Fred McGriff and Eddie Murray
Tomi
Posts: 643 ✭✭✭
I was just looking at these 2 and their respective careers. Murray a HOF'er and McGriff getting no love for getting in. Taking away Murray's 3,000+ hits, they both had pretty similar careers.
Murray plays 21 seasons and ends with 504 HRs while McGriff in 19 seasons ends with 493.
Murray with 5- 30+ hr seasons and 6-100+ rbi seasons. McGriff with 10-30+hr seasons and 8-100+rbi seasons.
Murray with career 1917 rbi. and McGriff with 1550.
Murray career 162 game avg. 27hr and 103rbi.
McGriff career 162 game avg. 32hr and 102rbi.
Murray lifetime BA. 287 and McGriff 284.
Of course Murray deserves induction with no argument from me, but looking at the steroid era and McGriff looking clean with no career power spike, I see a pretty good case for him getting in with these numbers. Murray clearly beats McGriff in lifetime rbi's, but they are very close in career averages in both.
Anyone else agree? I am impressed with McGriffs' 10-30+hr seasons and 8-100 rbi seasons.
Murray plays 21 seasons and ends with 504 HRs while McGriff in 19 seasons ends with 493.
Murray with 5- 30+ hr seasons and 6-100+ rbi seasons. McGriff with 10-30+hr seasons and 8-100+rbi seasons.
Murray with career 1917 rbi. and McGriff with 1550.
Murray career 162 game avg. 27hr and 103rbi.
McGriff career 162 game avg. 32hr and 102rbi.
Murray lifetime BA. 287 and McGriff 284.
Of course Murray deserves induction with no argument from me, but looking at the steroid era and McGriff looking clean with no career power spike, I see a pretty good case for him getting in with these numbers. Murray clearly beats McGriff in lifetime rbi's, but they are very close in career averages in both.
Anyone else agree? I am impressed with McGriffs' 10-30+hr seasons and 8-100 rbi seasons.
0
Comments
I think he's a HOFer. Great numbers, world class guy and teammate, clean.
Dave Parker is another player that has been overlooked.
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
<< <i> Parker nor Baines were as good as McGriff. >>
Disagree. Many people think Parker was better than Jim Rice. I think he was better than McGriff. Parker could beat you with his bat or arm and finished in the top 5 mvp voting 5 times.
[URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/nadsnews/media/emanski_mcgriff.jpg.html]
IMF
<< <i>Those Tom Emanski Defensive Drills video commercials on ESPN for years, disqualify McGriff for consideration IMO
IMF >>
The Sportscenter guys gave McGriff grief over his hat in that commercial for years. And today, that's how young people wear their hats.
<< <i>The difference I see is Murray got more love with the writers in the way of MVP voting. He was considered one of the best switch hitters ever. The crime dog is always going to suffer because he will be remembered along with who he played along side. No one has ever mentioned steroids and him in the same sentence but he gets dwarfed numbers wise and lost out in things like all star appearances and MVP voting because the bulk went to dirty players. Murray started earlier and his numbers were extremely good in comparison to his contemporaries. Ol Fred is just a casualty of the steroid era! I mean for Christ sakes Brett Boone went from a weak hitting second baseman to a monster in that era?!?! >>
well said...
By the numbers I think show a hitters value, it's McGriff then Murray and then Parker (even though Parker was not part of the OP)
McGriff had an OPS of .886, Murray was at .836 and Parker is last at .810, the order is the same for SLG and OB% as well as the mysterious OPS+.
Murray gets in because he is 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, McGriff, a better hitter, plays a couple more seasons he has those numbers as well, but he was unable to do so.
He should get extra credit for the great nick-name!
<< <i>The "steroid era" argument makes no sense to me, unless McGriff was strongly suspected of using them. I haven't heard of this. If he wasn't in the Mitchel report or any failed tests why is that even being brought up? Then no one gets in from this "era". >>
It's just his numbers don't look that impressive when viewed against his peers who were using steroids, where Murray stood out with his numbers in that era.
<< <i>McGriff had an OPS of .886, Murray was at .836 and Parker is last at .810, the order is the same for SLG and OB% as well as the mysterious OPS+. >>
That's because Murray played so many extra games, played in tougher parks and played a few years in the 70s; OPS+ advantage does go to Murray if you only count his first 2 500 games -- continuing to play after that is not a negative. Counting only his best 15 years, he ends up with 2288 games played (including two strike short years) and an ops of .866. Still below McGriff, but close enough that it is easy to see why the parks and decade more than make up for it
By my count, at least 10 years he was one of the 10 best hitters in the league, seven for McGriff. One of the top 10 players nearly every year from 81 to 85; definitely the best hitter in the league for that five year stretch. McGriff can't match that
It is very close, though no question I would rather have Murray. Only reason I can't see McGriff worthy of the Hall-of-Fame is because Bagwell still hasn't yet made it
<< <i>
<< <i>The "steroid era" argument makes no sense to me, unless McGriff was strongly suspected of using them. I haven't heard of this. If he wasn't in the Mitchel report or any failed tests why is that even being brought up? Then no one gets in from this "era". >>
It's just his numbers don't look that impressive when viewed against his peers who were using steroids, where Murray stood out with his numbers in that era. >>
I understand your point here, but I could just as easily say that's why he SHOULD get more consideration, you have to ignore the steroid guys, or nobody gets in. Oh well, I am a more casual NL guy more of a follower of the AL. McGriff just seemed like a no brainer to me.
McGriff had 2,500 hits and Murray 3,200 hits. Might take more than a "couple more seasons" for the crime dog to catch up on that.
Murray got both magic numbers; 3,000 hits and 500 HRs. Case closed for HOF admission. Not right and not wrong. It's just how the HOF has historically done business.
<< <i>But your point is inaccurate in that Parker had a better "peak". He didn't >>
Parker's best five years may very well have been better than McGriff's -- 32 WAR for Parker compared to 28 (but that includes 1994). Of course that actually supports McGriff over Parker, because their best five years were very close while McGriff did so much more outside of those years
The real issue is that both Evans and Walker were better than Parker; Allen, Hernandez and Bagwell were better than McGriff
<< <i>
<< <i>McGriff had an OPS of .886, Murray was at .836 and Parker is last at .810, the order is the same for SLG and OB% as well as the mysterious OPS+. >>
That's because Murray played so many extra games, played in tougher parks and played a few years in the 70s; OPS+ advantage does go to Murray if you only count his first 2 500 games -- continuing to play after that is not a negative. Counting only his best 15 years, he ends up with 2288 games played (including two strike short years) and an ops of .866. Still below McGriff, but close enough that it is easy to see why the parks and decade more than make up for it
By my count, at least 10 years he was one of the 10 best hitters in the league, seven for McGriff. One of the top 10 players nearly every year from 81 to 85; definitely the best hitter in the league for that five year stretch. McGriff can't match that
It is very close, though no question I would rather have Murray. Only reason I can't see McGriff worthy of the Hall-of-Fame is because Bagwell still hasn't yet made it >>
Well if you only count his first 2,500 games Murray loses about 90 home runs and 600 or so hits, now you are going to have a LOT more people arguing against his induction, and his OPS STILL isn't as good as McGriff's.
OPS+ has some BIG problems. I am not going to get into it now, but if you look at Joe Dimaggios career year by year, some years Yankee Stadium seemed to hurt him others he hit better there. Yes, his overall numbers suggest that it was a bad park for him, but during his prime he hit there as well or better than elsewhere. OPS+ is a statistic invented to make things easier to compare, but it doesn't work as far as I am concerned.
Both great ballplayers both deserving to be in HOF. Bagwell seems to have a lot of people accusing him of PEDS, so that is a big difference maker in this discussion, he should be in as well in my opinion.
<< <i>Parker in his prime was a better all around player than McGriff, just my humble opinion he was a corner outfielder with a rocket arm, won back to back batting titles, hit for power and won an MVP. To me it's just the Mantle/Mays/Aaron argument. Mantle at his peak was IMHO the best of the 3 but over a decade Mays is the overall better player and Aaron is kind of the McGriff of that bunch cause his overall numbers just scream consistent greatness. I don't think McGriff causes alot of grief if he got in but he is by no means a slam dunk candidate. Neither where Rice and I don't think Parker was better than McGriff just better at his peak. Just like with Mantle and Mays I'd take Mantle for few year stretch but given a decade I'd want Mays. >>
Last time I looked Mantle, Mays and Aaron were all in the HOF. Murray is in and was either a little better or a little worse than McGriff, who is not in.
No one else here seems to agree with you about Parker. I do remember him as having some great years though. His overall numbers don't do enough for me and his peak years weren't enough to make most people notice.
<< <i>Murray gets in because he is 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, McGriff, a better hitter, plays a couple more seasons he has those numbers as well, but he was unable to do so.
McGriff had 2,500 hits and Murray 3,200 hits. Might take more than a "couple more seasons" for the crime dog to catch up on that.
Murray got both magic numbers; 3,000 hits and 500 HRs. Case closed for HOF admission. Not right and not wrong. It's just how the HOF has historically done business. >>
I didn't say he catches Murray in hits. Two more "average" years gives McGriff 557 HRS and 2818 Hits. His walking more than Murray hurts his hit totals but shows he got on base more with a higher OB%
Yes I did say 3000 and 500 gets you in case was already closed on that one LOL
As long as the writers take the easy way out and don't examine these players, guys like McGriff have no chance. Over their entire careers McGriff was a more productive hitter than Murray, even though Murray had the advantage of being a switch hitter!
BOTH should be in HOF! I am in no way denigrating Murray.
<< <i>I am aware of the WAR stats but feel more comfortable using OPS+ as a basis, which McGriff wins >>
OPS and OPS+ only measure what a player does when they have a bat in their hands. Parker won three Gold Gloves (ninth most all time among right fielders) and had above average defensive stats. If you believe Parker was awful defensively, that is fine, but it doesn't change that OPS and OPS+ completely ignores a large part of the game
The other players being better show that both fall short of the Hall-of-Fame standards the writers set
<< <i> Yes, his overall numbers suggest that it was a bad park for him, but during his prime he hit there as well or better than elsewhere. OPS+ is a statistic invented to make things easier to compare, but it doesn't work as far as I am concerned. >>
Vast majority of players hit better at home than on the road, that doesn't mean some home parks don't reduce scoring compared to others. That is why a lower ops can have more value to helping a team win. The parks McGriff played in had more scoring than the parks Murray played in
In the 70s and early 80s, there was a guy who took bets in my town. He offered even money pre-season, pick any guy to hit 30 hrs OR drive in 100. This man made money offering that bet. Remember, Mickey Mantle, a player many passionately remember as maybe the most talented ever, only knocked in 100 runs 4 times.
McGriff played in an era you could close your eyes and win that bet. Parker, Rice, Murray and others played their peak when THAT was exceptional. To look back and compare a guy who was good during his own era and compare him to a guy who was great in his own era based on career numbers will never hold water for me.
No one was making any arguments in the 90s that McGriff was the best or most dangerous player in the game, or even in the discussion, period. He was a very good player for a long period of time. There is no shame in that.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
Jeff Kent plays 1b and he isn't considered but he plays 2b and he is in...
Don Mattingly didn't play long enough but kirby Puckett and Ryne Sandberg did.. Sorry what magical numbers
did Puckett or Sandberg reach?
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Chipper lifetime hits-2726, McGriff-2490
Chipper HR's-468, McGriff-493
Chipper RBI's- 1623, McGriff-1550
Chipper BA-303, McGriff-284
Chipper- 6-30+HR seasons and 9-100+rbi seasons. McGriff-10-30+HR seasons and 8-100+rbi seasons.
Both played 19 seasons and the numbers for Chipper are not that much better than McGriff's yet Chipper is called a first ballot HOFer and McGriff might never get in.
Chipper never got to any magical numbers for his career but he will get in EASILY and McGriff will be debated for who knows how long. Chipper was definitely a better player than McGriff, but the numbers are not that different and they played in the same era.
<< <i>First off, I don't consider the fielding contributions of a right fielder as a "large part of the game". As oppose to having no one out there, sure it could be considered that. But compared to another average right fielder, the differences over the long haul are pretty negligible to the point that it's virtually not even a valid part of the comparison. Parker had an abysmal fielding percentage and his range stats aren't anything special, and has a negative defensive WAR value. >>
Poor career fielding percentage mostly because of throwing errors -- less costly than misplaying fly balls. Career RF/9 of 2.17 compared to 2.07 league average Zone rating has him great in his mid-20s, average in his late 20s through early 30s, very poor in his late 30s. But that's consistent with an equal or better peak than McGriff, while a weaker career
But good defense from any position in never "negligible." Consider if Parker had been good enough to turn a batted ball into an out that an average right fielder would have let drop for a hit just once per month. Isn't that worth virtually the same if he had instead turned an out into a hit as a batter? Doing that would have given him a career OPS+ of 126. And that's only once per month, the best in the league each year do better than that
<< <i>I agree that "good" defense is never negligible. But you're making A LOT of assumptions and excuses for Parker. >>
Not assumptions, only hypothetical. Trying to view him as accurately as possible is not making an excuse for anything
<< <i>If it were Clemente or Ichiro that we were talking about, I wouldn't dare write it off. But in Parker's case, it is tenuous at best. If we gave him that extra hit once per month, which is debatable and completely unsupportable, that still leaves him short in OPS+ career or peak wise. And that's assuming we gave him that benefit of doubt. >>
There's a long spectrum of defensive skill between Clemente and Frank Howard. To view Parker's career accurately, it's important, not tenuous, to decide where he lies on that spectrum
Adding zone rating onto Parker's five best years, gives him an OPS+ of 158; for McGriff it's 162. Again, no matter how you look at it, peak value between the two is extremely close. OPS+, WAR, Runs Created, and everything else, all have flaws. But when they all have them so close for their best five years, it's foolish to nit pick about them, when there is so much else in the rest of their careers to look into that actually separate them significantly
I think there are guys in he hall who dont belong. We should know hall of famers while they play, because they just stand out.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>
<< <i> Yes, his overall numbers suggest that it was a bad park for him, but during his prime he hit there as well or better than elsewhere. OPS+ is a statistic invented to make things easier to compare, but it doesn't work as far as I am concerned. >>
Vast majority of players hit better at home than on the road, that doesn't mean some home parks don't reduce scoring compared to others. That is why a lower ops can have more value to helping a team win. The parks McGriff played in had more scoring than the parks Murray played in >>
Well, OPS+ is great in theory, problem is it makes ASSUMTIONS based on other peoples thoughts. When I took a look at Dimaggio's stats year by year home and away, it completely destroyed the OPS+.
I like and use stats as much as the next guy, but when you start coming up with this subjective ideas on how someone MIGHT have done in another park in another era, it doesn't work for me. These players were all unique. Have fun with OPS+, I think regular OPS is better, it's what they actually accomplished.
Discussion has kind of spiraled out of control, "Crime Dog" should be in the HOF!
<< <i>
<< <i>Parker was the best player in the game in the late 70's, and had a better career than Mcgriff. League MVP, runner-up another year(many felt he shouldve won it in 85), top 5 MVP voting 5 times, 7 time all-star, All star MVP, 2 time batting champion, 3 Gold gloves. Hard to argue with all that hardware. >>
Parker probably shouldn't have been a Top 5 candidate in 1985, let alone winning it. As for all the things you say about Parker, the same could be said for George Foster. >>
Saying something this ridiculous, I cant possibly take anything you say seriously.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, OPS+ is great in theory, problem is it makes ASSUMTIONS based on other peoples thoughts. When I took a look at Dimaggio's stats year by year home and away, it completely destroyed the OPS+.
I like and use stats as much as the next guy, but when you start coming up with this subjective ideas on how someone MIGHT have done in another park in another era, it doesn't work for me. These players were all unique. Have fun with OPS+, I think regular OPS is better, it's what they actually accomplished.
Discussion has kind of spiraled out of control, "Crime Dog" should be in the HOF! >>
What are you talking about? It makes NO assumptions whatsoever, which is why I like using it. It looks at facts ONLY, unlike WAR which does what you state which is why I don't like putting too much emphasis on it. Once we get into fielding "metrics", it's almost voodoo at that point.
What is your problem with OPS+, and specifically in comparison with what it has to say about DiMaggio? I agree that there are certain players that are punished or rewarded using OPS+, and DiMaggio is punished IMO, but what about it "completely destroyed the OPS+" in your mind??? >>
OPS+ is ALL assumptions. In DiMaggio's case, OPS+ says Yankee Stadium hurt his abilities, but some years he hit better there than away. When you use "park factor" you are making assumptions on how a player performs, it is going to work well sometimes, like with Fenway for a right handed hitter who can get the ball in the air, but OPS+ paints with too wide a brush, as it must. Another example I can think of is my guy Killebrew (Mantle works here , but not as well) Harm was pretty much an all or nothing hitter, if he got a hold of the ball, the ballpark didn't matter it was GONE.
Aaron on the other hand, was a guy who seemed to have the ability to hit them just over the fence and OPS+ would work better for him.
When I look at numbers, I want HARD numbers, what did the player hit. Trying to figure out what Killebrew would have done in the 1940's or Babe Ruth's performance today doesn't interest me. It's speculation. In some cases you might be right, but in others you will be way off. I am also not a big fan of WAR and certainly don't like the way "range factor" works as it applies to outfielders.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, OPS+ is great in theory, problem is it makes ASSUMTIONS based on other peoples thoughts. When I took a look at Dimaggio's stats year by year home and away, it completely destroyed the OPS+.
I like and use stats as much as the next guy, but when you start coming up with this subjective ideas on how someone MIGHT have done in another park in another era, it doesn't work for me. These players were all unique. Have fun with OPS+, I think regular OPS is better, it's what they actually accomplished.
Discussion has kind of spiraled out of control, "Crime Dog" should be in the HOF! >>
What are you talking about? It makes NO assumptions whatsoever, which is why I like using it. It looks at facts ONLY, unlike WAR which does what you state which is why I don't like putting too much emphasis on it. Once we get into fielding "metrics", it's almost voodoo at that point.
What is your problem with OPS+, and specifically in comparison with what it has to say about DiMaggio? I agree that there are certain players that are punished or rewarded using OPS+, and DiMaggio is punished IMO, but what about it "completely destroyed the OPS+" in your mind??? >>
OPS+ is ALL assumptions. In DiMaggio's case, OPS+ says Yankee Stadium hurt his abilities, but some years he hit better there than away. When you use "park factor" you are making assumptions on how a player performs, it is going to work well sometimes, like with Fenway for a right handed hitter who can get the ball in the air, but OPS+ paints with too wide a brush, as it must. Another example I can think of is my guy Killebrew (Mantle works here , but not as well) Harm was pretty much an all or nothing hitter, if he got a hold of the ball, the ballpark didn't matter it was GONE.
Aaron on the other hand, was a guy who seemed to have the ability to hit them just over the fence and OPS+ would work better for him.
When I look at numbers, I want HARD numbers, what did the player hit. Trying to figure out what Killebrew would have done in the 1940's or Babe Ruth's performance today doesn't interest me. It's speculation. In some cases you might be right, but in others you will be way off. I am also not a big fan of WAR and certainly don't like the way "range factor" works as it applies to outfielders. >>
Once again, you are absolutely incorrect. The calculation makes NO assumptions. It is driven entirely by "HARD numbers" and there isn't ANY "people's thoughts" injected into the formula whatsoever. It is a pure calculation based on the DATA. It can misinterpreted or misused or confuse some people, but it certainly provides a useful tool.
If a player had an .800 OPS in a given year, and you knew nothing else, how are you to determine if that is any good or not? OPS+ immediately helps with that. If the average player is at .600, then the player posting .800 must be good. But if the league average is .800, then he is average. The hard data tells you nothing in a bubble. And unless you are a walking encyclopedia that knows all of the league stats by heart, OPS+ provides tons of immediate information. It also takes the ballparks into account, which you seem to have a huge problem with. But any baseball analyst understands that putting up an .800 OPS in Fenway or Coors is nothing to write home about but the player who does that in SAFECO is certainly worth noting. Once again, OPS+ helps understand all of that.
As for ballparks, I provided a ton of data for you in another thread where I showed that virtually every prominent Red Sox player with many years of services performed SUBSTANTIALLY better in Fenway than away, using only "HARD numbers". I also provided data that showed that the majority of Yankee greats were either negligble or did worse at home. The exceptions being Mattingly and Berra, which wasn't really a surprise quite frankly being left handed quasi power hitters that benefit from the short right field porch. But even then, the road/home splits weren't anywhere near as far apart as with SO MANY Red Sox players, who averaged over 100 points of favorable OPS at home.
As for DiMaggio, his OPS on the Road over his career was 78 points higher than in Yankee Stadium. Much of that manifested in the lack of home runs due to the mammoth proportions of center and left field. Your comments about how in some years he played better at home is entirely nonsensical. ANY player is going to have better years than others, whether on the road or at home, or both. THAT is baseball. All of your "hard numbers" should tell you that already with virtually every player. You really need me to tell you the obvious? Without even looking, I'm sure we could find all sorts of comparable meaningless observations about Killebrew or most other players, including Babe Ruth. >>
Yes my facts are only "meaningless observations" and yours are etched in stone. Let's not rehash old threads either, we won't get any where. I agreed that Fenway (for right handed batters) was an exception.
Sticking with Dimaggio and Yankee stadium OPS+ says he was a better hitter on the road, when in FACT some years he was much better at home. At the end of his career he hit WAY better on the road, skewing the numbers and making it look like he performed way better on the road, when in fact for MOST of his career he was as good and sometimes better at home. Therefore OPS+ doesn't really give you what it tries (unsuccessfully) to do. It's probably a good measuring stick 50-70% of the time, I just don't agree that it works as well as you think it does.
I am going to stop on the OPS+ now or it will just go on forever. It's a pretty good indicator, I just don't think it's good enough.
"Parker probably shouldn't have been a Top 5 candidate in 1985, let alone winning it. As for all the things you say about Parker, the same could be said for George Foster. Neither one was better than McGriff though."
As a Dodger fan I have zero interest in either candidate (though I think both of them belong in the Hall of Fame) but as someone that was alive and clearly remembers the 1970's and 1980's in baseball. There's no way there's any truth to that statement.
At the time of the voting, the argument in the media was that if the Reds had won the NL West in 1985 Dave Parker was going to win the MVP Award based on his "Value" to the Reds substantial improvement that year (Willie McGee was a bit of a shocker because the consensus candidates prior to the voting being announced was that Dave Parker, Pedro Guerrero and possibly Dwight Gooden were more worthy candidates).
I'd also note that Dave Parker from 75-79 had a higher zenith that Fred McGriff during his best years with the Blue Jays and Padres but McGriff has a much better career (unfortunately for McGriff, he was robbed of games that would have netted him seven home runs during the 1994/95 strike. Unfortunately for Parker, the Colombians decided the 1970's was the time to pump up cocaine production).
In my opinion, you're trying to frame your argument around Sabermetrics when they didn't exist in the mainstream 1985 (outside of Bill James brain and the few people that read his works). The fact is that the value of statistics like WAR and OPS+ were non-issues in 1985. When they became issues they changed the way hitters approached their at bats (i.e. Walks were suddenly OK) and fans argued on the merits of their favorite players .
A couple of points:
1. OPS+ is an excellent tool to measure batters. It does have complications for the following reasons.
A. Career length. Players with short careers who retired early because they were no longer good, will have an advantage in OPS+ measure when compared to a player who was good enough to play into his 40's, but have his career OPS+ decline because he was no longer the player he once was, but was still good enough to play and start in MLB. The Jim Rice/Eddie Murray analysis I always did highlighted that perfectly.
B. Different era's. Measuring across era's in OPS+ has problems too. During the live ball era of 1994-present, stars have been able to put up OPS+ at a higher rate than that of star players of the 70's/80's. The live ball era started in 1994, and McGriff played more than half his career in the live ball era. He was also good before the live ball era...but playing in the live ball era no doubt helped lessen his decline in the OPS+ category. This aspect I have detailed in the the population study threads. Steroids aside, there are other factors in the live ball era that benefitted the star hitters more than the average Joe, so it was easier for star hiters to distance themselves from the average player, thus making it easier to have higher OPS+ totals than that of players from the 70's/80's.
C. Players that sit against lefties. I detailed this in the Willie McCovey thread. In Fred McGriff's case, it was said, "If he played a couple more years, etc.. then he would have had X amount more HR's and hits."
How would he have played a couple more years? He was washed up when he retired. I'm not sure how 1,000 more at bats of 15HR and a 55 OPS+ would make him better.
I do have to say that guys like McGriff who often sat more against tough lefties did in fact 'save' their percentages, which includes OPS+, when compared to guys like Murray who played everyday, regardless of the matchup. This is where McGriff 'loses' some of his at bats, because it was a weakness in his game. Had he never sat against lefties, his OPS+ would be lower, as would everything else.
Probably the best, most detailed and accurate measurement of a hitter's impact on the game is Win Probability Added. It is expressed in runs above average player. Sitting against lefties also saves this stat for McGriff.
For their careers:
Murray 51.7
McGriff 42.7
Parker 36.1
Rice 25.8
For their peaks
Murray best finishes in the league; 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd
McGriff's best finishes in the league; 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th
Parker 1st, 4th ,6th. NO other top ten finishes.
Rice 1st, 7th, 8th.
Murray's star shined brighter and longer, and that is why he was better and in the HOF. Although, McGriff, does seem to get shafted compared to many other players.
I always have to add Rice to these things because it shows how out of place he is among contemporary HOFer's...and more importantly against contemporary players who were better and NOT in the HOF.
PS. I agree with Baseball's assessment that the WAR defensive calculations are voodoo. Same goes for the positional adjustment calculations in WAR. Those are both based on guesses and unfounded assumptions.
The hall of fame is a complete joke.
I think that sums it up.
Dave
<< <i>Well, OPS+ is great in theory, problem is it makes ASSUMTIONS based on other peoples thoughts. >>
Please enlighten us with exactly what assumptions are made by OPS+
([players on base percentage / on base percentage of all players in the parks played in] + [players slugging percentage / slugging percentage of all players in the parks played in] -1) x 100
It is entirely based on exactly what the player did when he was at bat relative to what all other players did when they were at bat
It works pretty well. OPS does have a very good correlation to runs scored. But it does get very weird adding two numbers with different denominators. The on-base side is definitely more important than the slugging side, so it completely falls apart when trying to compare Ed Yost to Joe Carter
nice job fellas.
<< <i>I blame Bill James for discussions like this! Anyone wanna bet that as a kid James batted ninth, played right field and only got into half of every game he played? Where arguing about some of the best players ever based on mathematics. >>
I found an amazing quote(below) to guys who have the line of thinking as quoted above....
"I think Stephen Hawking knows more about black holes than almost anyone, but he has never been to one. Idan Ravin coaches Chris Paul, Carmello Anthony, and Lebron James but didn't play in college. Joe Montana sends his kids to Steve Clarkson for quarterback lessons. Bill Belicheck has no professional playing experience, and 3 Lombardi Trophies. John Calipari never played in the NBA but has put dozens of players there.
I guess I just fail to see your point."
Baseball hitting is extremely strong in math...that is simply the nature of the game. All the stats that you have probably used over the years, like batting average, are math too. These other measurements being used are simply more valid. Nothing personal, that is just the reality of it.
Who cares where Bill James played as a kid. I never bothered reading any of his books, but he is an astute observer and analyst.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, OPS+ is great in theory, problem is it makes ASSUMTIONS based on other peoples thoughts. >>
Please enlighten us with exactly what assumptions are made by OPS+
([players on base percentage / on base percentage of all players in the parks played in] + [players slugging percentage / slugging percentage of all players in the parks played in] -1) x 100
It is entirely based on exactly what the player did when he was at bat relative to what all other players did when they were at bat
It works pretty well. OPS does have a very good correlation to runs scored. But it does get very weird adding two numbers with different denominators. The on-base side is definitely more important than the slugging side, so it completely falls apart when trying to compare Ed Yost to Joe Carter >>
One last time (sigh). You wrote it your self "relative to what all other players did when they were at bat". When you are measuring against other players especially in other eras or leagues facing differen pitchers the formula works less and less well.
As I stated it works well on similar players, playing during the same time, facing the same players, but when you compare a guy like Killebrew to a guy like Aaron, OPS+ is not going to give you an accurate picture.
Also I'll bet OPS+ ignores the fact that switch hitters have an advantage, because of the lefty righty matchup, left handed batters do as well (face less quality pitching and generally shorter fences), right handed batters are also hurt because of the reverse. Factor these variables in and you are getting there.
We agree OPS+ works pretty well, just not good enough for me.
Tata for now.
<< <i>
Also I'll bet OPS+ ignores the fact that switch hitters have an advantage, because of the lefty righty matchup, left handed batters do as well (face less quality pitching and generally shorter fences), right handed batters are also hurt because of the reverse. Factor these variables in and you are getting there.
We agree OPS+ works pretty well, just not good enough for me.
Tata for now. >>
That is why it is advantageous for a player to become a switch hitter. If a RH batter doesn't like those advantages you laid out, then he too should become a switch hitter to take advantage of those things to help his team win. Why doesn't he? Because he doesn't have the ability to. It doesn't/shouldn't mean that because two guys have the same OPS+ that the switch hitter should be viewed as inferior because he has the advantage of being a switch hitter.
On the contrary, If I have a switch hitter and a left handed batter with the same OPS+, and I know the left handed batter has a weakness than can be exploited by simply bringing in a left handed pitcher, then I would view the switch hitter as better or more important because he would be harder to manage against in late/close situations. Wheras, I can bring in a left handed pitcher(who doesn't even have to be that great) and turn a guy like Fred McGriff or Willie McCovey into below average hitters in a crucial situations.
<< <i>
One last time (sigh). You wrote it your self "relative to what all other players did when they were at bat". When you are measuring against other players especially in other eras or leagues facing differen pitchers the formula works less and less well. >>
But it isn't based on assumptions, it's still based entirely on what happened. Which do you think works better, OPS or OPS+. Obviously neither are perfect measures, but if either works "pretty well" that means it is valuable to build upon; it's only worthless when we choose to completely dismiss it simply for being imperfect. You seem to be projecting the assumptions other people make about OPS+ onto the stat itself. That is incorrect
OPS and OPS+ does not ignore the switch hitting advantage. If Eddie Murray gets a hit or walk due to his ablity to switch hit, that is built into OPS and OPS+; if Killebrew fails to get a hit or walk because he is a right-handed hitter facing a righty pitcher, that too is built into OPS and OPS+
Let me ask the math majors this question? How can you use statistics to compare pitchers over different eras when the way pitchers are handled is worlds apart! 50 years ago a pitcher pitched deep into games was more inclined to face a batter more than three times in a game and more so than not was asked to complete the game. In today's game a pitcher is asked to go as hard as he can for 6 to 7 innings. Their are aces on major league clubs that have never completed a game before. I say there is no stat out there that can bridge that simple difference and tell us who the better pitcher was.
Also that line about James was not a knock on those of us that didn't play the game at a high level I never made it past varsity high school and legion ball level. That means squat, I just find it funny that in the last 15 years baseball has been taken over by math majors is all!