'You got lies, then you got da*ned lies, then you got statistics'
There's yet another famous old saying, too, "Ignorance is bliss," which applies well in these debates..
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 recall when Cal Ripken Jr, Nolan Ryan, and Mike Schmidt were nominated for induction, I spent hours, no, it must have been days, weeks, pouring through their stats, calculating all sorts of various numerical percentages, just to be sure that they deserved to be in the Hall of Fame, because I just wasn't quite certain beforehand if they really were truly great players.
Saberman I have never been out of work, ever since graduation from college. Looking for a new job is much different than not having one, your lack of reading comprehension in my posts about the subject is astonishing.
Why bring up Mazeroski? I didn't in this post. I think you obvioulsy have a hard time letting go of anything in the past when someone disagreed with you which shows how small minded a person you are.
Let me ask you Saberman some questions.
1. Have you ever done any independent research into statistical modeling using baseball players data? 2. Do you understand the actual statistical testing and theory behind the numbers you are using. Or do you just regurgitate what you read on other peoples websites? 3. Do you understand the difference between population data and sample data? 4. Do you know when to use a Chi Square distribution versus a Normal Distribution?
I feel a majority of the stats guys just go to somebody's website, see what everyone is saying and says the same thing. I give people like Bill James alot more credibility as he actually does something good in pointing out both sides and the general flaws in his statistical anlaysis. Also he does his own research and comes up with his own statistical tests and conclusions.
Saberman have you actually contributed anything to the field of Sabermetrics?
Mark, as far as using stats to predict future accomplishments. You could use generic trend data to come up with the same conclusions most of the time.
We have basically all the statistics of players from HS, College and the Pros for how many years, yet how many players become busts? Think about why this is, why we can't predict a player whom we have every stat he has ever generated and not be able to project what he will actually do in MLB accurately? The intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect humans is so vast and how they each affect people differently will never make this an exact science.
Is it good at explaining what just happened and why? Yep. Is it good and telling us if a HS player will one day hit 500 HR's? Nope not at all.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
You have the no brainers from that era, Reggie, Schmidt, Murray, Brett, etc... The problem lies when guys who are not in that tier are selected, while others who are just as good or better are brushed aside like they never existed.
The no brainer HOFers have situational batter run totals in the 500 range....
Here are the lifetime situational batter runs for....
Dave Parker 365 P. Guerrero 320 Dewey Evans 299 Murphy 258 Dawson 251 Lynn 250 Mattingly 228 Rice 190
People get angry with me, but it is about being objective and fair. Somebody has to fight for the Fred Lynn's, Murphy's, and Dewey's of the world while other lesser players for some reason get all this credit that should not be going their way!
Sure, some people may say, well this guy had 400 total bases one year, or this guy played on bad knees, as evidence that there were other things to consider besides the best measurement in existence that is used above. But you know what, guys like Fred Lynn could say he won the MVP and ROY in the same season...they can all make claims with stuff like that too.
If you have the Hall of Famers from that era sitting in the 500 range, and then you have this next group all bunched up well below that HOF standard from that era, I don't see how anybody could objectively just select two players from that bunched list, and completely ignore the other players who are right there with them.
The funny thing about it is that they picked the lowest guy on that offensive list, and he also happens to be the WORST defensive player of all the other guys listed.
Also, that list doesn't include others who are in that same range, nor does it include guys like Bobby Grich or Ted Simmons who get extra value from their position or glove.
Keith Hernandez 382 Reggie Smith 361
Ted Simmons 293 Grich 222
Or how about George Foster at 267? He has fame claims too, including the two World Series, and breaking the 50 homer barrier after a number of years before it happened, and it didn't happen again until 14 years later. See, guys can make all sorts of claims like Rice or Dawson, and they are as good or better...
Did I invent situational batter runs, or WARP, no.
What I have done is have a hobby of studying baseball and history, as well as coaching and playing...and combining all that with some basic common sense to generate findings.
I have not published any large studies, though I have had back and forths with some of those people who have been publishing the more recent stuff. My primary goal is to make money, and since there really is no money in that, I only do enough to wet my appetite or needs. Though, I have parlayed that into making some money
I have done stuff and written studies with clutch hitting aspects, the effects of playing catcher on hitting, lefty avoidance from left handed batters, career length and how current metrics can unfairly penalize guys with long careers, the effect of runs a DH has on pitchers ERA, and more.
I have done a number of small independent research, some of which I put briefly on these boards and others years ago. Some done well before the computer age, where it is old paper/pen. For example, like the stuff on Mazeroski's fielding, just small exercises...
I'm not a math guy...more of a common sense guy.
Oh, and the reason why stats are no good to predict high school or college players is because of the wide disparity between each player's competition, the validity of who is keeping the stats, how the stats were beefed up against poor players, and the fact that their bodies and skills have not matured yet, and WILL not be mature until they are well into their 20's. This has NOTHING to do with stat analysis of MLB players, so why you keep bringing that up makes no sense.
Any complex equation that uses this stat, is a flawed equation.
Example,
You have two CF's, one of which is three steps faster than the other. Over the course of a season each will have ten line drives thats hooking away from them. Each line drive will land in a spot that is 35 yards from where the CF stands.
Lets say that the faster and quicker CF, is able to get to that spot before the ball lands. He is able to make a diving catch five times, but the other five times the ball bounces off his glove resulting in an error.
The slower CF is unable to make a play on the ball and plays all 10 off the fence. He would be able to maintain a higher fielding % while making fewer outs.
Which of the two CFs would you choose for your team?
All baseball fielding stats are not as accurate as the good hitting stats(by the good hitting stats, I do NOT mean RBI's, or runs scored, as those are team dependant). There is much more grey area in fielding stats. The most dependable fielding stats are the current ones where each play is analyzed via videotape analysis.
In terms of hitting stats, the situational batter runs are actually the average fans dream. It answers the questions that are often sought, specifically how well each player did with men on base, or how bad they did with men on base. There are a few things wrong with them, which is another topic...but understand the things 'wrong' with them are minute and won't change a difference of 200 batter runs...and they aren't 'wrong' on the scale that RBI or runs scored are.
Bill Mazeroski's fielding stats are an example of how things can get skewed, and he may not be the best defensive player in baseball history as some claim. Heck, his replacements on his own team did just as well as he did. Problem with fielding stats is that it may be the pitching staff that is causing the player to get more assists, rather than the skill of the player.
<< <i>Problem with fielding stats is that it may be the pitching staff that is causing the player to get more assists, rather than the skill of the player. >>
Just as hitting stats can be adjusted to the environment, fielding stats can be, too. Compared to league average, Jackie Robinson was no where close to Mazeroski on the most basic stats of putouts and assists. But even without the most recent fielding measurements, other stats tell us that the Dodgers had a primarily flyball pitching staff, had a lot of strikeouts and put few runners on first base. . .
<< <i>I recall when Cal Ripken Jr, Nolan Ryan, and Mike Schmidt were nominated for induction, I spent hours, no, it must have been days, weeks, pouring through their stats, calculating all sorts of various numerical percentages, just to be sure that they deserved to be in the Hall of Fame, because I just wasn't quite certain beforehand if they really were truly great players. >>
I spent weeks calculating various terry bradshaw numerical percentages to figure out if he was a deserved hall of famer, because he had receivers who were great at catching footballs.
Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in - that's all ya need to know about whether or not Mazeroski should be in the Hall. Case closed.
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever.
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever. >>
Yea, "those" veterans would have agreed that Eddie Gaedel should be in, if Eddie was elected, just so as to not create any waves.
A good number of former players who care about the integrity of the Hall, stated that Mazeroski should not have gotten in, and in fact they wanted to change steps in the voting procedure to ensure it wouldn't happen again. I didn't Google it to refresh my memory on the story, but I do remember that basic part of the story.
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever. >>
and come on now...that's not the "most famous home run ever", but I would agree that if Mazeroski didn't hit that home run, he wouldn't have gotten in.
< Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever.
LOL, you probably thought Palmiero deserved that Gold Glove at 1B in 1999, too..
Edit: The "veterans" thought Phil Rizzuto deserved to be in the HOF, too....
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 think it should be a hall of FAME. So let Canseco, McGwire, Clemens, Saberhagen (had to squeeze him in), Pete Rose (Saberhagen said he wont go in without him), Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and why not, maybe even the San Diego Chicken in. It isn't the hall of the very very best.
(ducking now)
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>I think it should be a hall of FAME. So let Canseco, McGwire, Clemens, Saberhagen (had to squeeze him in), Pete Rose (Saberhagen said he wont go in without him), Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and why not, maybe even the San Diego Chicken in. It isn't the hall of the very very best.
(ducking now) >>
Tim Raines is vastly overqualified for the HOF. He was as good as Tony Gwynn.
In terms of fielding- Bill Mazeroski was the NL standard- in terms of evaluating players for the HOF, the stats he produced are the ones overlooked. Defense is an overlooked part of MLB.
He rightfully deserves to be there- and FTR, the World Series Grand Slam against the Yankees is just gravy.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There are those that believe the HOF has become watered down with some that do not belong there- while I have my own thoughts on who should be there- I will add this for the actuaries and stats folks that like to crunch numbers and make comparisons... etc. And as much as I think that is all nonsense and proves very little, lets take the numbers in a different direction-
How many MLB players have played the game that really qualify for the HOF based on games/seasons played etc.?
What percent are in the HOF?
Would it be a reasonable assumption that 3-5% of the total number that qualify for the HOF left an impression with fans and made the game what it was (or is) and should be recognized for their contribution?
Okay- have fun with this instead of comparing stats among players whom you likely never saw play and helped make the game what it was.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Based on the above info, he was not making the most of his men on base opportunities, and actually hit better with the bases empty(making his hits of less value). That really isn't clutch. Credit for his high RBI totals has to go to his teammates as well as him.
We are missing four years here, but even if did really well in those situations in those years, it would bring his totals to be pretty close in the non-clutch moments, as they are in the clutch moments. Keep in mind that the league as a whole hits BETTER with men on base compared to nobody on, and for him to be lower with runners on means he is REALLLY lower in that category.
I would say that his clutch tag is coming from the high RBI totals resulting from an excellent hitter batting in an excellent lineup. Look at his best RBI season in 1954 when he had 130 RBI. Is it because he was clutch, or fortunate to be in the right circumstances?
With RISP he batted .......264 with an OPS of .832 With Nobody on he had .313 with an ops of 1.012
He had 174 at bats with RISP and 295 with men on base. For comparison, here are some other guys at bat totals with RISP(runners in scoring position), and Men on...
Musial 126 at bats with RISP, and 246 with men on. He had 126 RBI in a significantly less amount of chances. Mays 112 at bats with RISP, and 242 with men on. He had 110 RBI, and wasn't even close in the number of key chances with RISP.
Now every time I point out that information like that people think I am saying he stinks and that he only got those high totals from his teammates. No. Like I said, an EXCELLENT hitter in an EXCELLENT lineup gets those totals. These are posted to put his totals into context. He really shouldn't be getting extra credit for his 'clutch' performances, because those are rooted in having a good lineup. Some guys do hit extraordinarily well with RISP and such, and sure, credit should go to them. It doesn't look like Hodges is one of them.
SO he needs to be judged on what HE did, and RBI aren't the way to do it.
His career 120 OPS+ is probably a good indicator of his hitting value, and it really is short of the HOF sluggers from his era.
His best OPS+ finishes in his league are 5th, 6th, 8th, and 8th. Rarely is one top five finish enough to hang with the HOF peers, and he doesn't have position value on his side.
It was brought up that Hodges was clutch. Looking at how he hit with men on base, and in late/close situations, being clutch doesn't seem to be the reason for him having high RBI totals. He was an excellent hitter, far below that of a Musial or Mays, and benefited from a lot of RBI chances.
He actually hit his worst with men on base, and his worst in late/close situations.
He didn't do anything clutchwise to garner extra RBI. Any extra RBI he got over what his average, OB%, and SLG% dictate what he should have gotten would be a result of having a high amount of opportunities.
Looking at that highlighted season, Musial/Mays certainly did have lesser circumstances when you look at the amount of RBI opportunities. What would you classify 50 less at bats with runners in scoring position? Equal circumstances?
Knowing that he didn't do anything special clutchwise with men on base, his OPS+ of 120 pretty much nails his value as a hitter. Excellent, but not nearly on par with typical HOF sluggers with similar career length
Skin - Where do you get your stats? Is there a program (ie excel) or subscription website that calculates different scenarios? Just curious and always wondered...
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
As a hitter, I agree that his numbers fall short of Mays or Musial and they are both in the HOF.
Having said that, it does not diminish Hodges numbers in all areas of the game- fielding and being a key player that was part of Brooklyn Dodgers legacy. Many consider him to be the best first baseman in the NL for the decade of the1950s.
I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others.
Equal circumstances?
That really becomes a slippery slope... following that premise, it would be hard not to argue that Ralph Kiner should be considered the greatest Home Run hitter
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Elaborate what you mean in regard to Kiner. I am only speaking of RBI chances, not how a lineup affects a batters performance in OPS+ where the lineup has less of an impact compared to the number of runners does to total RBI.
The stuff I posted was in regard to Hodges clutch hitting ability, and I understand that the HOF case is always going to be a slippery slope because of the word fame. Of course, I try to be fair, so when fame is applied to one person over another who was a better player...
Stown, all those split stats are now on Baseball reference. That site has added a tremendous amount of info lately. If you go to the players main page and look at the tabs right above his rookie year's stats, you will see "game log," "splits", etc... Put your cursor over 'splits' and you can either click on a given year for the breakdowns, or on 'career' for the career total break downs.
Info is also on retrosheet.
A lot of it is trivial breakdowns, and many of the splits have no real meaning other than measuring randomness, but that is where it is at. It sure does put an objective light on a lot of the guess work that had to be previously done.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
My point is simple- setting pirameters and then applying statistics based on incomplete information does not work in baseball. The statistics that you site can be broken down further- The at bats and opportunities- Did it break it down based on home games, Ball Parks, Night games, Day games, facing left or right handed pitchers?
Do the statistics account for how, why and when runs scored and who was involved in scoring them in those games involved in winning margins of 4 or more?
I chose to use Ralph Kiner as an example to simply illustrate that your term about equal circumstances or equal opportunity, whether applied to RBI statistics or HRs, really does not exist it baseball- it can not for reasons delineated above ranging form ball parks, pitching etc... And that ultimately leads to a flaw in relying on numbers for comparison among players, like Hodges among others, that they clearly proved to Baseball fans they met the challenge of greatness and made the game what it was- Ralph Kiner was great and deserves to be in the HOF, but was he statistically the best HR hitter in the game? Based on numbers, he is close if not at the top. Not every player can be measured by the same yardstick because that yardstick is just too broad and can be manipulated by how numbers are used and measured.
I tried to be brief and that sums up the Reader's Digest Condensed version
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
When it comes to baseball hitting, the numbers actually sum it up extremely accurately. People's emotions and perceptions are what gives false readings.
Sure, you can break all that down further. What it boils down to, all that stuff you talk about evens out, or is a result of just plain luck/randomness, and doesn't change much. Ultimately, his 120 OPS+ is a pretty darn accurate.
If Hodges truly were clutch, I would expect him to hit better in those clutch situations. Yes, there are measures that evaluate each and every play, in each and every situation. But those results usually don't alter what the 120 OPS+ already says.
If you call him clutch for having big hits, then so are the other guys who have big hits at the same rate as he.
By your method, I can be impressed with RIchie Hebner, and if one guy agrees with me, I guess we can claim he was as good as Hodges, because I felt how good he was.
Ralph Kiner was great and deserves to be in the HOF
I am a Kiner fan, but he barely got into the Hall, just barely eclipsing 75% of the vote in 1975 on his 16th try on the ballot. He actually just barely met the minimum requirement of 10 full seasons to even be considered for induction.
I think Skin's analysis on Hodges is pretty much spot on in this case.
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 believe that you stand corrected on this- seriously-
Coinkat,
You are incorrect. Duke Snider led Dodgers in RBIs in the 1950s, not Gil Hodges..
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.
Fifties is a little tricky when we look at the stats. A lot of asterisks in my opinion. Willie Mays lost nearly two full seasons to Military Service. In looking at his 1951 and 1954 numbers, one would have to figure he would have hit at least 40-80 more homers and driven in 150-225 more runs. Ted Williams also missed most of the 1952 and 1953 seasons in Military Service. Mantle and Musial played most of the decade. So I give Gil Hodges a lot of credit for having more RBI's than those guys. Hodges was a fine hitter and a Gold Glove first baseman. But, the bottom line is this: If you are going to be a .273 hitter, you either better hit more home runs than 370 or you better be the greatest defensive whiz around or perceived as such (Brooks Robinson, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Mazeroski). Hodges was one of the best fielding first basemen of all-time, but first baseman is not a position that will get you in on defensive excellence. If so, Keith Hernandez would have been inducted a long time ago. So, to me I keep Hodges out, but still hold him in esteem as a fine ballplayer.
What has "Most RBIs in the 50s got to do with anything? You just happened to pick his peak years. Mantle was not full time until 52. Mays did not come up until 51 and, as noted earlier. lost two years to the military. Gary Gaetti and Darrel Evans have more career RBIs and played more demanding defensive positions. Where are their HOF plaques? There are several players with more RBIs than Hodges who have to buy a ticket to get in at Cooperstown.
First, I had nothing to do with decades or selecting peak years in players- that is well beyond my control or ability to predict peak years for players...
I missed Duke Snyder and still feel pretty bad for the oversight...
However, attempting to compare Richie Hebner to Hodges just does not pass the straight face test- end of discussion on that point.
PoweredH20- Your comments as well as others are well taken- even though I may not agree.
Anyone know what Hodges did between 1943-46? Just curious...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
Our motto is
'You got lies,
then you got da*ned lies,
then you got statistics'
Our motto is
'You got lies,
then you got da*ned lies,
then you got statistics'
There's yet another famous old saying, too, "Ignorance is bliss," which applies well in these debates..
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>I am in the 'Mark Twain' camp.
Our motto is
'You got lies,
then you got da*ned lies,
then you got statistics' >>
Mark Twain was a fiction writer...makes sense based on yours posts
He was also a humorist...which also makes sense because YOU posted more statistics than anybody else, LOL.
The problem is; it isn't that you don't like statistics...it is just that you don't like statistics that disagree with your sentiments.
WHich makes you like 99% of the sports world...just pick/choose stats that agree with your sentiments, and ignore the ones that don't.
<< <i>
<< <i>So you think a 8-time gold glover and 1 of 3 players in history to hit 400 homers and 300 stolen bases is borderline? >>
No. I think Evans and Raines were both better.. >>
I dont.
<< <i>I choose the first seven applicable stats on a 1986 Fleer Star sticker. >>
Hard to go against 2 mvp's. Dale Murphy gets my vote for the best player in that timeframe (1982-1985)
If others have a different opinion, then thats great
Why bring up Mazeroski? I didn't in this post. I think you obvioulsy have a hard time letting go of anything in the past when someone disagreed with you which shows how small minded a person you are.
Let me ask you Saberman some questions.
1. Have you ever done any independent research into statistical modeling using baseball players data?
2. Do you understand the actual statistical testing and theory behind the numbers you are using. Or do you just regurgitate what you read on other peoples websites?
3. Do you understand the difference between population data and sample data?
4. Do you know when to use a Chi Square distribution versus a Normal Distribution?
I feel a majority of the stats guys just go to somebody's website, see what everyone is saying and says the same thing. I give people like Bill James alot more credibility as he actually does something good in pointing out both sides and the general flaws in his statistical anlaysis. Also he does his own research and comes up with his own statistical tests and conclusions.
Saberman have you actually contributed anything to the field of Sabermetrics?
Mark, as far as using stats to predict future accomplishments. You could use generic trend data to come up with the same conclusions most of the time.
We have basically all the statistics of players from HS, College and the Pros for how many years, yet how many players become busts? Think about why this is, why we can't predict a player whom we have every stat he has ever generated and not be able to project what he will actually do in MLB accurately? The intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect humans is so vast and how they each affect people differently will never make this an exact science.
Is it good at explaining what just happened and why? Yep. Is it good and telling us if a HS player will one day hit 500 HR's? Nope not at all.
SteveK,
You have the no brainers from that era, Reggie, Schmidt, Murray, Brett, etc... The problem lies when guys who are not in that tier are selected, while others who are just as good or better are brushed aside like they never existed.
The no brainer HOFers have situational batter run totals in the 500 range....
Here are the lifetime situational batter runs for....
Dave Parker 365
P. Guerrero 320
Dewey Evans 299
Murphy 258
Dawson 251
Lynn 250
Mattingly 228
Rice 190
People get angry with me, but it is about being objective and fair. Somebody has to fight for the Fred Lynn's, Murphy's, and Dewey's of the world while other lesser players for some reason get all this credit that should not be going their way!
Sure, some people may say, well this guy had 400 total bases one year, or this guy played on bad knees, as evidence that there were other things to consider besides the best measurement in existence that is used above. But you know what, guys like Fred Lynn could say he won the MVP and ROY in the same season...they can all make claims with stuff like that too.
If you have the Hall of Famers from that era sitting in the 500 range, and then you have this next group all bunched up well below that HOF standard from that era, I don't see how anybody could objectively just select two players from that bunched list, and completely ignore the other players who are right there with them.
The funny thing about it is that they picked the lowest guy on that offensive list, and he also happens to be the WORST defensive player of all the other guys listed.
Also, that list doesn't include others who are in that same range, nor does it include guys like Bobby Grich or Ted Simmons who get extra value from their position or glove.
Keith Hernandez 382
Reggie Smith 361
Ted Simmons 293
Grich 222
Or how about George Foster at 267? He has fame claims too, including the two World Series, and breaking the 50 homer barrier after a number of years before it happened, and it didn't happen again until 14 years later. See, guys can make all sorts of claims like Rice or Dawson, and they are as good or better...
but the OBJECTIVE valid evidence is there!
Do you advocate, or use wheels on cars or bikes?
Did you invent those wheels??
Did I invent situational batter runs, or WARP, no.
What I have done is have a hobby of studying baseball and history, as well as coaching and playing...and combining all that with some basic common sense to generate findings.
I have not published any large studies, though I have had back and forths with some of those people who have been publishing the more recent stuff. My primary goal is to make money, and since there really is no money in that, I only do enough to wet my appetite or needs. Though, I have parlayed that into making some money
I have done stuff and written studies with clutch hitting aspects, the effects of playing catcher on hitting, lefty avoidance from left handed batters, career length and how current metrics can unfairly penalize guys with long careers, the effect of runs a DH has on pitchers ERA, and more.
I have done a number of small independent research, some of which I put briefly on these boards and others years ago. Some done well before the computer age, where it is old paper/pen. For example, like the stuff on Mazeroski's fielding, just small exercises...
I'm not a math guy...more of a common sense guy.
Oh, and the reason why stats are no good to predict high school or college players is because of the wide disparity between each player's competition, the validity of who is keeping the stats, how the stats were beefed up against poor players, and the fact that their bodies and skills have not matured yet, and WILL not be mature until they are well into their 20's. This has NOTHING to do with stat analysis of MLB players, so why you keep bringing that up makes no sense.
Any complex equation that uses this stat, is a flawed equation.
Example,
You have two CF's, one of which is three steps faster than the other.
Over the course of a season each will have ten line drives thats hooking away from them. Each line drive will land in a spot that is 35 yards from where the CF stands.
Lets say that the faster and quicker CF, is able to get to that spot before the ball lands. He is able to make a diving catch five times, but the other five times the ball bounces off his glove resulting in an error.
The slower CF is unable to make a play on the ball and plays all 10 off the fence. He would be able to maintain a higher fielding % while making fewer outs.
Which of the two CFs would you choose for your team?
All baseball fielding stats are not as accurate as the good hitting stats(by the good hitting stats, I do NOT mean RBI's, or runs scored, as those are team dependant). There is much more grey area in fielding stats. The most dependable fielding stats are the current ones where each play is analyzed via videotape analysis.
In terms of hitting stats, the situational batter runs are actually the average fans dream. It answers the questions that are often sought, specifically how well each player did with men on base, or how bad they did with men on base. There are a few things wrong with them, which is another topic...but understand the things 'wrong' with them are minute and won't change a difference of 200 batter runs...and they aren't 'wrong' on the scale that RBI or runs scored are.
Bill Mazeroski's fielding stats are an example of how things can get skewed, and he may not be the best defensive player in baseball history as some claim. Heck, his replacements on his own team did just as well as he did. Problem with fielding stats is that it may be the pitching staff that is causing the player to get more assists, rather than the skill of the player.
<< <i>Problem with fielding stats is that it may be the pitching staff that is causing the player to get more assists, rather than the skill of the player. >>
Just as hitting stats can be adjusted to the environment, fielding stats can be, too. Compared to league average, Jackie Robinson was no where close to Mazeroski on the most basic stats of putouts and assists. But even without the most recent fielding measurements, other stats tell us that the Dodgers had a primarily flyball pitching staff, had a lot of strikeouts and put few runners on first base. . .
Steve
<< <i>I recall when Cal Ripken Jr, Nolan Ryan, and Mike Schmidt were nominated for induction, I spent hours, no, it must have been days, weeks, pouring through their stats, calculating all sorts of various numerical percentages, just to be sure that they deserved to be in the Hall of Fame, because I just wasn't quite certain beforehand if they really were truly great players. >>
I spent weeks calculating various terry bradshaw numerical percentages to figure out if he was a deserved hall of famer, because he had receivers who were great at catching footballs.
<< <i>Jackie Robinson was no where close to Mazeroski on the most basic stats of putouts and assists >>
Playing in almost 700 more games will do that.
Steve
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever. >>
Yea, "those" veterans would have agreed that Eddie Gaedel should be in, if Eddie was elected, just so as to not create any waves.
A good number of former players who care about the integrity of the Hall, stated that Mazeroski should not have gotten in, and in fact they wanted to change steps in the voting procedure to ensure it wouldn't happen again. I didn't Google it to refresh my memory on the story, but I do remember that basic part of the story.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame is a first class joke. Even many, MANY, of the players who played with him were surprised or even angry that he got in >>
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever. >>
and come on now...that's not the "most famous home run ever", but I would agree that if Mazeroski didn't hit that home run, he wouldn't have gotten in.
Apparantly the veterens who played the game felt he should be in. I would agree. He was one of the best defensive players to play the game imo. I believe he still holds several records. Not to mention he hit perhaps the most famous home run ever.
LOL, you probably thought Palmiero deserved that Gold Glove at 1B in 1999, too..
Edit: The "veterans" thought Phil Rizzuto deserved to be in the HOF, too....
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.
(ducking now)
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
re the situational batter runs numbers, some are quite interesting, especially,
Keith Hernandez 382
Reggie Smith 361
Could you provide a source for these unofficial stats, or a link perhaps ?
Thanks
<< <i>I think it should be a hall of FAME. So let Canseco, McGwire, Clemens, Saberhagen (had to squeeze him in), Pete Rose (Saberhagen said he wont go in without him), Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and why not, maybe even the San Diego Chicken in. It isn't the hall of the very very best.
(ducking now) >>
Tim Raines is vastly overqualified for the HOF. He was as good as Tony Gwynn.
<< <i>
<< <i>Jackie Robinson was no where close to Mazeroski on the most basic stats of putouts and assists >>
Playing in almost 700 more games will do that.
Steve >>
Thanks for cutting off the "compared to league average part." The extra games played takes on a different meaning when looking at averages
He rightfully deserves to be there- and FTR, the World Series Grand Slam against the Yankees is just gravy.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There are those that believe the HOF has become watered down with some that do not belong there- while I have my own thoughts on who should be there- I will add this for the actuaries and stats folks that like to crunch numbers and make comparisons... etc. And as much as I think that is all nonsense and proves very little, lets take the numbers in a different direction-
How many MLB players have played the game that really qualify for the HOF based on games/seasons played etc.?
What percent are in the HOF?
Would it be a reasonable assumption that 3-5% of the total number that qualify for the HOF left an impression with fans and made the game what it was (or is) and should be recognized for their contribution?
Okay- have fun with this instead of comparing stats among players whom you likely never saw play and helped make the game what it was.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Unfortunately, they don't have all his years yet. These are from 1952-1963, so it is missing his first four full years.
Bases Empty......BA .277, OB% .357, SLG% .512
Men on Base......BA .274, OB% .364, SLG% .484
RISP...................BA .275, OB% .383, SLG% .492
Based on the above info, he was not making the most of his men on base opportunities, and actually hit better with the bases empty(making his hits of less value). That really isn't clutch. Credit for his high RBI totals has to go to his teammates as well as him.
Here are his late/close totals....
Late/close............BA .272, OB% .356, SLG% .469
Margin >4 runs....BA .286, OB% .386, SLG% .499
Again, not what one would call clutch.
We are missing four years here, but even if did really well in those situations in those years, it would bring his totals to be pretty close in the non-clutch moments, as they are in the clutch moments. Keep in mind that the league as a whole hits BETTER with men on base compared to nobody on, and for him to be lower with runners on means he is REALLLY lower in that category.
I would say that his clutch tag is coming from the high RBI totals resulting from an excellent hitter batting in an excellent lineup. Look at his best RBI season in 1954 when he had 130 RBI. Is it because he was clutch, or fortunate to be in the right circumstances?
With RISP he batted .......264 with an OPS of .832
With Nobody on he had .313 with an ops of 1.012
He had 174 at bats with RISP and 295 with men on base. For comparison, here are some other guys at bat totals with RISP(runners in scoring position), and Men on...
Musial 126 at bats with RISP, and 246 with men on. He had 126 RBI in a significantly less amount of chances.
Mays 112 at bats with RISP, and 242 with men on. He had 110 RBI, and wasn't even close in the number of key chances with RISP.
Now every time I point out that information like that people think I am saying he stinks and that he only got those high totals from his teammates. No. Like I said, an EXCELLENT hitter in an EXCELLENT lineup gets those totals. These are posted to put his totals into context. He really shouldn't be getting extra credit for his 'clutch' performances, because those are rooted in having a good lineup. Some guys do hit extraordinarily well with RISP and such, and sure, credit should go to them. It doesn't look like Hodges is one of them.
SO he needs to be judged on what HE did, and RBI aren't the way to do it.
His career 120 OPS+ is probably a good indicator of his hitting value, and it really is short of the HOF sluggers from his era.
His best OPS+ finishes in his league are 5th, 6th, 8th, and 8th. Rarely is one top five finish enough to hang with the HOF peers, and he doesn't have position value on his side.
And whatever those circumstances are... Musial and Mays had less right circumstances?
All three played for great teams
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It was brought up that Hodges was clutch. Looking at how he hit with men on base, and in late/close situations, being clutch doesn't seem to be the reason for him having high RBI totals. He was an excellent hitter, far below that of a Musial or Mays, and benefited from a lot of RBI chances.
He actually hit his worst with men on base, and his worst in late/close situations.
He didn't do anything clutchwise to garner extra RBI. Any extra RBI he got over what his average, OB%, and SLG% dictate what he should have gotten would be a result of having a high amount of opportunities.
Looking at that highlighted season, Musial/Mays certainly did have lesser circumstances when you look at the amount of RBI opportunities. What would you classify 50 less at bats with runners in scoring position? Equal circumstances?
Knowing that he didn't do anything special clutchwise with men on base, his OPS+ of 120 pretty much nails his value as a hitter. Excellent, but not nearly on par with typical HOF sluggers with similar career length
As a hitter, I agree that his numbers fall short of Mays or Musial and they are both in the HOF.
Having said that, it does not diminish Hodges numbers in all areas of the game- fielding and being a key player that was part of Brooklyn Dodgers legacy. Many consider him to be the best first baseman in the NL for the decade of the1950s.
I do not diagree that Hodges had RBI chances- but that is part of the game- Power hitters get those opportunities- as did Mays, Musial, Kiner, Mize and others.
Equal circumstances?
That really becomes a slippery slope... following that premise, it would be hard not to argue that Ralph Kiner should be considered the greatest Home Run hitter
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Elaborate what you mean in regard to Kiner. I am only speaking of RBI chances, not how a lineup affects a batters performance in OPS+ where the lineup has less of an impact compared to the number of runners does to total RBI.
The stuff I posted was in regard to Hodges clutch hitting ability, and I understand that the HOF case is always going to be a slippery slope because of the word fame. Of course, I try to be fair, so when fame is applied to one person over another who was a better player...
Stown, all those split stats are now on Baseball reference. That site has added a tremendous amount of info lately. If you go to the players main page and look at the tabs right above his rookie year's stats, you will see "game log," "splits", etc... Put your cursor over 'splits' and you can either click on a given year for the breakdowns, or on 'career' for the career total break downs.
Info is also on retrosheet.
A lot of it is trivial breakdowns, and many of the splits have no real meaning other than measuring randomness, but that is where it is at. It sure does put an objective light on a lot of the guess work that had to be previously done.
My point is simple- setting pirameters and then applying statistics based on incomplete information does not work in baseball. The statistics that you site can be broken down further- The at bats and opportunities- Did it break it down based on home games, Ball Parks, Night games, Day games, facing left or right handed pitchers?
Do the statistics account for how, why and when runs scored and who was involved in scoring them in those games involved in winning margins of 4 or more?
I chose to use Ralph Kiner as an example to simply illustrate that your term about equal circumstances or equal opportunity, whether applied to RBI statistics or HRs, really does not exist it baseball- it can not for reasons delineated above ranging form ball parks, pitching etc... And that ultimately leads to a flaw in relying on numbers for comparison among players, like Hodges among others, that they clearly proved to Baseball fans they met the challenge of greatness and made the game what it was- Ralph Kiner was great and deserves to be in the HOF, but was he statistically the best HR hitter in the game? Based on numbers, he is close if not at the top. Not every player can be measured by the same yardstick because that yardstick is just too broad and can be manipulated by how numbers are used and measured.
I tried to be brief and that sums up the Reader's Digest Condensed version
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
When it comes to baseball hitting, the numbers actually sum it up extremely accurately. People's emotions and perceptions are what gives false readings.
Sure, you can break all that down further. What it boils down to, all that stuff you talk about evens out, or is a result of just plain luck/randomness, and doesn't change much. Ultimately, his 120 OPS+ is a pretty darn accurate.
If Hodges truly were clutch, I would expect him to hit better in those clutch situations. Yes, there are measures that evaluate each and every play, in each and every situation. But those results usually don't alter what the 120 OPS+ already says.
If you call him clutch for having big hits, then so are the other guys who have big hits at the same rate as he.
By your method, I can be impressed with RIchie Hebner, and if one guy agrees with me, I guess we can claim he was as good as Hodges, because I felt how good he was.
I am a Kiner fan, but he barely got into the Hall, just barely eclipsing 75% of the vote in 1975 on his 16th try on the ballot. He actually just barely met the minimum requirement of 10 full seasons to even be considered for induction.
I think Skin's analysis on Hodges is pretty much spot on in this case.
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>- Ralph Kiner was great and deserves to be in the HOF >>
Indeed.
1949, 1950 and 1951 were excellent seasons for Hodges- I believe he was an All-Star each of those years- but the stats used started in 1952
He is the NL RBI Leader for the decade of the 1950s- over 1,000
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Last comments on the subject of Hodges-
We can only hope! No I'm not serious.
I believe that you stand corrected on this- seriously-
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I believe that you stand corrected on this- seriously-
Coinkat,
You are incorrect. Duke Snider led Dodgers in RBIs in the 1950s, not Gil Hodges..
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.
My apologies to Baseball
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
First, I had nothing to do with decades or selecting peak years in players- that is well beyond my control or ability to predict peak years for players...
I missed Duke Snyder and still feel pretty bad for the oversight...
However, attempting to compare Richie Hebner to Hodges just does not pass the straight face test- end of discussion on that point.
PoweredH20- Your comments as well as others are well taken- even though I may not agree.
Anyone know what Hodges did between 1943-46? Just curious...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.