of this thread, that is your personal concept, and keep on doing so and continue to display your courtesy and common sense.
The only thing that derailed this thread was your ignorant comment on the value of base on balls and OPS+. You simply don't know what you are talking about on topics such as those. You look foolish trying.
After explaing a bit, do you now understand that base on balls are NOT overvalued in OPS+?
And, yes, it is your Kingman/Wagner method that makes the famous Jaxxr method where common sense and valid data goes out the window. That is the Jaxxr method. You perfected it, and still try and advance it. You may as well embrace it. Nobody else on here has a method named after them.
Oh, and you still have that weasel method hanging over your head. You are trying to deflect all that, but I won't forget it.
I don't think that's true at all. Everybody agrees he is a great player. It's the Pujols game used jock strap sniffers that are polarizing... and annoying!
i think the fact that only Hornsby has ever done this is saying something!
In OB% a BB, HBP, 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR are all treated equally...given the weight of 1.
In SLG% a HR is given the weight of 4, triple 3, double 2, single 1, and a BB/HBP given the weight of zero(it isn't counted).
OPS is simply the sum of OB% and SLG%...two one legged items that don't stand well on their own, but when put together is pretty accurate.
So when you look at what is being counted and weighted in OPS, you get the following events and their weight.
HR weighted at 5
3B weighted at 4
2B weighted at 3
1B weighted at 2
BB/HBP weighted at 1
Looking at this, you see where the walk is being UNDER counted, NOT over counted like you have always presumed!
Looking at the MLB play by play data, the walk has on average 2/3 the value of that of a single. In OPS it only has half the value. That is why you hear good analysts say that OB% needs to be weighted more heavily in OPS in order to get more accurate value.
Of course, knowing you, you will argue in the face of the millions of actual MLB play by play data and disagree with that. But intuitively, you should know it is accurate. Because you should realize that appx half of a player's at bats come wtih nobodoy on base. A walk and a single have the exact same value with nobody on(a walk may have more value being it makes the pitchers throw more pitches).
So why is the walk only 2/3 the value of a single then? Because a single advances runners typically one more base than a walk does(sometimes two like with a man on second only). In totality, this , coupled with the events being equal in half the instances, comes out to the walk being appx 2/3 the value of a single.
In all this time of your arguing about OPS being flawed, you were right....except it is flawed in the exact opposite way you were proposing, showing your arguments to all be false as usual. LOL!
In this thread, a double double...a league leader in OB% and SLG% is more important than in the triple crown categories. I didn't derail anything, I put my view on the question. You derailed with typical nonsense.
If a hitter's BA, rather than his OBP, was added to, or combined with, Slg %, different results do occur.
Albert Pujols, I believe is the topic of this particualr thread, so It might be interesting to note, and show Pujols in comparison to a couple HOFers, somewhat recently retired,
Jim Rice, so often brought up by some, has a better career OPS than Eddie Murray for example, Rice also has one Adj OPS + title , Murray none.
RC shows Rice at 128, Murray for example at 125.
Pujols has won two Adj OPS + titles, has a career OPS higher than Rice or Murray, and so far has produced a fine RC of about 149, quite ihigher than both Rice and Murray.
Regarldess of the stat, or the combination of stats used, the importance or weight given to any particular ones, Albert Pujols has had an outstanding career up to this point, and will probably finish among the best ever.
<< <i>Jim Rice, so often brought up by some, has a better career OPS than Eddie Murray for example, Rice also has one Adj OPS + title , Murray none.
RC shows Rice at 128, Murray for example at 125. >>
The moron is back. LOL. Like I said, your Kingman/Wagner method is at it again, where valid data is ignored, context is ignored(Mainly park), and anything goes. These types of posts are what made your Kingman Wagner method famous.
Have you found your car keys under the lamp yet? LOL.
Oh, you don't belive Fenway is a factor. Check how many years out of the last 60 where it is rated a hitters park. You want consistency, you will see it there. The read the Fenway thread I created before. You may learn something.
Jaxxr, do you FINALLY understand the value of walks expressed in OPS? Can we at least get you past that first grade hurdle, and then concentrate on the second and third grade hurdles later?
And you still have the quote as your sigline even though you don't understand the meaning of it. LOL.
Jaxxr, I may have to start charging you for these lessons.
thats all fine and dandy, but Pujuls is still in his prime, give him 4-5 old man years and see where the final numbers flesh out.
He is a great hitter right now, that is a given but who knows when injuries or his real age will catch up to him.
he would still probably be wothry of HOF consideration, and induction.
That is, of course, a projection, and no way to be absolutely sure, but all the indications are that Albert will continue to play very well.