Any stat that attempts to compare players based on there contemporaries is probably as accurate as your going to get. I wouldn't argue that at all. Sometimes I just thinks its best when deciding who was best from each era is to listen to those players that played against each other. Example
Willie Stargell a hall of famer of course
" hitting Koufax was like eating soup with a fork!"
Hank Aaron said
" if it was the 9th and Koufax had a lead you could call home and have your wife put dinner on the table"
<< <i>Any stat that attempts to compare players based on there contemporaries is probably as accurate as your going to get. I wouldn't argue that at all. Sometimes I just thinks its best when deciding who was best from each era is to listen to those players that played against each other. Example
Willie Stargell a hall of famer of course
" hitting Koufax was like eating soup with a fork!"
Hank Aaron said
" if it was the 9th and Koufax had a lead you could call home and have your wife put dinner on the table"
Stats don't tell me that >>
Actually, if you look at Sandy's stats during his peak years, including his ERA+ it most certainly does.
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>My point is that the game of baseball is not defined simply by statistics alone. >>
But success is defined by winning and losing
<< <i>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! >>
You can use statistics to help decide which pitcher did more to help their team win
<< <i> I say there is no stat out there that can bridge that simple difference and tell us who the better pitcher was. >>
That's what makes it interesting. If something that complex could be answered so simply, there would be no point to ever having a discussion about the issue
<< <i> That means squat, I just find it funny that in the last 15 years baseball has been taken over by math majors is all! >>
Bill James has been writing and publishing a lot longer than 15 years. He was an English major
Fred McGriff should be in the Hall of Fame if you got Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez in the Hall of Fame . He still hit 493 Homers clean, won a ring, and has a .284 . Willie McCovey only has 22 more home runs in 3 more seasons .
I've had many a friend during baseball discussions go into how Koufax was so different pitching in Doger stadium ( a huge ballpark) than he was on the road blah blah blah. I'm a baseball crazy nut! I know that he was better at home than on the road, I know his whole story! My response to them is alway those statements and then I remind them that Stargell didn't say
" but when I faced him at home he was meat!"
Aaron didn't say
" but only in LA"
I'm gonna bow outta this one lol I tried earlier but I just love talking baseball. Everyone thinks differently right.
<< <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. >>
You are absolutely correct, no argument whatsoever.
I was however not bringing in those variables. Just pointing out that for the better part of MOST games your batter is facing the starting pitcher, so there's where the greater amount of at bats comes from, therefore the biggest effect on his statistics.
When you try to make OPS better by bringing in the ballpark factor (which for absolutely the last time nvbaseball is a comparison =educated guess) it is going to work well when comparing Bob Allison to Harmon Killebrew. They both played at the same time for the same team, were both right handed batted 3-4 in the lineup, faced the same pitchers and were power hitters.
The formula is going to work much less accurately when comparing Aaron/Killebrew. Start bringing in Gwynn/Bonds and why bother.
There is as of yet no perfect stat to compare the value of two different players. OPS+ is just not the be all and end all you think it is. You still have to have a knowledge of how a players individual talents made him what he was.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
My point to my friends is simply that statistics don't mean everything. What two Hall of Famers thought about Koufax means a little more to me than what his home/road splits do is all. Your spot on that the more information you have the better i never said stats are useless I just think you can't lean solely on them to end discussions.
<< <i> (which for absolutely the last time nvbaseball is a comparison =educated guess) >>
To say Joe DiMaggio had 348 total bases in 541 at bats in 1941 is what actually happened, not an educated guess. To say he did it in 292 at bats in Yankee Stadium, 33 at bats in Fenway, et cetera, is not an educated guess, it's what actually happened. To divide those total bases by at bats is not an educated guess, it's what his actual slugging percentage is. To divide his slugging percentage by what other players did in those parks is not an educated guess, that is what actually happened in those baseball games and that is what his actual SLG+ is (when multiplied by 100)
<< <i>There is as of yet no perfect stat to compare the value of two different players. OPS+ is just not the be all and end all you think it is. You still have to have a knowledge of how a players individual talents made him what he was. >>
We all agree on that. The only question is, which stats work best for letting us use our knowledge of the sport to help describe what he was. Both OBP and SLG work very well for that. Comparing them to what other players did is also important. Why don't you tell us what you use to compare Killebrew, Aaron, Gwynn and Bonds if not OBP and SLG
Keith Hernandez has a similar OPS+ to McGriff and was the best defensive first baseman I ever saw. Two rings, an MVP and probably the best clutch hitter of his day, something OPS does not measure. Of course, he spent some time around the same folks as Parker.
On a very serious note; unless you are Fred McGriff, you do NOT KNOW that he was clean for his career. You can think it, he can seem it, but you do not know. That will be the curse of everyone from his era. Speaking of his era, you can arguably make better arguments for both Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado.
There are big differences between the two. The season length may be similar for them, but Murray played in 3,000 games, McGriff 2,460. Murray is 6th all time in games played!! That's pretty extraordinary and puts him in elite company. He's right there with Henderson, Ty Cobb, Musial and Ripken.
3,000 hits and 500 home runs is quite remarkable. As great as McGriff was, 2,490 hits is kind of run of the mill. Other players in 2,400-2,600 hit category.....Garvey, Julio Franco? Steve Finley, Ted Simmons, Jim Rice. Dwight Evans. Mark Grace. Grace has 2,445 hits. Dave Parker and Buckner have 2,700 hits.
Also hurting McGriff, he played in small market toronto and san diego during the beginning of his career. Then after the braves, he went to the devil rays, cubs, dodgers. If he had stayed for his entire career in a larger market, he'd probably have a bigger profile. He's hurt by the contrasts to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds hitting 500 foot homeruns. There was a lot of power in the 90's, it makes his numbers look slim. Similar with Griffey. The steroid guys pushed down the legit hitters (Big Hurt Frank Thomas). And McGriff is under that.
Not to mention that Murray is 10th all time in RBIs. Runs win games.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade.
<< <i>Fred McGriff should be in the Hall of Fame if you got Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez in the Hall of Fame . He still hit 493 Homers clean, won a ring, and has a .284 . Willie McCovey only has 22 more home runs in 3 more seasons . >>
I agree with the first part of your post, but as far as home runs are concerned, McGriff benefitted greatly from playing (primarily) during an era in which home runs were hit much more frequently than the era in which McCovey played. Smaller ballparks, greater dillution of pitching talent due to league expansion, even a higher mound (till 1969 at least) all contributed to this. And that's not even broaching the topic of PED use.
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>Not to mention that Murray is 10th all time in RBIs. Runs win games.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade. >>
There are bound volumes on this board about Jim Rice, especially relating to all those points you just made. No need to rehash all of them.
Let me ask you a question though, if you and I were put into a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws, and you were given 10 shots, and I was given 20...would you think it was fair to judge you and I on who was better at free throws after I won every contest?
Then, if you found out that my basketball rim was also 20% larger than yours, would you accept it when I won, or would you be screaming foul?
I believe cross era comparisons are always challenging. However...
I don't think it is very unfair comparing guys from MLB during the same time frame. Comparing Aaron and Killebrew isn't unfair at all. Sure, they faced 'differen't' sets of pitchers...but those pitchers were from the same time and era and pitched under the same environments, and of very similar ability. They were certainly similar enough that if Aaron and Killebrew each hit .300 against a similar cross sampling of MLB pitchers during a year, I would be very comfortable taking that .300 at face value and accepting it. If there is a margin of error, you may be looking at an extremely small one that really isn't enough to bother looking further.
Ballpark factor. For the most part, the ballpark factor in the OPS+ or any other stat are pretty insignificant to begin with. Most of those stats don't change much with a ballpark factor. It is usually the extreme parks for the era, Coors in the live ball era, Fenway and Wrigley in the 70's/80's, that make a difference...and rightfully so.
I'm curious, you have brought up Killebrew a few times. Do you feel he is getting an unfair knock in his measurements due to ballpark factor or something of that sort?
Looking at Killebrew's ballpark factor, it is about 104-105 for his career, with 100 being average. Not really viewed as an extreme park, but yes, favorable to hitters.
He has 291 HR at home, and 282 HR on the road. His OPS is .899 at home, and .871 on the road.
His hitting splits don't seem out of line with the ballpark factor numbers. So maybe if there is truth that some of his home runs would have been home runs regardless of the park, since his ballpark factor isn't really adjusting his stats too much...maybe, at most, he is losing 2 points in his career OPS+, if that is true about the home runs. I'm just estimating that two points, but looking at his actual splits, I can't see it being too much....more so considering that his OPS split is wider than his HR split.
<< <i>Not to mention that Murray is 10th all time in RBIs. Runs win games.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade. >>
He had an aesome year, but I still feel Guidry got screwed. He had one of the 5-10 best seasons ever as a pitcher. Rice deserves to be in the HOF, for the record.
McGriff not being in the HOF is strictly due to a double-standard being pulled by HOF voters who have proven over and over that they looks for reasons NOT to put guys in rather than the other way around. The PED users don't get in because their stats were fattened by using....but at the same time, McGriff doesn't get in because his stats don't measure up to the guys who used PEDs. Totally illogical, but I have come to expect nothing less from the voters.
I believe cross era comparisons are always challenging. However...
I don't think it is very unfair comparing guys from MLB during the same time frame. Comparing Aaron and Killebrew isn't unfair at all. Sure, they faced 'differen't' sets of pitchers...but those pitchers were from the same time and era and pitched under the same environments, and of very similar ability. They were certainly similar enough that if Aaron and Killebrew each hit .300 against a similar cross sampling of MLB pitchers during a year, I would be very comfortable taking that .300 at face value and accepting it. If there is a margin of error, you may be looking at an extremely small one that really isn't enough to bother looking further.
Ballpark factor. For the most part, the ballpark factor in the OPS+ or any other stat are pretty insignificant to begin with. Most of those stats don't change much with a ballpark factor. It is usually the extreme parks for the era, Coors in the live ball era, Fenway and Wrigley in the 70's/80's, that make a difference...and rightfully so.
I'm curious, you have brought up Killebrew a few times. Do you feel he is getting an unfair knock in his measurements due to ballpark factor or something of that sort?
Looking at Killebrew's ballpark factor, it is about 104-105 for his career, with 100 being average. Not really viewed as an extreme park, but yes, favorable to hitters.
He has 291 HR at home, and 282 HR on the road. His OPS is .899 at home, and .871 on the road.
His hitting splits don't seem out of line with the ballpark factor numbers. So maybe if there is truth that some of his home runs would have been home runs regardless of the park, since his ballpark factor isn't really adjusting his stats too much...maybe, at most, he is losing 2 points in his career OPS+, if that is true about the home runs. I'm just estimating that two points, but looking at his actual splits, I can't see it being too much....more so considering that his OPS split is wider than his HR split. >>
Trying to make a point on these boards is nearly impossible, very few here are willing to concede anything, some of these newer stats can have the opposite effect than what they were created to improve upon.
I bring up Killebrew because I watched him play and know most of his statistics back and forth, he hit a very high percentage of LONG home runs and he had relatively few doubles and nearly no triples. Singles and Home Runs are really what he hit. He was also a dead pull hitter, sure he hit a few to right and center but mostly to left and left center. He is, therefore going to be affected much less by the dimensions of a ballpark than a hitter like Aaron. I am assuming that each park has a multiplier that is created by how the average hitter does, so Coors field and Fenway (especially Fenway) are going to punish most hitters because it's so much easier for the average hitter to hit there. Guys like Killebrew aren't going to be helped here, because his singles would still be singles and his home runs would have been a home run in any other park as well, because when he hit the ball well, it went REAL FAR. Could be why his home and away totals are just about equal? My comparison to Aaron comes from knowing and seeing him as well (although not nearly as much as Killebrew). Aaron wasn't even a home run hitter early in his career, when he did hit them much of the time they were just over the fence, so he would REALLY benifit from (and did, in Atlanta) an easier park to hit in. I just can't explain my thoughts any better than that, if they don't make any sense, I apologize for not being smart enough or a good enough writer, to communicate effectively.
Why would Killebrew's OPS+ split be wider than his HR split? Wouldn't OPS+ mostly be a home run effected number, at least in a hitter like Killebrew's?
I think Killebrew is actually appreciated MORE now than when he played and shortly after he retired, and I thank some of the "new" statistics that show just how valuable he really was. Many (sportswriters/commentators) people really loved Rod Carew when he came along (first ballot HOF while Harmon had to wait), he was a fine hitter, but as far as I was concerned did a lot less than Killebrew to produce runs. Batting average, while still important isn't looked at like it was then, now we look at OB% SLG% and OPS.
The guy I think that's getting the unfair knock is Larry Walker. I think he was/is HOF material, but the Coors field thing just seems to kill eveyone's opinion of him. His last year in Montreal his OPS was .981 and his first year in St Louis it was .953, were those parks "hitters" parks as well? How much better was he supposed to hit while playing for the Rockies? Look at 1997 he hit better AWAY than at home, most other years he had an OPS on the road about .900 that's pretty darn good. YES, overall he hit much better at home. I'll shut up about Larry now.
I never said OPS+ was worthless, I tried to show that there are some flaws in the theory that ALL ballplayers are affected in the exact SAME way in the parks. Seems to me when I try to do this some people are hearing me say OPS+ is worthless. Many people on these boards DO NOT BOTHER to read these posts entirely, or carefully, they see something they don't agree with and turn into the "nervous breakdown guy".
If people here don't know the difference between a "hard" statistic and a "soft" one, I really shouldn't bother to try to bring new thoughts to the discussion. I like statistics, but I also like to think for myself. Sometimes the statistics are misleading.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>McGriff not being in the HOF is strictly due to a double-standard being pulled by HOF voters who have proven over and over that they looks for reasons NOT to put guys in rather than the other way around. The PED users don't get in because their stats were fattened by using....but at the same time, McGriff doesn't get in because his stats don't measure up to the guys who used PEDs. Totally illogical, but I have come to expect nothing less from the voters. >>
Careful rookiewax you are making quite a bit of sense there!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>McGriff not being in the HOF is strictly due to a double-standard being pulled by HOF voters who have proven over and over that they looks for reasons NOT to put guys in rather than the other way around. The PED users don't get in because their stats were fattened by using....but at the same time, McGriff doesn't get in because his stats don't measure up to the guys who used PEDs. Totally illogical, but I have come to expect nothing less from the voters. >>
Careful rookiewax you are making quite a bit of sense there! >>
As for Coors, you point to a one year example of Walker previous to Coors where his OPS didn't change much. But that is a single year example. Guys stats fluctuate wildly on a yearly basis. The year previous to that it was 140 points lower! The sample size of the one year you used is much too small to draw the conclusion that you did. However, do that same test with every player that has a before/after Coors effect, then you will start to get more data.
Same for the end of his career. If you don't care much about sample size, then if you look at the year where Walker spent half in StL and half in COl, his OPS in STL was .953 and in COL it was 1.093, which would knock your theory out right there. Also, see below on more that will knock your end of career theory out.
Also, he is another guy who took his 'days off' against the lefties, and that helped save his percentages....Which I might add, that one of the reasons why his percentages were so high with StL in his last year is because he didn't play much against lefties. He had 299 plate appearance against RH with a .912 OPS, and only 68 plate appearances vs LH with a .767 OPS. That is why he maintained his percentages that year(also because he had a small sample size to begin with, with only half a year of plate appearances, as a full year of at bats he would regress to the mean), it isn't because Coors made no difference as you claimed incorrectly. Coors had already proven to make a huge difference.
Next, no matter how 'blind' somebody wants to be on Coors or Fenway(70's/80's),
At Coors, Walker had a career .381 BA, .461 OB%, .710 SLG%. Those numbers are better than Babe Ruth. Can anyone actually sit there with a straight face and think there was no Coors effect?
Still great production from Walker...but when you consider that every other Rockies hitter saw a similar percentage increase in their batting at Coors, and that every other opponent who came in also saw a similar increase in Coors...and that it was consistently better on a yearly basis, you tend to understand that it was the park that was inflating his numbers to an advantage that other league players did not have.
Considering all that, the OPS+ measurement still has him sitting at 141 for his career , which is high, and is hardly penalizing him unfairly.
What makes that 141 OPS+ less impressive is his career length was a bit short, it was done during the live ball era, he sat often against lefties, and he was made of glass.
The Killebrew stuff I am not understanding your beef. He isn't getting any unfair penalty due to park. He did hit a little better at home. I do have to say that despite the claim that he could hit HR's anywhere, no matter who you are, you still would benefit from being in an offensive park. Mark McGwire hit HR's consistently farther than anybody, yet he too had his share of ones just clearing the fence(his record breaker being one of them). Aaron has almost equal home/road splits and I am just failing to see the Aaron/Killebrew beef.
Skin, I said Walker hit the same one year, I realize 1 = 1. What I was also saying was, his road numbers during his Coors field time were pretty darn good as well.
Skin again, "Can anyone actually sit there with a straight face and think there was no Coors effect?" Of course not, where exactly did I say that? I said the opposite when I brought up Coors, Fenway and Atlanta. I did ask if Montreal and St Louis (yes, I do see St Louis was the end of his career and small sample size) were hitter friendly parks, but got no response. He hit pretty well his last year in Montreal, better than his first two in Colorado, so the "ballpark effect" didn't kick in until his third year?!?!?!?!? Again, just curious, please let me know if at least Montreal was a hitter friendly park?
Skin once again, " it isn't because Coors made no difference as you claimed incorrectly." If you can show me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I will humbly apologize.
Skin for the last time, seems to me that when you start bringing in variables such as sitting against lhp if you are left handed hitter, you are actually agreeing with me that OPS+ numbers are incorrect, maybe NOT BY MUCH but off a bit, just as when you say "What makes that 141 OPS+ less impressive." lastly " That is why he maintained his percentages that year(also because he had a small sample size to begin with, with only half a year of plate appearances, as a full year of at bats he would regress to the mean). So you are saying that he could have only hit WORSE had he played in more games? Seems to me he could have hit worse, better or about the same. I am only using the numbers that he put up for that year, I can't help it if he was hurt. There's the basic difference in our philosophies, you say he would have done worse had he played a full season and you say it's a mathematical fact, I say he had three possible outcomes, better, worse or the same.
Baseball, "you're not saying ANYTHING that we don't ALL already know" Thank you, if this would have been the response to my comments about OPS+ there would have been no debate.
Baseball again, not at all thinking that people are going to agree with me, just be willing to concede a point, which you have done. In a dismissive superior sort of way, but at least you admitted it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Baseball. We're not going to agree. Let's move on.
Question about Walker. If my math is correct, Larry's OPS was .861 on the ROAD during his Coors field days .903 if we forgive him 1996 which was his worst year ever at .523.
Killebrew's lifetime combined was .884. We have determined (I think) that Killebrew was pretty similar at home vs. on the road. Using your super fantastic never wrong OPS+ Killebrew was at 143 and Walker 141 (a soft? 141).
Walker was a better all around player, so even if he would have hit EXACTLY the same at home during those Coors years, why no consideration for the hall? He did miss a lot of games, but he had 10 years with over 500 PA and another 2 with over 450. No steroids? Good guy? Looks like he actually hit left handed starters BETTER from 1994 to 2003, 1.052 to 1.021 (did not figure using home and away splits).
Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers.
Seems he was a better player than....................................................Jim Rice, and maybe Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline?
PLEASE REMEMBER Larry was brought up when YOU asked about a player I thought was getting unfairly knocked. I think I have PROVEN that. After all, all we had to look at was OPS+ LOL
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers. >>
He most certainly could have continued to hit well. But he choose to walk away at age 38. Killebrew and Kaline only stayed around until age 39. Walker was a great hitter, but only 1988 games played. Other than catchers, the last player the writers selected for the Hall-of-Fame with fewer games played was Ralph Kiner in 1975 -- most people do believe Walker was better, we just understand that Kiner is not an outlier, not the standard. I believe there are only five others ever (DiMaggio, Greenberg, Terry, Boudreau and Medwick are all I count, help me out of I'm missing something). Missing that many games throughout his career is what has hurt his chances so much, not ballparks. It was the same for Bobby Grich and Dick Allen who finished their careers before the Rockies ever existed
Even with the few games played, had Walker been around 20 years earlier, he would have had a great chance to make the Hall-of-Fame. A lot better than both Jim Rice and Tony Perez; probably better than Dawson. As good as Minoso, Santo or Allen who were the best candidates at the start of this century. But now there's so many others like Raines, Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Piazza, McGriff
<< <i> I never said OPS+ was worthless, I tried to show that there are some flaws in the theory that ALL ballplayers are affected in the exact SAME way in the parks >>
Everyone already knows a theory like that is ridiculous. Which is why you're the only one who makes it an issue. The issue is not how Killebrew would have been effected by hitting in Colorado or Toronto. The issue is what did his hitting in Metropolitan (and other AL parks) in the 60s and 70s mean compared to other hitters who hit in different years and different parks.
OPS+ says nothing about what Killebrew would have done had he played in different parks or different years. It only tells us about what he did in the environment he did play in
Of all sports debates and studies to have been done, I would say recognizing the huge advantage a hitter gets by hitting in Coors, is about as easy as it gets to recognize. The effect is there and is pretty accurately measured in an OPS+ measurement. For every 'one' instance that may put question into the Coors effect, there are 100 that scream the opposite. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to make any type of stance based on that one in one hundred instance. Is there a small margin of error? Of course. I don't want to waste any more time on Coors.
Walker probably did retire with more in the tank. Maybe had he had five more above league average seasons he would have been in the HOF. Or, if he played through injuries a little more often. But he didn't do either, and he is left where he is.
However, I think the live ball era helps the star hitters in OPS+, and he played smack dab in the middle of the live ball era. The easiest way to see how players shined among their peers is a simple OPS+ yearly ranking...
Here are Walker's best league finishes in OPS+...2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 10th. No other top ten finishes.
Here is Killebrew...3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th.
Killebrew finished in the top five in the league ten times, Walker only twice. That tells you right there who shined brighter in their era.
Then when you consider that OPS+ is a rate stat, and that Walker's team was without that production so often due to him not being in the lineup, it knocks Walker's value down even further. To me, there really isn't a comparison between Killebrew and Walker. Killebrew provided much more value to his team and MLB.
<< <i>Baseball. We're not going to agree. Let's move on.
Question about Walker. If my math is correct, Larry's OPS was .861 on the ROAD during his Coors field days .903 if we forgive him 1996 which was his worst year ever at .523.
Killebrew's lifetime combined was .884. We have determined (I think) that Killebrew was pretty similar at home vs. on the road. Using your super fantastic never wrong OPS+ Killebrew was at 143 and Walker 141 (a soft? 141).
Walker was a better all around player, so even if he would have hit EXACTLY the same at home during those Coors years, why no consideration for the hall? He did miss a lot of games, but he had 10 years with over 500 PA and another 2 with over 450. No steroids? Good guy? Looks like he actually hit left handed starters BETTER from 1994 to 2003, 1.052 to 1.021 (did not figure using home and away splits).
Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers.
Seems he was a better player than....................................................Jim Rice, and maybe Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline?
PLEASE REMEMBER Larry was brought up when YOU asked about a player I thought was getting unfairly knocked. I think I have PROVEN that. After all, all we had to look at was OPS+ LOL >>
First off, you haven't proven ANYTHING in terms of the invalidity of OPS+ unfairly knocking anyone. 141 is a great number. But his career milestones aren't that great, he had repeatedly injury plagued seasons, and players with that relatively low number of career PAs and ABs are usually required to have a higher level of excellence for the Hall of Fame. His OPS+ is great, so I'm not sure why you think the metric doesn't work. Furthermore, it is entirely ridiculous of you to "forgive him in 1996" for his road OPS. Why would we do that exactly other than your desperate need to prove your case by showing incomplete data? In looking at all the years in which Walker played all his home games at Coors, the numbers look like this:
Gee, you're so right! Why would anyone want to consider ballpark factors when considers a players accomplishments???
You're right in that we won't agree because I'M the one who actually wants to look at HARD numbers and let the FACTS decide. Whereas, you hypocritically claim you do but ultimately would rather go on gut feel and impression of what you think was. >>
Your immaturity is an OPS+ of 7362736452. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is impossible. You read 10% of what I post and run amok with statements that apply to an answer to another question or debate.
What I asked was, since he hit well on the road, why doesn't he get more "love" when the HOF is brought up. You say he didn't play enough games, he certainly did. Career milestones? You mean awards? What milestones?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Of all sports debates and studies to have been done, I would say recognizing the huge advantage a hitter gets by hitting in Coors, is about as easy as it gets to recognize. The effect is there and is pretty accurately measured in an OPS+ measurement. For every 'one' instance that may put question into the Coors effect, there are 100 that scream the opposite. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to make any type of stance based on that one in one hundred instance. Is there a small margin of error? Of course. I don't want to waste any more time on Coors.
Walker probably did retire with more in the tank. Maybe had he had five more above league average seasons he would have been in the HOF. Or, if he played through injuries a little more often. But he didn't do either, and he is left where he is.
However, I think the live ball era helps the star hitters in OPS+, and he played smack dab in the middle of the live ball era. The easiest way to see how players shined among their peers is a simple OPS+ yearly ranking...
Here are Walker's best league finishes in OPS+...2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 10th. No other top ten finishes.
Here is Killebrew...3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th.
Killebrew finished in the top five in the league ten times, Walker only twice. That tells you right there who shined brighter in their era.
Then when you consider that OPS+ is a rate stat, and that Walker's team was without that production so often due to him not being in the lineup, it knocks Walker's value down even further. To me, there really isn't a comparison between Killebrew and Walker. Killebrew provided much more value to his team and MLB. >>
Much better analysis on Killebrew's league dominance vs. Walker when both had similar OPS+. Going beyond OPS+ here really shows how two equal looking players aren't so equal.
I agree for the fifth or sixth time that Coors and Fenway are easier parks to hit in, no argument whatsoever.
I guess he gets hurt by being hurt and only playing in 1804 games in the outfield (91st all time) so he is low there, but does certainly qualify.
Any response to the fact that he had the most assists by a RF 3 times, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Also stole a lot of bases early in his career. He really was a complete ballplayer wouldn't you say, even if he missed a lot of games?????
With all that, plus his hitting AWAY FROM COORS FIELD, you say he didn't play enough games, I see your reasoning, but I am voting for him. Thanks for giving a second reason for keeping him out of the HOF.
Again I agree that Coors field is easy to hit in that's why I used his away numbers to take the ballpark factor out of the equation.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers. >>
He most certainly could have continued to hit well. But he choose to walk away at age 38. Killebrew and Kaline only stayed around until age 39. Walker was a great hitter, but only 1988 games played. Other than catchers, the last player the writers selected for the Hall-of-Fame with fewer games played was Ralph Kiner in 1975 -- most people do believe Walker was better, we just understand that Kiner is not an outlier, not the standard. I believe there are only five others ever (DiMaggio, Greenberg, Terry, Boudreau and Medwick are all I count, help me out of I'm missing something). Missing that many games throughout his career is what has hurt his chances so much, not ballparks. It was the same for Bobby Grich and Dick Allen who finished their careers before the Rockies ever existed
Even with the few games played, had Walker been around 20 years earlier, he would have had a great chance to make the Hall-of-Fame. A lot better than both Jim Rice and Tony Perez; probably better than Dawson. As good as Minoso, Santo or Allen who were the best candidates at the start of this century. But now there's so many others like Raines, Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Piazza, McGriff >>
Excellent post! Up until the PED guys arrived, Kiner hit more home runs per at bat than anyone but Ruth, but that's his only claim to fame. Killebrew was third.
Puckett and Rice both have less games played in the outfield, although Rice does surpass Walker in Plate Appearances because of the DH. I am aware that MANY don't like Rice here, as well as Puckett, but they are in nevertheless.
As I posted in my reply to skin2 Walker also stole bases and had a great arm to go with his bat, plus 7 Gold Gloves. While I agree he was on the low end in games played his all around play should put him in. Especially over Rice, Puckett was a great fielder as well, but didn't steal as many bases. Puckett and Kiner retired because of injuries.
I guess Walker should have hung around for another year or two, but he didn't.
Did you see Dick Allen's OPS+ WOW
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Your immaturity is an OPS+ of 7362736452. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is impossible. You read 10% of what I post and run amok with statements that apply to an answer to another question or debate.
What I asked was, since he hit well on the road, why doesn't he get more "love" when the HOF is brought up. You say he didn't play enough games, he certainly did. Career milestones? You mean awards? What milestones? >>
That's funny, because your inability to put forth any cogent thought process, let alone a "straight answer" is constantly my biggest issue with your posts. I've read everything you posted and am responding as I see fit. You constantly run "amok" with trivial points and downright ignorant questions and comments. What are career milestones???? The kind where you get 500 HRs, 1500 RBIs, 3000 hits, etc. If not those levels, certainly something impressive enough. While 383, 1311, .313 is not going to get it done in the era he played in. Perhaps in Dave Parker/Jim Rice's era, it might have been enough.
Who cares what you asked about how he hit on the road??? Answering that question doesn't get the discussion anywhere. It wasn't THAT impressive by anyone's standard in that era. It was good, no question about that. But you make it sound like it was .950 or 1.000. If wasn't! It was well above average, and that's where the "playing enough games" comes into play. Let me break it down for you real simple, if you're only going to be just very good (like Walker), you need put in A LOT of playing time over your career. If you're going to be Mantlesque, then what Walker played would be sufficient. If I seem to run "amok" to you, it's because you don't seem to grasp the issue, including many simple ones. >>
The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate! >>
Once again, I don't believe that Walker is being dismissed because of just Coors, but mostly because of playing time. But I'm not even sure why you keep dwelling on it. No one suggested that Walker in the HoF was some ridiculous notion. I wouldn't put him in but it's not a crazy notion. But it's by no means a crime to keep him out. But the thread wasn't about him and he was only so good enough anyway that his limited playing time really is a big issue. I give credit to Walker for all the things you mention but at the end of the day, it's still not enough in most people's opinion.
As for playing in Coors or Fenway, some guys (including Walker), play even well above the park adjustment afforded in OPS. Walker's numbers aren't just better at Coors, they're way better than OPS+ would expect them to be. This is one of the "flaws" in OPS+. So you don't even really have a 141 OPS+ guy in my opinion but more like a 135, if that, which makes his induction all the more questionable.
But to a "hard numbers" guy, we could talk all day about why he's so much better than Killebrew because apart from HRs, he beats him handily on all offensive front, as well as baserunning and defense. But OPS+ dispels that notion in various ways. Which is where I reside as well. So I'm stunned that a guy like you wouldn't love and embrace OPS+ which so quickly and simply helps to understand 90-95% of the issue instantly. >>
So now you are saying Killebrew shouldn't be in the HOF?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate! >>
Once again, I don't believe that Walker is being dismissed because of just Coors, but mostly because of playing time. But I'm not even sure why you keep dwelling on it. No one suggested that Walker in the HoF was some ridiculous notion. I wouldn't put him in but it's not a crazy notion. But it's by no means a crime to keep him out. But the thread wasn't about him and he was only so good enough anyway that his limited playing time really is a big issue. I give credit to Walker for all the things you mention but at the end of the day, it's still not enough in most people's opinion.
As for playing in Coors or Fenway, some guys (including Walker), play even well above the park adjustment afforded in OPS. Walker's numbers aren't just better at Coors, they're way better than OPS+ would expect them to be. This is one of the "flaws" in OPS+. So you don't even really have a 141 OPS+ guy in my opinion but more like a 135, if that, which makes his induction all the more questionable.
But to a "hard numbers" guy, we could talk all day about why he's so much better than Killebrew because apart from HRs, he beats him handily on all offensive front, as well as baserunning and defense. But OPS+ dispels that notion in various ways. Which is where I reside as well. So I'm stunned that a guy like you wouldn't love and embrace OPS+ which so quickly and simply helps to understand 90-95% of the issue instantly. >>
Wait a minute, now I am confused. First you say OPS+ is wrong by up to 6 points in Walkers case? Then in the next paragraph you say I should "love and embrace OPS+". Skin2 also calls Walkers OPS+ "soft". That's why OPS+ while good, is not great. Isn't 6 points a lot? SOFT number. Batting average, SLG% OB% hard numbers.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
That's why a guy with a short career will have such a difficult time getting in the Hall. Boy, it's just like you really were born yesterday. >>
10 years is what's required, one or two more average or lousy years makes a difference in Walkers case? Doesn't seem right to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Geez, you really are confused or have a serious reading comprehension problem. >>
Was coming back (sarcastically). Just like I said there was no such thing as ballpark factor, OPS+ was worthless and I was "making it seem like " Walker had an OPS+ of .950 or 1.00 away from Coors field. None of those things were said either, but thrown at me to hurt my side of the argument.
Making things up and saying the other guy said them is a lousy way of debating, isn't it?
Funny how childish it is when I do it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Wait a minute, now I am confused. First you say OPS+ is wrong by up to 6 points in Walkers case? Then in the next paragraph you say I should "love and embrace OPS+". Skin2 also calls Walkers OPS+ "soft". That's why OPS+ while good, is not great. Isn't 6 points a lot? SOFT number. Batting average, SLG% OB% hard numbers. >>
As with most things in life and baseball, if you things at face value without any ability and/or willingness to think and analyze, you could draw erroneous conclusions. With OPS+, the likelihood of doing than in the vast majority instances is very small if you understand the formula an that it doesn't take length of playing into account. I'm not even sure what the drivel you posted at the end of the sentence means. >>
At least you are beginning to admit you don't know the difference from a soft number and a hard one, here it is;
Batting average 165 hits in 500 at bats .330 that's what it is, can't dispute the math. You can dispute it's value but not the math.
If you prefer, since it is the argument at hand OPS is; On Base Percentage (hard number) + Slugging Percentage (hard number).
When you ad additional mathematical formulas to try to make a comparative estimation of how players do in relation to a ballpark, OPS+, you are skewing the hard number OPS and trying to make it better, you run into some problems. Most likely going to be SPOT ON for the middle of the numerical range, but it will become less so at the top and bottom of said range, also with extraordinary factors such as Coors field.
Or in Killebrew's case, and you said it yourself, Walker was better in every other aspect of the game than Killebrew. Killebrew's absolute dominance in Home Run Frequency the 1960's makes him a lock for the HOF. Killebrew had a relatively short carreer with 81147 AB and he was injury prone as well, although NOT AS MUCH AS WALKER. Killebrew also only has the one "career milestone" as well. 573 HRs is a nice one though.
Why did BOTH of the other guys state that Walkers OPS+ numbers were incorrect, by as much as 6 points or by calling them "soft"? Are they wrong too?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Geez, you really are confused or have a serious reading comprehension problem. >>
Was coming back (sarcastically). Just like I said there was no such thing as ballpark factor, OPS+ was worthless and I was "making it seem like " Walker had an OPS+ of .950 or 1.00 away from Coors field. None of those things were said either, but thrown at me to hurt my side of the argument.
Making things up and saying the other guy said them is a lousy way of debating, isn't it?
Funny how childish it is when I do it. >>
First off, quit playing the victim. You're a grown man so suck it up. Secondly, I NEVER said you mentioned ANY of those things. They were all stated in context for illustration purposes. If you could properly comprehend what you read, you wouldn't take things so personally. No one ever called you childish. I did call you uniformed, ignorant about OPS+, etc. which I stand by. >>
Yes dad, sorry dad, don't give up on me dad.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
JBanzi,
When this topic comes up in terms of longevity and value I go through the following exercise to illustrate why Yaz's last six years of OPS+ of 116 should be viewed as a positive, and not a negative.
Actually, lets use Yaz's last five years, as without those five years he does not have the 3,000 hit club on his resume. His OPS+ those last five years was 108 and he did that at the ages of 39-43.
Let me ask you a question,
Who was a better player Pete O'Brien or Me?? Pete O'Brien only had a lifetime OPS+ of 104. So basically he compiled 12 years of MLB and finished as an average player. Would anyone in their right mind view him as a lesser player than myself who did not even play MLB?
At what point does Pete O'Brien get the credit for being a 104 OPS+ player for 12 years? Should he not get far more credit than me who wasn't even playing in MLB?? Yet that is what you are doing with Yaz when you downgrade his extra years of contribution and compare him to guys that weren't good enough to play and contribute positively through those old man years.
If you agree that Pete O'Brien was indeed a better baseball player than me, then you must also agree that Carl Yasztrsemski putting up an OPS+ of 108 from age 39-43 should also be viewed as a positive over someone like Larry Walker who was retired and not any better than ME at that point...or better yet, much better than Dick Allen or Jim Rice who were was washed up by age 35, and like me were out of MLB from age 36-43 while Yaz was still good enough to start and be an above average MLB hitter up to age 43.
Guys like Yaz, Murray, etc.. were very elite hitters in their prime, and they were also able to be better than average MLB hitters during their old man years, and even in their very young man years too(age 21 etc..), at a time where other players simply were not good enough to hang on or break into MLB. Those are positives for those guys, not negatives, and that typically what sets those guys as HOFer's compared to the Larry Walker, Rice, Allen group(who also did NOT have the same peak compared to the Yaz, Murray group).
I could see your point if Yaz or Murray hung on for their last six years with OPS+ of 65 while they compiled hits at the expense of their teams winning...but that isn't the case at all.
Edited to add that Allen did have a great peak. Rice's peak wasn't nearly as good as people think...but those are the people that just use RBI and ignore the number of RBI opportunities, and the people that don't understand Fenway.
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
That's why a guy with a short career will have such a difficult time getting in the Hall. Boy, it's just like you really were born yesterday. >>
10 years is what's required, one or two more average or lousy years makes a difference in Walkers case? Doesn't seem right to me. >>
Yes and almost all the years in which he played, he didn't play full seasons. And another average or lousy season or two wouldn't push the the needle in his case. Seems right to me. Once again, for the hardheaded, a short career is fine if you are an exceptional player. Virtually no one looks at Walker as that, except apparently you. >>
I don't mind being alone in my feelings about Walker, perhaps a new thread with a poll would be interesting? He was hurt a lot, absolutely, but he did everything well..........a true 5 tool player, I think he WAS exceptional. So does Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS, they use all kinds of stats as well to determine HOF worthy players. Since he played well over the minimum required, they choose not to reduce his "Hallworthyness".
I am assuming you didn't like Rice either, I didn't care either way with him. Would you agree Walker was better than Rice, or not?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Halos fan, Murray was the best hitter in MLB during his prime. He also able to be an above average hitter during his old man years. If he is viewed as not being worthy, and that same analysis was put to everyone, it would be a very small HOF.
But, I am sure you just look at Jim Rice's RBI totals and get all gooey about them, without even bothering looking at how many opportunities he had on a yearly basis or looking at the Fenway factor.
I posted above about the longevity of guys like yaz murray.
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long???
Murray had a peak from 82-85 where he was the best hitter in MLB.
The best/most accurate stat on measuring the value of a hitter(Win Probability Added) has Murray finishing 1st in 1982, 2nd in 1983, 1st in 1984, and 1st in 1985. That is tops.
Rice and Murray highlight the longevity issue perfectly. Since they played from the same era, and both played everyday, OPS+ works perfectly to highlight the longevity issue. Their career OPS+ is Murray 129, Rice 128
Below are their years organized by their best season to their worst using OPS+...
Murray.....Rice 159.......157 157.......154 156.......147 156.......141 156.......137 149.......131 140.......128 138.......123 136.......122 136.......120 130.......117 129.......112 123.......102 120.......101 115.......89 113.......70 112.......Not good enough to play MLB(same value as Drew Barrymore) 105.......Drew Barrymore 87.........Drew Barrymore 87.........Drew Barrymore 55.........Drew Barrymore
Murray's best year beats Rice's every year, which is far more telling than what their career OPS+ says, because Murray's was lowered because he was able to still be good enough to hold a MLB job, but not as good during his peak years.
This list shows the fallacy of Rice's supposed dominance during his peak. Murray was actually far more dominant and OPS+ only tells part of the story. Win Probability Added furthers that gap even more!
Basically, you can look at it with Murray having two careers.
In Murray's 1st career, matching the career length of Jim Rice, Murray had a 140 OPS+ compared to Rice's 129. Better than Rice's career easily.
Then, Murray had another seven year career with an OPS+ of 103...which was almost a Pete O'Brien career. Rice's 2nd career was the career of Drew Barrymore as Rice was not good enough to get a job in MLB.
Rice had no value compared to Murray's seven year run of 103 OPS+. So why on earth would anybody view Murray's seven year OPS+ of 103 as a negative, when Rice wasn't even good enough to get a job in MLB when he had the same value as a player as Drew Barrymore??
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
JBanzi,
When this topic comes up in terms of longevity and value I go through the following exercise to illustrate why Yaz's last six years of OPS+ of 116 should be viewed as a positive, and not a negative.
Actually, lets use Yaz's last five years, as without those five years he does not have the 3,000 hit club on his resume. His OPS+ those last five years was 108 and he did that at the ages of 39-43.
Let me ask you a question,
Who was a better player Pete O'Brien or Me?? Pete O'Brien only had a lifetime OPS+ of 104. So basically he compiled 12 years of MLB and finished as an average player. Would anyone in their right mind view him as a lesser player than myself who did not even play MLB?
At what point does Pete O'Brien get the credit for being a 104 OPS+ player for 12 years? Should he not get far more credit than me who wasn't even playing in MLB?? Yet that is what you are doing with Yaz when you downgrade his extra years of contribution and compare him to guys that weren't good enough to play and contribute positively through those old man years.
If you agree that Pete O'Brien was indeed a better baseball player than me, then you must also agree that Carl Yasztrsemski putting up an OPS+ of 108 from age 39-43 should also be viewed as a positive over someone like Larry Walker who was retired and not any better than ME at that point...or better yet, much better than Dick Allen or Jim Rice who were was washed up by age 35, and like me were out of MLB from age 36-43 while Yaz was still good enough to start and be an above average MLB hitter up to age 43.
Guys like Yaz, Murray, etc.. were very elite hitters in their prime, and they were also able to be better than average MLB hitters during their old man years, and even in their very young man years too(age 21 etc..), at a time where other players simply were not good enough to hang on or break into MLB. Those are positives for those guys, not negatives, and that typically what sets those guys as HOFer's compared to the Larry Walker, Rice, Allen group(who also did NOT have the same peak compared to the Yaz, Murray group).
I could see your point if Yaz or Murray hung on for their last six years with OPS+ of 65 while they compiled hits at the expense of their teams winning...but that isn't the case at all.
Edited to add that Allen did have a great peak. Rice's peak wasn't nearly as good as people think...but those are the people that just use RBI and ignore the number of RBI opportunities, and the people that don't understand Fenway. >>
Can't make a comparison (obviously) where there is no data to look at, so I am going to guess YOU! No one can prove me wrong! We're not really going to bring in the very underrated Pete O'Brien are we?
Only saying that it APPEARED Walker still had above average ability, and quit. Zaz was average at best and probably below. However it was always my dream to be a professional ballplayer, so you would have to kick me off the field if I ever would have been good enough to get there.
Well, we can debate that Yaz and Killebrew and Mantle and a lot of guys played too long, or plaayed the exact right amount of time. I am not sure why Walker quit when he was still able to slug over .500 and OPS of .886. Comparing him to Yaz, Larry should have had 6 more years to accumulate some numbers. I read he had some neck problems. BTW Yaz only had maybe 4 superior years the other 19 were for the most part average, but better than me, or a retired Larry Walker.
Who was allowed to hang on with numbers like OPS+ of 65? That seems pretty bad.
The difference is probably that the Red Sox didn't have anyone good in their system and chose not to release YAZ. Boston fans might have rioted as well.
Killebrew's OPS+ was in the low 90's and was released by BOTH the Twins (F#@K Calvin Griffith) and then the K.C. Royals, he wanted "one more year" and a shot at 600 Hrs.
Other guys, like Mike Schmidt (used here only to compare how they retired, not entire careers) quit when they could have played longer.
I would rather play in the MLB at the end of a long fine career than just about anything, so that question is easy. Larry Walker chose not to, and that (along with not playing full seasons) certainly didn't help him in this debate.
Money probably comes into play as well, the players now SHOULD be able to retire earlier and wealthier and healthier.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Why are you picking just Yaz's last year? His last five years he had an OPS+ of 108. That is better than average, and better than what Walker did. Certainly far better than Rice who was washed up by age 35.
Why did you gloss over the Rice Murray comparison?
Most of those guys retire because they lost it, like Rice, Allen. Walker still had some left, but not sure how much. The difference is, we do know that Yaz did have it, so he gets the credit for it!
Schmidt was done too BTW.
If you are unwilling to give guys like Yaz and Murray that credit, then you must also believe that Pete O'Brien had no value as a player or had the same value as Drew Barrymore.
I will admit that Walker certainly is a great 'what if' guy...and he is outstanding...and certainly better than Jim Rice, even considering Walker played in the live ball era.
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long??? >>
I like Drew Barrymore. Have you been drinking Skin? Are you really serious?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long??? >>
I like Drew Barrymore. Have you been drinking Skin? Are you really serious? >>
Joe, at what point do Yaz and Murray get credit for their ability to play full time at an old age and produce a 'second' career about as good as Pete O'Brien's? When you use a rate stat to compare players of different career length, one must use the Rice/Murray comparison to get a more clear picture.
If one refuses to give Yaz/Murray that credit, then that is the same as giving Pete O'Brien no credit for his time in MLB. as a 104 OPS+ hitter.
The Rice/Murray comparison lays that out pretty clear. Yes, Rice had the same value as Drew Barrymore while Murray was having the same value as Pete O'Brien. Yet, why would you make it a negative toward Murray when it should be a negative to Rice?? When you look at their career rate OPS+ and disregard all that, then that is what you are doing.
Of all the things you are saying is wrong with OPS+, the one real thing that is wrong is the one you are missing...and that is using it to measure players of different career lengths by just looking at the total final number and not taking into account the Murray/Rice comparison.
Comments
Willie Stargell a hall of famer of course
" hitting Koufax was like eating soup with a fork!"
Hank Aaron said
" if it was the 9th and Koufax had a lead you could call home and have your wife put dinner on the table"
Stats don't tell me that
<< <i>Any stat that attempts to compare players based on there contemporaries is probably as accurate as your going to get. I wouldn't argue that at all. Sometimes I just thinks its best when deciding who was best from each era is to listen to those players that played against each other. Example
Willie Stargell a hall of famer of course
" hitting Koufax was like eating soup with a fork!"
Hank Aaron said
" if it was the 9th and Koufax had a lead you could call home and have your wife put dinner on the table"
Stats don't tell me that >>
Actually, if you look at Sandy's stats during his peak years, including his ERA+ it most certainly does.
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>My point is that the game of baseball is not defined simply by statistics alone. >>
But success is defined by winning and losing
<< <i>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! >>
You can use statistics to help decide which pitcher did more to help their team win
<< <i> I say there is no stat out there that can bridge that simple difference and tell us who the better pitcher was. >>
That's what makes it interesting. If something that complex could be answered so simply, there would be no point to ever having a discussion about the issue
<< <i> That means squat, I just find it funny that in the last 15 years baseball has been taken over by math majors is all! >>
Bill James has been writing and publishing a lot longer than 15 years. He was an English major
" but when I faced him at home he was meat!"
Aaron didn't say
" but only in LA"
I'm gonna bow outta this one lol I tried earlier but I just love talking baseball. Everyone thinks differently right.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
You are absolutely correct, no argument whatsoever.
I was however not bringing in those variables. Just pointing out that for the better part of MOST games your batter is facing the starting pitcher, so there's where the greater amount of at bats comes from, therefore the biggest effect on his statistics.
When you try to make OPS better by bringing in the ballpark factor (which for absolutely the last time nvbaseball is a comparison =educated guess) it is going to work well when comparing Bob Allison to Harmon Killebrew. They both played at the same time for the same team, were both right handed batted 3-4 in the lineup, faced the same pitchers and were power hitters.
The formula is going to work much less accurately when comparing Aaron/Killebrew. Start bringing in Gwynn/Bonds and why bother.
There is as of yet no perfect stat to compare the value of two different players. OPS+ is just not the be all and end all you think it is. You still have to have a knowledge of how a players individual talents made him what he was.
<< <i> (which for absolutely the last time nvbaseball is a comparison =educated guess) >>
To say Joe DiMaggio had 348 total bases in 541 at bats in 1941 is what actually happened, not an educated guess. To say he did it in 292 at bats in Yankee Stadium, 33 at bats in Fenway, et cetera, is not an educated guess, it's what actually happened. To divide those total bases by at bats is not an educated guess, it's what his actual slugging percentage is. To divide his slugging percentage by what other players did in those parks is not an educated guess, that is what actually happened in those baseball games and that is what his actual SLG+ is (when multiplied by 100)
<< <i>There is as of yet no perfect stat to compare the value of two different players. OPS+ is just not the be all and end all you think it is. You still have to have a knowledge of how a players individual talents made him what he was. >>
We all agree on that. The only question is, which stats work best for letting us use our knowledge of the sport to help describe what he was. Both OBP and SLG work very well for that. Comparing them to what other players did is also important. Why don't you tell us what you use to compare Killebrew, Aaron, Gwynn and Bonds if not OBP and SLG
Keith Hernandez has a similar OPS+ to McGriff and was the best defensive first baseman I ever saw. Two rings, an MVP and probably the best clutch hitter of his day, something OPS does not measure. Of course, he spent some time around the same folks as Parker.
On a very serious note; unless you are Fred McGriff, you do NOT KNOW that he was clean for his career. You can think it, he can seem it, but you do not know. That will be the curse of everyone from his era.
Speaking of his era, you can arguably make better arguments for both Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
3,000 hits and 500 home runs is quite remarkable. As great as McGriff was, 2,490 hits is kind of run of the mill. Other players in 2,400-2,600 hit category.....Garvey, Julio Franco? Steve Finley, Ted Simmons, Jim Rice. Dwight Evans. Mark Grace. Grace has 2,445 hits. Dave Parker and Buckner have 2,700 hits.
Also hurting McGriff, he played in small market toronto and san diego during the beginning of his career. Then after the braves, he went to the devil rays, cubs, dodgers. If he had stayed for his entire career in a larger market, he'd probably have a bigger profile. He's hurt by the contrasts to McGwire, Sosa, Bonds hitting 500 foot homeruns. There was a lot of power in the 90's, it makes his numbers look slim. Similar with Griffey. The steroid guys pushed down the legit hitters (Big Hurt Frank Thomas). And McGriff is under that.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade.
ebay id Duffs_Dugout
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>Fred McGriff should be in the Hall of Fame if you got Orlando Cepeda and Tony Perez in the Hall of Fame . He still hit 493 Homers clean, won a ring, and has a .284 . Willie McCovey only has 22 more home runs in 3 more seasons . >>
I agree with the first part of your post, but as far as home runs are concerned, McGriff benefitted greatly from playing (primarily) during an era in which home runs were hit much more frequently than the era in which McCovey played. Smaller ballparks, greater dillution of pitching talent due to league expansion, even a higher mound (till 1969 at least) all contributed to this. And that's not even broaching the topic of PED use.
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>Not to mention that Murray is 10th all time in RBIs. Runs win games.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade. >>
There are bound volumes on this board about Jim Rice, especially relating to all those points you just made. No need to rehash all of them.
Let me ask you a question though, if you and I were put into a free throw contest to see who can make the most free throws, and you were given 10 shots, and I was given 20...would you think it was fair to judge you and I on who was better at free throws after I won every contest?
Then, if you found out that my basketball rim was also 20% larger than yours, would you accept it when I won, or would you be screaming foul?
I believe cross era comparisons are always challenging. However...
I don't think it is very unfair comparing guys from MLB during the same time frame. Comparing Aaron and Killebrew isn't unfair at all. Sure, they faced 'differen't' sets of pitchers...but those pitchers were from the same time and era and pitched under the same environments, and of very similar ability. They were certainly similar enough that if Aaron and Killebrew each hit .300 against a similar cross sampling of MLB pitchers during a year, I would be very comfortable taking that .300 at face value and accepting it. If there is a margin of error, you may be looking at an extremely small one that really isn't enough to bother looking further.
Ballpark factor. For the most part, the ballpark factor in the OPS+ or any other stat are pretty insignificant to begin with. Most of those stats don't change much with a ballpark factor. It is usually the extreme parks for the era, Coors in the live ball era, Fenway and Wrigley in the 70's/80's, that make a difference...and rightfully so.
I'm curious, you have brought up Killebrew a few times. Do you feel he is getting an unfair knock in his measurements due to ballpark factor or something of that sort?
Looking at Killebrew's ballpark factor, it is about 104-105 for his career, with 100 being average. Not really viewed as an extreme park, but yes, favorable to hitters.
He has 291 HR at home, and 282 HR on the road.
His OPS is .899 at home, and .871 on the road.
His hitting splits don't seem out of line with the ballpark factor numbers. So maybe if there is truth that some of his home runs would have been home runs regardless of the park, since his ballpark factor isn't really adjusting his stats too much...maybe, at most, he is losing 2 points in his career OPS+, if that is true about the home runs. I'm just estimating that two points, but looking at his actual splits, I can't see it being too much....more so considering that his OPS split is wider than his HR split.
<< <i>Not to mention that Murray is 10th all time in RBIs. Runs win games.
I also strongly disagree with the folks who knock Jim Rice as a HoF'er and there are many. I know the arguments. I've read them all. In a 12 year period the man knocked in 100 runs 8 times (when it meant something) was top 5 MVP six times and lead the league in total bases four times. Taken in the context of the 70s, his 78 season was arguably the single greatest year of the decade. >>
He had an aesome year, but I still feel Guidry got screwed. He had one of the 5-10 best seasons ever as a pitcher. Rice deserves to be in the HOF, for the record.
<< <i>JBanzi,
I believe cross era comparisons are always challenging. However...
I don't think it is very unfair comparing guys from MLB during the same time frame. Comparing Aaron and Killebrew isn't unfair at all. Sure, they faced 'differen't' sets of pitchers...but those pitchers were from the same time and era and pitched under the same environments, and of very similar ability. They were certainly similar enough that if Aaron and Killebrew each hit .300 against a similar cross sampling of MLB pitchers during a year, I would be very comfortable taking that .300 at face value and accepting it. If there is a margin of error, you may be looking at an extremely small one that really isn't enough to bother looking further.
Ballpark factor. For the most part, the ballpark factor in the OPS+ or any other stat are pretty insignificant to begin with. Most of those stats don't change much with a ballpark factor. It is usually the extreme parks for the era, Coors in the live ball era, Fenway and Wrigley in the 70's/80's, that make a difference...and rightfully so.
I'm curious, you have brought up Killebrew a few times. Do you feel he is getting an unfair knock in his measurements due to ballpark factor or something of that sort?
Looking at Killebrew's ballpark factor, it is about 104-105 for his career, with 100 being average. Not really viewed as an extreme park, but yes, favorable to hitters.
He has 291 HR at home, and 282 HR on the road.
His OPS is .899 at home, and .871 on the road.
His hitting splits don't seem out of line with the ballpark factor numbers. So maybe if there is truth that some of his home runs would have been home runs regardless of the park, since his ballpark factor isn't really adjusting his stats too much...maybe, at most, he is losing 2 points in his career OPS+, if that is true about the home runs. I'm just estimating that two points, but looking at his actual splits, I can't see it being too much....more so considering that his OPS split is wider than his HR split. >>
Trying to make a point on these boards is nearly impossible, very few here are willing to concede anything, some of these newer stats can have the opposite effect than what they were created to improve upon.
I bring up Killebrew because I watched him play and know most of his statistics back and forth, he hit a very high percentage of LONG home runs and he had relatively few doubles and nearly no triples. Singles and Home Runs are really what he hit. He was also a dead pull hitter, sure he hit a few to right and center but mostly to left and left center. He is, therefore going to be affected much less by the dimensions of a ballpark than a hitter like Aaron. I am assuming that each park has a multiplier that is created by how the average hitter does, so Coors field and Fenway (especially Fenway) are going to punish most hitters because it's so much easier for the average hitter to hit there. Guys like Killebrew aren't going to be helped here, because his singles would still be singles and his home runs would have been a home run in any other park as well, because when he hit the ball well, it went REAL FAR. Could be why his home and away totals are just about equal? My comparison to Aaron comes from knowing and seeing him as well (although not nearly as much as Killebrew). Aaron wasn't even a home run hitter early in his career, when he did hit them much of the time they were just over the fence, so he would REALLY benifit from (and did, in Atlanta) an easier park to hit in. I just can't explain my thoughts any better than that, if they don't make any sense, I apologize for not being smart enough or a good enough writer, to communicate effectively.
Why would Killebrew's OPS+ split be wider than his HR split? Wouldn't OPS+ mostly be a home run effected number, at least in a hitter like Killebrew's?
I think Killebrew is actually appreciated MORE now than when he played and shortly after he retired, and I thank some of the "new" statistics that show just how valuable he really was. Many (sportswriters/commentators) people really loved Rod Carew when he came along (first ballot HOF while Harmon had to wait), he was a fine hitter, but as far as I was concerned did a lot less than Killebrew to produce runs. Batting average, while still important isn't looked at like it was then, now we look at OB% SLG% and OPS.
The guy I think that's getting the unfair knock is Larry Walker. I think he was/is HOF material, but the Coors field thing just seems to kill eveyone's opinion of him. His last year in Montreal his OPS was .981 and his first year in St Louis it was .953, were those parks "hitters" parks as well? How much better was he supposed to hit while playing for the Rockies? Look at 1997 he hit better AWAY than at home, most other years he had an OPS on the road about .900 that's pretty darn good. YES, overall he hit much better at home. I'll shut up about Larry now.
I never said OPS+ was worthless, I tried to show that there are some flaws in the theory that ALL ballplayers are affected in the exact SAME way in the parks. Seems to me when I try to do this some people are hearing me say OPS+ is worthless. Many people on these boards DO NOT BOTHER to read these posts entirely, or carefully, they see something they don't agree with and turn into the "nervous breakdown guy".
If people here don't know the difference between a "hard" statistic and a "soft" one, I really shouldn't bother to try to bring new thoughts to the discussion. I like statistics, but I also like to think for myself. Sometimes the statistics are misleading.
<< <i>McGriff not being in the HOF is strictly due to a double-standard being pulled by HOF voters who have proven over and over that they looks for reasons NOT to put guys in rather than the other way around. The PED users don't get in because their stats were fattened by using....but at the same time, McGriff doesn't get in because his stats don't measure up to the guys who used PEDs. Totally illogical, but I have come to expect nothing less from the voters. >>
Careful rookiewax you are making quite a bit of sense there!
<< <i>
<< <i>McGriff not being in the HOF is strictly due to a double-standard being pulled by HOF voters who have proven over and over that they looks for reasons NOT to put guys in rather than the other way around. The PED users don't get in because their stats were fattened by using....but at the same time, McGriff doesn't get in because his stats don't measure up to the guys who used PEDs. Totally illogical, but I have come to expect nothing less from the voters. >>
Careful rookiewax you are making quite a bit of sense there! >>
So true and thats why its a joke..
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
As for Coors, you point to a one year example of Walker previous to Coors where his OPS didn't change much. But that is a single year example. Guys stats fluctuate wildly on a yearly basis. The year previous to that it was 140 points lower! The sample size of the one year you used is much too small to draw the conclusion that you did. However, do that same test with every player that has a before/after Coors effect, then you will start to get more data.
Same for the end of his career. If you don't care much about sample size, then if you look at the year where Walker spent half in StL and half in COl, his OPS in STL was .953 and in COL it was 1.093, which would knock your theory out right there. Also, see below on more that will knock your end of career theory out.
Also, he is another guy who took his 'days off' against the lefties, and that helped save his percentages....Which I might add, that one of the reasons why his percentages were so high with StL in his last year is because he didn't play much against lefties. He had 299 plate appearance against RH with a .912 OPS, and only 68 plate appearances vs LH with a .767 OPS. That is why he maintained his percentages that year(also because he had a small sample size to begin with, with only half a year of plate appearances, as a full year of at bats he would regress to the mean), it isn't because Coors made no difference as you claimed incorrectly. Coors had already proven to make a huge difference.
Next, no matter how 'blind' somebody wants to be on Coors or Fenway(70's/80's),
At Coors, Walker had a career .381 BA, .461 OB%, .710 SLG%. Those numbers are better than Babe Ruth. Can anyone actually sit there with a straight face and think there was no Coors effect?
Still great production from Walker...but when you consider that every other Rockies hitter saw a similar percentage increase in their batting at Coors, and that every other opponent who came in also saw a similar increase in Coors...and that it was consistently better on a yearly basis, you tend to understand that it was the park that was inflating his numbers to an advantage that other league players did not have.
Considering all that, the OPS+ measurement still has him sitting at 141 for his career , which is high, and is hardly penalizing him unfairly.
What makes that 141 OPS+ less impressive is his career length was a bit short, it was done during the live ball era, he sat often against lefties, and he was made of glass.
The Killebrew stuff I am not understanding your beef. He isn't getting any unfair penalty due to park. He did hit a little better at home. I do have to say that despite the claim that he could hit HR's anywhere, no matter who you are, you still would benefit from being in an offensive park. Mark McGwire hit HR's consistently farther than anybody, yet he too had his share of ones just clearing the fence(his record breaker being one of them). Aaron has almost equal home/road splits and I am just failing to see the Aaron/Killebrew beef.
Skin again, "Can anyone actually sit there with a straight face and think there was no Coors effect?" Of course not, where exactly did I say that? I said the opposite when I brought up Coors, Fenway and Atlanta. I did ask if Montreal and St Louis (yes, I do see St Louis was the end of his career and small sample size) were hitter friendly parks, but got no response. He hit pretty well his last year in Montreal, better than his first two in Colorado, so the "ballpark effect" didn't kick in until his third year?!?!?!?!? Again, just curious, please let me know if at least Montreal was a hitter friendly park?
Skin once again, " it isn't because Coors made no difference as you claimed incorrectly." If you can show me where I said ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I will humbly apologize.
Skin for the last time, seems to me that when you start bringing in variables such as sitting against lhp if you are left handed hitter, you are actually agreeing with me that OPS+ numbers are incorrect, maybe NOT BY MUCH but off a bit, just as when you say "What makes that 141 OPS+ less impressive." lastly " That is why he maintained his percentages that year(also because he had a small sample size to begin with, with only half a year of plate appearances, as a full year of at bats he would regress to the mean). So you are saying that he could have only hit WORSE had he played in more games? Seems to me he could have hit worse, better or about the same. I am only using the numbers that he put up for that year, I can't help it if he was hurt. There's the basic difference in our philosophies, you say he would have done worse had he played a full season and you say it's a mathematical fact, I say he had three possible outcomes, better, worse or the same.
Baseball, "you're not saying ANYTHING that we don't ALL already know" Thank you, if this would have been the response to my comments about OPS+ there would have been no debate.
Baseball again, not at all thinking that people are going to agree with me, just be willing to concede a point, which you have done. In a dismissive superior sort of way, but at least you admitted it.
Question about Walker. If my math is correct, Larry's OPS was .861 on the ROAD during his Coors field days .903 if we forgive him 1996 which was his worst year ever at .523.
Killebrew's lifetime combined was .884. We have determined (I think) that Killebrew was pretty similar at home vs. on the road. Using your super fantastic never wrong OPS+ Killebrew was at 143 and Walker 141 (a soft? 141).
Walker was a better all around player, so even if he would have hit EXACTLY the same at home during those Coors years, why no consideration for the hall? He did miss a lot of games, but he had 10 years with over 500 PA and another 2 with over 450. No steroids? Good guy? Looks like he actually hit left handed starters BETTER from 1994 to 2003, 1.052 to 1.021 (did not figure using home and away splits).
Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers.
Seems he was a better player than....................................................Jim Rice, and maybe Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline?
PLEASE REMEMBER Larry was brought up when YOU asked about a player I thought was getting unfairly knocked. I think I have PROVEN that. After all, all we had to look at was OPS+ LOL
<< <i>Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers. >>
He most certainly could have continued to hit well. But he choose to walk away at age 38. Killebrew and Kaline only stayed around until age 39. Walker was a great hitter, but only 1988 games played. Other than catchers, the last player the writers selected for the Hall-of-Fame with fewer games played was Ralph Kiner in 1975 -- most people do believe Walker was better, we just understand that Kiner is not an outlier, not the standard. I believe there are only five others ever (DiMaggio, Greenberg, Terry, Boudreau and Medwick are all I count, help me out of I'm missing something). Missing that many games throughout his career is what has hurt his chances so much, not ballparks. It was the same for Bobby Grich and Dick Allen who finished their careers before the Rockies ever existed
Even with the few games played, had Walker been around 20 years earlier, he would have had a great chance to make the Hall-of-Fame. A lot better than both Jim Rice and Tony Perez; probably better than Dawson. As good as Minoso, Santo or Allen who were the best candidates at the start of this century. But now there's so many others like Raines, Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Piazza, McGriff
<< <i>
I never said OPS+ was worthless, I tried to show that there are some flaws in the theory that ALL ballplayers are affected in the exact SAME way in the parks >>
Everyone already knows a theory like that is ridiculous. Which is why you're the only one who makes it an issue. The issue is not how Killebrew would have been effected by hitting in Colorado or Toronto. The issue is what did his hitting in Metropolitan (and other AL parks) in the 60s and 70s mean compared to other hitters who hit in different years and different parks.
OPS+ says nothing about what Killebrew would have done had he played in different parks or different years. It only tells us about what he did in the environment he did play in
Walker probably did retire with more in the tank. Maybe had he had five more above league average seasons he would have been in the HOF. Or, if he played through injuries a little more often. But he didn't do either, and he is left where he is.
However, I think the live ball era helps the star hitters in OPS+, and he played smack dab in the middle of the live ball era. The easiest way to see how players shined among their peers is a simple OPS+ yearly ranking...
Here are Walker's best league finishes in OPS+...2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 10th. No other top ten finishes.
Here is Killebrew...3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th.
Killebrew finished in the top five in the league ten times, Walker only twice. That tells you right there who shined brighter in their era.
Then when you consider that OPS+ is a rate stat, and that Walker's team was without that production so often due to him not being in the lineup, it knocks Walker's value down even further. To me, there really isn't a comparison between Killebrew and Walker. Killebrew provided much more value to his team and MLB.
<< <i>
<< <i>Baseball. We're not going to agree. Let's move on.
Question about Walker. If my math is correct, Larry's OPS was .861 on the ROAD during his Coors field days .903 if we forgive him 1996 which was his worst year ever at .523.
Killebrew's lifetime combined was .884. We have determined (I think) that Killebrew was pretty similar at home vs. on the road. Using your super fantastic never wrong OPS+ Killebrew was at 143 and Walker 141 (a soft? 141).
Walker was a better all around player, so even if he would have hit EXACTLY the same at home during those Coors years, why no consideration for the hall? He did miss a lot of games, but he had 10 years with over 500 PA and another 2 with over 450. No steroids? Good guy? Looks like he actually hit left handed starters BETTER from 1994 to 2003, 1.052 to 1.021 (did not figure using home and away splits).
Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers.
Seems he was a better player than....................................................Jim Rice, and maybe Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Al Kaline?
PLEASE REMEMBER Larry was brought up when YOU asked about a player I thought was getting unfairly knocked. I think I have PROVEN that. After all, all we had to look at was OPS+ LOL >>
First off, you haven't proven ANYTHING in terms of the invalidity of OPS+ unfairly knocking anyone. 141 is a great number. But his career milestones aren't that great, he had repeatedly injury plagued seasons, and players with that relatively low number of career PAs and ABs are usually required to have a higher level of excellence for the Hall of Fame. His OPS+ is great, so I'm not sure why you think the metric doesn't work. Furthermore, it is entirely ridiculous of you to "forgive him in 1996" for his road OPS. Why would we do that exactly other than your desperate need to prove your case by showing incomplete data? In looking at all the years in which Walker played all his home games at Coors, the numbers look like this:
Coors:
1995 - 1.131
1996 - 1.248
1997 - 1.169
1998 - 1.241
1999 - 1.410
2000 - 1.062
2001 - 1.256
2002 - 1.124
2003 - 1.021
Road:
1995 - 0.845
1996 - 0.523
1997 - 1.176
1998 - 0.892
1999 - 0.894
2000 - 0.770
2001 - 0.965
2002 - 0.917
2003 - 0.766
Gee, you're so right! Why would anyone want to consider ballpark factors when considers a players accomplishments???
You're right in that we won't agree because I'M the one who actually wants to look at HARD numbers and let the FACTS decide. Whereas, you hypocritically claim you do but ultimately would rather go on gut feel and impression of what you think was. >>
Your immaturity is an OPS+ of 7362736452. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is impossible. You read 10% of what I post and run amok with statements that apply to an answer to another question or debate.
What I asked was, since he hit well on the road, why doesn't he get more "love" when the HOF is brought up. You say he didn't play enough games, he certainly did. Career milestones? You mean awards? What milestones?
<< <i>Of all sports debates and studies to have been done, I would say recognizing the huge advantage a hitter gets by hitting in Coors, is about as easy as it gets to recognize. The effect is there and is pretty accurately measured in an OPS+ measurement. For every 'one' instance that may put question into the Coors effect, there are 100 that scream the opposite. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to make any type of stance based on that one in one hundred instance. Is there a small margin of error? Of course. I don't want to waste any more time on Coors.
Walker probably did retire with more in the tank. Maybe had he had five more above league average seasons he would have been in the HOF. Or, if he played through injuries a little more often. But he didn't do either, and he is left where he is.
However, I think the live ball era helps the star hitters in OPS+, and he played smack dab in the middle of the live ball era. The easiest way to see how players shined among their peers is a simple OPS+ yearly ranking...
Here are Walker's best league finishes in OPS+...2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th, and 10th. No other top ten finishes.
Here is Killebrew...3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th.
Killebrew finished in the top five in the league ten times, Walker only twice. That tells you right there who shined brighter in their era.
Then when you consider that OPS+ is a rate stat, and that Walker's team was without that production so often due to him not being in the lineup, it knocks Walker's value down even further. To me, there really isn't a comparison between Killebrew and Walker. Killebrew provided much more value to his team and MLB. >>
Much better analysis on Killebrew's league dominance vs. Walker when both had similar OPS+. Going beyond OPS+ here really shows how two equal looking players aren't so equal.
I agree for the fifth or sixth time that Coors and Fenway are easier parks to hit in, no argument whatsoever.
I guess he gets hurt by being hurt and only playing in 1804 games in the outfield (91st all time) so he is low there, but does certainly qualify.
Any response to the fact that he had the most assists by a RF 3 times, 2 seconds and 2 thirds. Also stole a lot of bases early in his career. He really was a complete ballplayer wouldn't you say, even if he missed a lot of games?????
With all that, plus his hitting AWAY FROM COORS FIELD, you say he didn't play enough games, I see your reasoning, but I am voting for him. Thanks for giving a second reason for keeping him out of the HOF.
Again I agree that Coors field is easy to hit in that's why I used his away numbers to take the ballpark factor out of the equation.
<< <i>
<< <i>Walker looks like he still had some gas in the tank when he retired .908 OPS 134 OPS+ in his last two years in ST Louis, so he didn't hang around and "accumulate" numbers. >>
He most certainly could have continued to hit well. But he choose to walk away at age 38. Killebrew and Kaline only stayed around until age 39. Walker was a great hitter, but only 1988 games played. Other than catchers, the last player the writers selected for the Hall-of-Fame with fewer games played was Ralph Kiner in 1975 -- most people do believe Walker was better, we just understand that Kiner is not an outlier, not the standard. I believe there are only five others ever (DiMaggio, Greenberg, Terry, Boudreau and Medwick are all I count, help me out of I'm missing something). Missing that many games throughout his career is what has hurt his chances so much, not ballparks. It was the same for Bobby Grich and Dick Allen who finished their careers before the Rockies ever existed
Even with the few games played, had Walker been around 20 years earlier, he would have had a great chance to make the Hall-of-Fame. A lot better than both Jim Rice and Tony Perez; probably better than Dawson. As good as Minoso, Santo or Allen who were the best candidates at the start of this century. But now there's so many others like Raines, Bagwell, Biggio, Martinez, Piazza, McGriff >>
Excellent post! Up until the PED guys arrived, Kiner hit more home runs per at bat than anyone but Ruth, but that's his only claim to fame. Killebrew was third.
Puckett and Rice both have less games played in the outfield, although Rice does surpass Walker in Plate Appearances because of the DH. I am aware that MANY don't like Rice here, as well as Puckett, but they are in nevertheless.
As I posted in my reply to skin2 Walker also stole bases and had a great arm to go with his bat, plus 7 Gold Gloves. While I agree he was on the low end in games played his all around play should put him in. Especially over Rice, Puckett was a great fielder as well, but didn't steal as many bases. Puckett and Kiner retired because of injuries.
I guess Walker should have hung around for another year or two, but he didn't.
Did you see Dick Allen's OPS+ WOW
<< <i>
<< <i>Your immaturity is an OPS+ of 7362736452. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is impossible. You read 10% of what I post and run amok with statements that apply to an answer to another question or debate.
What I asked was, since he hit well on the road, why doesn't he get more "love" when the HOF is brought up. You say he didn't play enough games, he certainly did. Career milestones? You mean awards? What milestones? >>
That's funny, because your inability to put forth any cogent thought process, let alone a "straight answer" is constantly my biggest issue with your posts. I've read everything you posted and am responding as I see fit. You constantly run "amok" with trivial points and downright ignorant questions and comments. What are career milestones???? The kind where you get 500 HRs, 1500 RBIs, 3000 hits, etc. If not those levels, certainly something impressive enough. While 383, 1311, .313 is not going to get it done in the era he played in. Perhaps in Dave Parker/Jim Rice's era, it might have been enough.
Who cares what you asked about how he hit on the road??? Answering that question doesn't get the discussion anywhere. It wasn't THAT impressive by anyone's standard in that era. It was good, no question about that. But you make it sound like it was .950 or 1.000. If wasn't! It was well above average, and that's where the "playing enough games" comes into play. Let me break it down for you real simple, if you're only going to be just very good (like Walker), you need put in A LOT of playing time over your career. If you're going to be Mantlesque, then what Walker played would be sufficient. If I seem to run "amok" to you, it's because you don't seem to grasp the issue, including many simple ones. >>
The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate!
<< <i>
<< <i>The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate! >>
Once again, I don't believe that Walker is being dismissed because of just Coors, but mostly because of playing time. But I'm not even sure why you keep dwelling on it. No one suggested that Walker in the HoF was some ridiculous notion. I wouldn't put him in but it's not a crazy notion. But it's by no means a crime to keep him out. But the thread wasn't about him and he was only so good enough anyway that his limited playing time really is a big issue. I give credit to Walker for all the things you mention but at the end of the day, it's still not enough in most people's opinion.
As for playing in Coors or Fenway, some guys (including Walker), play even well above the park adjustment afforded in OPS. Walker's numbers aren't just better at Coors, they're way better than OPS+ would expect them to be. This is one of the "flaws" in OPS+. So you don't even really have a 141 OPS+ guy in my opinion but more like a 135, if that, which makes his induction all the more questionable.
But to a "hard numbers" guy, we could talk all day about why he's so much better than Killebrew because apart from HRs, he beats him handily on all offensive front, as well as baserunning and defense. But OPS+ dispels that notion in various ways. Which is where I reside as well. So I'm stunned that a guy like you wouldn't love and embrace OPS+ which so quickly and simply helps to understand 90-95% of the issue instantly. >>
So now you are saying Killebrew shouldn't be in the HOF?
<< <i>
<< <i>The reason I brought up his road performance is because so many people dismiss Walker because of how much Coors field helped him, SO I was merely trying to show he hit pretty well on the road, comparable (but not quite as good as) my favorite player Killebrew. I did not make it sound like anything, I reported what it was, you are reading too much into what is there.
Are you going to give any credit to Walker for his Gold Gloves or his nice assist totals or his stolen bases?
I accept that both you and skin say he didn't play enough games. He did play more than some who are in HOF. I vote yes on Walker You vote no. Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS agree with me.
Thanks for the rousing debate! >>
Once again, I don't believe that Walker is being dismissed because of just Coors, but mostly because of playing time. But I'm not even sure why you keep dwelling on it. No one suggested that Walker in the HoF was some ridiculous notion. I wouldn't put him in but it's not a crazy notion. But it's by no means a crime to keep him out. But the thread wasn't about him and he was only so good enough anyway that his limited playing time really is a big issue. I give credit to Walker for all the things you mention but at the end of the day, it's still not enough in most people's opinion.
As for playing in Coors or Fenway, some guys (including Walker), play even well above the park adjustment afforded in OPS. Walker's numbers aren't just better at Coors, they're way better than OPS+ would expect them to be. This is one of the "flaws" in OPS+. So you don't even really have a 141 OPS+ guy in my opinion but more like a 135, if that, which makes his induction all the more questionable.
But to a "hard numbers" guy, we could talk all day about why he's so much better than Killebrew because apart from HRs, he beats him handily on all offensive front, as well as baserunning and defense. But OPS+ dispels that notion in various ways. Which is where I reside as well. So I'm stunned that a guy like you wouldn't love and embrace OPS+ which so quickly and simply helps to understand 90-95% of the issue instantly. >>
Wait a minute, now I am confused. First you say OPS+ is wrong by up to 6 points in Walkers case? Then in the next paragraph you say I should "love and embrace OPS+". Skin2 also calls Walkers OPS+ "soft". That's why OPS+ while good, is not great. Isn't 6 points a lot? SOFT number. Batting average, SLG% OB% hard numbers.
<< <i>
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
That's why a guy with a short career will have such a difficult time getting in the Hall. Boy, it's just like you really were born yesterday. >>
10 years is what's required, one or two more average or lousy years makes a difference in Walkers case? Doesn't seem right to me.
<< <i>Geez, you really are confused or have a serious reading comprehension problem. >>
Was coming back (sarcastically). Just like I said there was no such thing as ballpark factor, OPS+ was worthless and I was "making it seem like " Walker had an OPS+ of .950 or 1.00 away from Coors field.
None of those things were said either, but thrown at me to hurt my side of the argument.
Making things up and saying the other guy said them is a lousy way of debating, isn't it?
Funny how childish it is when I do it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Wait a minute, now I am confused. First you say OPS+ is wrong by up to 6 points in Walkers case? Then in the next paragraph you say I should "love and embrace OPS+". Skin2 also calls Walkers OPS+ "soft". That's why OPS+ while good, is not great. Isn't 6 points a lot? SOFT number. Batting average, SLG% OB% hard numbers. >>
As with most things in life and baseball, if you things at face value without any ability and/or willingness to think and analyze, you could draw erroneous conclusions. With OPS+, the likelihood of doing than in the vast majority instances is very small if you understand the formula an that it doesn't take length of playing into account. I'm not even sure what the drivel you posted at the end of the sentence means. >>
At least you are beginning to admit you don't know the difference from a soft number and a hard one, here it is;
Batting average 165 hits in 500 at bats .330 that's what it is, can't dispute the math. You can dispute it's value but not the math.
If you prefer, since it is the argument at hand OPS is; On Base Percentage (hard number) + Slugging Percentage (hard number).
When you ad additional mathematical formulas to try to make a comparative estimation of how players do in relation to a ballpark, OPS+, you are skewing the hard number OPS and trying to make it better, you run into some problems. Most likely going to be SPOT ON for the middle of the numerical range, but it will become less so at the top and bottom of said range, also with extraordinary factors such as Coors field.
Or in Killebrew's case, and you said it yourself, Walker was better in every other aspect of the game than Killebrew. Killebrew's absolute dominance in Home Run Frequency the 1960's makes him a lock for the HOF. Killebrew had a relatively short carreer with 81147 AB and he was injury prone as well, although NOT AS MUCH AS WALKER. Killebrew also only has the one "career milestone" as well. 573 HRs is a nice one though.
Why did BOTH of the other guys state that Walkers OPS+ numbers were incorrect, by as much as 6 points or by calling them "soft"? Are they wrong too?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Geez, you really are confused or have a serious reading comprehension problem. >>
Was coming back (sarcastically). Just like I said there was no such thing as ballpark factor, OPS+ was worthless and I was "making it seem like " Walker had an OPS+ of .950 or 1.00 away from Coors field.
None of those things were said either, but thrown at me to hurt my side of the argument.
Making things up and saying the other guy said them is a lousy way of debating, isn't it?
Funny how childish it is when I do it. >>
First off, quit playing the victim. You're a grown man so suck it up. Secondly, I NEVER said you mentioned ANY of those things. They were all stated in context for illustration purposes. If you could properly comprehend what you read, you wouldn't take things so personally. No one ever called you childish. I did call you uniformed, ignorant about OPS+, etc. which I stand by. >>
Yes dad, sorry dad, don't give up on me dad.
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
JBanzi,
When this topic comes up in terms of longevity and value I go through the following exercise to illustrate why Yaz's last six years of OPS+ of 116 should be viewed as a positive, and not a negative.
Actually, lets use Yaz's last five years, as without those five years he does not have the 3,000 hit club on his resume. His OPS+ those last five years was 108 and he did that at the ages of 39-43.
Let me ask you a question,
Who was a better player Pete O'Brien or Me?? Pete O'Brien only had a lifetime OPS+ of 104. So basically he compiled 12 years of MLB and finished as an average player. Would anyone in their right mind view him as a lesser player than myself who did not even play MLB?
At what point does Pete O'Brien get the credit for being a 104 OPS+ player for 12 years? Should he not get far more credit than me who wasn't even playing in MLB?? Yet that is what you are doing with Yaz when you downgrade his extra years of contribution and compare him to guys that weren't good enough to play and contribute positively through those old man years.
If you agree that Pete O'Brien was indeed a better baseball player than me, then you must also agree that Carl Yasztrsemski putting up an OPS+ of 108 from age 39-43 should also be viewed as a positive over someone like Larry Walker who was retired and not any better than ME at that point...or better yet, much better than Dick Allen or Jim Rice who were was washed up by age 35, and like me were out of MLB from age 36-43 while Yaz was still good enough to start and be an above average MLB hitter up to age 43.
Guys like Yaz, Murray, etc.. were very elite hitters in their prime, and they were also able to be better than average MLB hitters during their old man years, and even in their very young man years too(age 21 etc..), at a time where other players simply were not good enough to hang on or break into MLB. Those are positives for those guys, not negatives, and that typically what sets those guys as HOFer's compared to the Larry Walker, Rice, Allen group(who also did NOT have the same peak compared to the Yaz, Murray group).
I could see your point if Yaz or Murray hung on for their last six years with OPS+ of 65 while they compiled hits at the expense of their teams winning...but that isn't the case at all.
Edited to add that Allen did have a great peak. Rice's peak wasn't nearly as good as people think...but those are the people that just use RBI and ignore the number of RBI opportunities, and the people that don't understand Fenway.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
That's why a guy with a short career will have such a difficult time getting in the Hall. Boy, it's just like you really were born yesterday. >>
10 years is what's required, one or two more average or lousy years makes a difference in Walkers case? Doesn't seem right to me. >>
Yes and almost all the years in which he played, he didn't play full seasons. And another average or lousy season or two wouldn't push the the needle in his case. Seems right to me. Once again, for the hardheaded, a short career is fine if you are an exceptional player. Virtually no one looks at Walker as that, except apparently you. >>
I don't mind being alone in my feelings about Walker, perhaps a new thread with a poll would be interesting? He was hurt a lot, absolutely, but he did everything well..........a true 5 tool player, I think he WAS exceptional. So does Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards and JAWS, they use all kinds of stats as well to determine HOF worthy players. Since he played well over the minimum required, they choose not to reduce his "Hallworthyness".
I am assuming you didn't like Rice either, I didn't care either way with him. Would you agree Walker was better than Rice, or not?
<< <i>Eddie Murray should not be in >>
Halos fan, Murray was the best hitter in MLB during his prime. He also able to be an above average hitter during his old man years. If he is viewed as not being worthy, and that same analysis was put to everyone, it would be a very small HOF.
But, I am sure you just look at Jim Rice's RBI totals and get all gooey about them, without even bothering looking at how many opportunities he had on a yearly basis or looking at the Fenway factor.
I posted above about the longevity of guys like yaz murray.
I do not think Murray was the best hitter of his generation.
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long???
The best/most accurate stat on measuring the value of a hitter(Win Probability Added) has Murray finishing 1st in 1982, 2nd in 1983, 1st in 1984, and 1st in 1985. That is tops.
Below are their years organized by their best season to their worst using OPS+...
Murray.....Rice
159.......157
157.......154
156.......147
156.......141
156.......137
149.......131
140.......128
138.......123
136.......122
136.......120
130.......117
129.......112
123.......102
120.......101
115.......89
113.......70
112.......Not good enough to play MLB(same value as Drew Barrymore)
105.......Drew Barrymore
87.........Drew Barrymore
87.........Drew Barrymore
55.........Drew Barrymore
Murray's best year beats Rice's every year, which is far more telling than what their career OPS+ says, because Murray's was lowered because he was able to still be good enough to hold a MLB job, but not as good during his peak years.
This list shows the fallacy of Rice's supposed dominance during his peak. Murray was actually far more dominant and OPS+ only tells part of the story. Win Probability Added furthers that gap even more!
Basically, you can look at it with Murray having two careers.
In Murray's 1st career, matching the career length of Jim Rice, Murray had a 140 OPS+ compared to Rice's 129. Better than Rice's career easily.
Then, Murray had another seven year career with an OPS+ of 103...which was almost a Pete O'Brien career. Rice's 2nd career was the career of Drew Barrymore as Rice was not good enough to get a job in MLB.
Rice had no value compared to Murray's seven year run of 103 OPS+. So why on earth would anybody view Murray's seven year OPS+ of 103 as a negative, when Rice wasn't even good enough to get a job in MLB when he had the same value as a player as Drew Barrymore??
<< <i>
<< <i>Good one on career milestones, how can a guy with a short career reach them? Maybe he should have been like Yaz, his last 6 years his OPS+ is at 116 or below, if you go last 9 years it's at 125 or below, but he has the milestones! >>
JBanzi,
When this topic comes up in terms of longevity and value I go through the following exercise to illustrate why Yaz's last six years of OPS+ of 116 should be viewed as a positive, and not a negative.
Actually, lets use Yaz's last five years, as without those five years he does not have the 3,000 hit club on his resume. His OPS+ those last five years was 108 and he did that at the ages of 39-43.
Let me ask you a question,
Who was a better player Pete O'Brien or Me?? Pete O'Brien only had a lifetime OPS+ of 104. So basically he compiled 12 years of MLB and finished as an average player. Would anyone in their right mind view him as a lesser player than myself who did not even play MLB?
At what point does Pete O'Brien get the credit for being a 104 OPS+ player for 12 years? Should he not get far more credit than me who wasn't even playing in MLB?? Yet that is what you are doing with Yaz when you downgrade his extra years of contribution and compare him to guys that weren't good enough to play and contribute positively through those old man years.
If you agree that Pete O'Brien was indeed a better baseball player than me, then you must also agree that Carl Yasztrsemski putting up an OPS+ of 108 from age 39-43 should also be viewed as a positive over someone like Larry Walker who was retired and not any better than ME at that point...or better yet, much better than Dick Allen or Jim Rice who were was washed up by age 35, and like me were out of MLB from age 36-43 while Yaz was still good enough to start and be an above average MLB hitter up to age 43.
Guys like Yaz, Murray, etc.. were very elite hitters in their prime, and they were also able to be better than average MLB hitters during their old man years, and even in their very young man years too(age 21 etc..), at a time where other players simply were not good enough to hang on or break into MLB. Those are positives for those guys, not negatives, and that typically what sets those guys as HOFer's compared to the Larry Walker, Rice, Allen group(who also did NOT have the same peak compared to the Yaz, Murray group).
I could see your point if Yaz or Murray hung on for their last six years with OPS+ of 65 while they compiled hits at the expense of their teams winning...but that isn't the case at all.
Edited to add that Allen did have a great peak. Rice's peak wasn't nearly as good as people think...but those are the people that just use RBI and ignore the number of RBI opportunities, and the people that don't understand Fenway. >>
Can't make a comparison (obviously) where there is no data to look at, so I am going to guess YOU! No one can prove me wrong! We're not really going to bring in the very underrated Pete O'Brien are we?
Only saying that it APPEARED Walker still had above average ability, and quit. Zaz was average at best and probably below. However it was always my dream to be a professional ballplayer, so you would have to kick me off the field if I ever would have been good enough to get there.
Well, we can debate that Yaz and Killebrew and Mantle and a lot of guys played too long, or plaayed the exact right amount of time. I am not sure why Walker quit when he was still able to slug over .500 and OPS of .886. Comparing him to Yaz, Larry should have had 6 more years to accumulate some numbers. I read he had some neck problems. BTW Yaz only had maybe 4 superior years the other 19 were for the most part average, but better than me, or a retired Larry Walker.
Who was allowed to hang on with numbers like OPS+ of 65? That seems pretty bad.
The difference is probably that the Red Sox didn't have anyone good in their system and chose not to release YAZ. Boston fans might have rioted as well.
Killebrew's OPS+ was in the low 90's and was released by BOTH the Twins (F#@K Calvin Griffith) and then the K.C. Royals, he wanted "one more year" and a shot at 600 Hrs.
Other guys, like Mike Schmidt (used here only to compare how they retired, not entire careers) quit when they could have played longer.
I would rather play in the MLB at the end of a long fine career than just about anything, so that question is easy. Larry Walker chose not to, and that (along with not playing full seasons) certainly didn't help him in this debate.
Money probably comes into play as well, the players now SHOULD be able to retire earlier and wealthier and healthier.
<< <i>Eddie Murray should not be in >>
WHAT? He doubled his OPS+ from the previous year, he was making a come back, and look at those MILESTONES!
So is Pete O'Brien better than Drew Barrymore?
Why are you picking just Yaz's last year? His last five years he had an OPS+ of 108. That is better than average, and better than what Walker did. Certainly far better than Rice who was washed up by age 35.
Why did you gloss over the Rice Murray comparison?
Most of those guys retire because they lost it, like Rice, Allen. Walker still had some left, but not sure how much. The difference is, we do know that Yaz did have it, so he gets the credit for it!
Schmidt was done too BTW.
If you are unwilling to give guys like Yaz and Murray that credit, then you must also believe that Pete O'Brien had no value as a player or had the same value as Drew Barrymore.
I will admit that Walker certainly is a great 'what if' guy...and he is outstanding...and certainly better than Jim Rice, even considering Walker played in the live ball era.
<< <i>So I ask again,
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long??? >>
I like Drew Barrymore. Have you been drinking Skin? Are you really serious?
<< <i>
<< <i>So I ask again,
Is Pete O'Brien, with only a lifetime OPS+ of 104 a better player than me? Is he a better player than Drew Barrymore? At what point does O'Brien get more credit than Drew Barrymore?
When Yaz and Murray are putting up OPS+ of 110+ during their old man years, they are better to the same degree than guys like Jim Rice, Walker, Allen(who were not good enough to play at that age)....as Pete O'Brien was to Drew Barrymore.
How does one view Yaz's or Murray's last five years of better than league average hitting as a negative, when they are comparing them to guys that weren't good enough to even hold a job for as long??? >>
I like Drew Barrymore. Have you been drinking Skin? Are you really serious? >>
Joe, at what point do Yaz and Murray get credit for their ability to play full time at an old age and produce a 'second' career about as good as Pete O'Brien's? When you use a rate stat to compare players of different career length, one must use the Rice/Murray comparison to get a more clear picture.
If one refuses to give Yaz/Murray that credit, then that is the same as giving Pete O'Brien no credit for his time in MLB. as a 104 OPS+ hitter.
The Rice/Murray comparison lays that out pretty clear. Yes, Rice had the same value as Drew Barrymore while Murray was having the same value as Pete O'Brien. Yet, why would you make it a negative toward Murray when it should be a negative to Rice?? When you look at their career rate OPS+ and disregard all that, then that is what you are doing.
Of all the things you are saying is wrong with OPS+, the one real thing that is wrong is the one you are missing...and that is using it to measure players of different career lengths by just looking at the total final number and not taking into account the Murray/Rice comparison.