@DIMEMAN said:
Ruth would be lucky to run the 100M dash under 1 minute.....if he could make it that far.
You don't have to run that fast when you are circling the bases
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Skin2 said:
Dallas, I'm enjoying each of your responses. They are all well said. I can't really argue against them.
The only one I truly disagree with is Mazeroski, as his short career alone excludes him from the HOF in my opinion(and in how voters typically vote for the Hall). Then the fact that his HOF merit is based entirely on his defense...that is another strike against him. If I come up with the third strike...then we make the move to remove him from the Hall
His name is hard to spell
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm trying to imagine how Ruth managed to hit more triples than Pete Rose, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton and Mickey Mantle - and almost as many as Willie Mays - if he was so ridiculously slow. Maybe dimeman has no idea what he's talking about when he says Ruth was slow and out of shape. Maybe the only films of Ruth show him at the end of his career, and running the bases after hitting a homer. And maybe, just maybe, the human race did not evolve quite as dramatically as dimeman believes between 1920 and 1950.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
No player dominated his era more then Ruth. It was obsene.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
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.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
No player dominated his era more then Ruth. It was obsene.
mark
Depends on how you measure it; Honus Wagner was in the same ballpark. Wagner didn't do it with homers, and he was sort of the anti-Ruth as far as personality and showmanship, but he is one of very few people that you could mention as GOAT and not be laughed at. (Mays and Mantle are in that group, too; you'll only be laughed at if you say they were "much" better than Ruth. Cobb and Williams, I believe, are the only other members.)
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Just realized my favorite player hit more singles, doubles, and triples than Ruth did.LOL.
Not a bad accomplishment even though he was way behind in HR.
@dallasactuary. I never really put Honus and Babe in the same bucket as they only overlapped a couple of seasons. Make no mistake Wagner has an all time great.
Regardless my Grandma K assured me that even back then chicks dug the long ball.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Darin said:
Had to look it up. Ruth with 136 triples.
Just realized my favorite player hit more singles, doubles, and triples than Ruth did.LOL.
Not a bad accomplishment even though he was way behind in HR.
Your favorite player was indeed great. Not close to the same ballpark of greatness as Ruth, of course, but great. To make a more apples to apples comparison, though, you may want to note that he would have beaten Ruth in none of those things except maybe singles had Ruth not spent the first 4+ years of his career as a pitcher and played a 154 game schedule.
Stan Musial was one of the greatest players ever. I don't mention him often because I don't think anyone disagrees much about how great he was, and he wasn't the greatest player of his time (that was Williams). I have noted a few times that Musial's 3 MVPs leave him about five short of the number he ought to have. While Williams was the greatest of that era, Musial towered over the National League as no player had since Honus Wagner and no player has since without cheating. He was also the nicest man to ever play the game.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Brick said:
Mazeroski may be best known for his defense but he hit one of the most notable home runs in MLB history.
No way. The only reason anybody talks about Maz's defense is because of that one home run. If he doesn't hit that homer, he's a forgotten player.
You may be right that the only reason most people talk about Mazeroski was that one homer, but everyone who delved into the statistics rates him as the best ever. Total Baseball ranks him as the best defensive player of all time at any position; better than Ozzie, better than Brooks, etc. He did also win 8 Gold Gloves so it isn't like nobody was noticing how good he was while he was playing, either. So while he may be forgotten by most people if you take away that homer, it is not true that he wouldn't be remembered by "anybody"; the stats are there, and people who study them will always notice Mazeroski.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@PaulMaul said:
Re: Mazeroski...17 years is a short career?
Mazeroski only had 1,300 at bats after the age of 30. Very few Hall of Famers did so little in their 30's, and the ones that did were dominant in their 'short' career.
In those 1,300 post age 30 at bats, Mazeroski had an OPS+ of 73, so his short career saved his percentages. Another 3,000 at bats in his 30's, then his rate stats take a hit like all other Hall of Famers with lengthy careers.
Mazeroski Win Probability Added was -11.4 wins. Which means he was 11 wins below average.
At least Ozzie Smith was .9 wins above average, and Ozzie played a long career with many old man at bats to bring down his percentages.
Maz may be the worst Hall of Famer.
Maz was below average as an offensive player, and his defensive replacements on his team did just as good in the field as he did. None of that speaks Hall of Famer. None of it.
If he was indeed the great fielder EVER, then I would expect him to perform LIGHT YEARS better than the players on his own team, and at is own position!
During Bill Mazeroski's career, there were 10 different seasons where other 2B on his own team played more than 100 innings at 2B. What I looked at during those ten years is the cumulitive fielding totals of both Bill Mazeroski and all of his replacements during THE SAME SEASONS!
What this does is basically compare what Bill Mazeroski did in relation to other players who played under the same circumstances. I am only using Mazeroski's fielding stats and the replacements from during those years. This way they had the same pitchers, the same field conditions, the same weather, and the same fielding mates. The years used were 1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72. Those were all seasons were Mazeroski played at least 100 innings at 2B, and other on his own team did too.
Here are the fielding totals for Mazeroski, and his replacements for those seasons...
If you look at how they did per inning played, you will see that Mazeroski's replacements performed basically about as good as Mazeroski did himself. Maz edged them in assists, errors, and dp per inning. The replacements advantage in PO per innings pretty much wiped out the edge Maz had.
Let's look at it in more easier terms. Here are those figures per 162 games, or 1,458 innings. This is what a typical full season of those figures would look like.....
Call me crazy, but I see the replacement level player from his own team playing equally as well as Mazeroski was defensively. The five extra errors, and four less double plays made are pretty much negated by the extra 25 PO the replacements made. It looks as close to a tie as one can expect.
If Mazeroski was indeed the best fielder in the history of the game, I would certainly expect him to outdistance his own replacements at least somewhat. In fact, he was just merely as good.
Is it because he had superb defensive replacements? If so, then I guess he can't be called the greatest ever if he is already tied with bench players.
Is it because Mazeroski is unfairly being compared because it is his entire career and his old man years hurt him....wait HE DIDN'T HAVE OLD MAN YEARS! He retired by age 35. I would expect any best defensive player ever to be good until age 35. It is the bat that goes quickly, not the glove.
This is by no means a perfect study. But I just can't get over the fact that Mazeroski performed evenly with his replacements. There is bound to be margin of error, but any margin of error will not be enough to convince me that Mazeroski is the greatest fielder of ALL TIME, when I see that the players in his stead did just as good!
The reality is that the best defensive players are NOT as valuable as the best offensive players, because the vast majority of PO and Assists are of the routine variety, and pretty much any replacement player would also make the out. A replacement player cannot come in and do anywhere near as good as hitting as the best hitters.
Skin- you said Maz may be the worst hall of famer.
I might nominate Rabbit Maranville. I don't remember his stats off the top of my head, but
as I recall he hit well below .300 when players hitting .400 was fairly common.
You or Dallas should do an analysis of his stats some time.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
skin - by way of defending Mazeroski, I'll note something about your study that you alluded to, and which also came up in the Ozzie discussion. For most of baseball history, and never moreso than in the 1960's, infielders who could hit well were extremely rare. Run through the middle infielders in Mazeroski's time and you'll see that he was one of the best hitters in that group. But Pittsburgh, like other teams, kept other middle infielders on their roster; middle infielders who couldn't hit a lick, but who were excellent fielders. Dick Schofield - Mazeroski's primary replacement - hung on in the major leagues for 19 years with an OPS+ of 73 (try to find anyone else who did that) because he was a damn good fielder, and could play any infield position well. He was for a couple of years the Pirates primary starting shortstop in fact. You call this group "bench players" seemingly to imply that they aren't major league caliber players. That's often correct, but it's their hitting that usually makes it so, not their fielding. The greatest fielding second baseman ever may well have never played major league baseball because he couldn't hit; of the second basemen who played MLB for long enough to qualify for the HOF, though, the overwhelming consensus is that Maz was the best. If it could be proven that Ray Oyler was the greatest fielder of all-time, even I wouldn't want him in the HOF; there has to be some minimum career length, and 10 years works for the HOF and for me.
Note, too, that while Mazeroski doesn't have any "old man" years, his defensive reputation is based on his prime of 1958-1967. He was still good before and after that, but nothing special. Consider that you are making an argument against Sandy Koufax being in the HOF - shorter career, and much shorter prime - that I know you don't believe. A 10-year prime is long enough to identify greatness, as was Koufax's 5-year prime.
I'm still interested to hear who you would nominate as the greatest fielding second baseman of all time, whether you think he deserves a HOF spot or not. I'd be interested, too, to see how he holds up to a replacement analysis like the one you did for Mazeroski.
Finally, I think I need to add Official Defender of Bill Mazeroski to my sigline.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Being the greatest defensive second baseman defensively may not be any more important than being the greatest pinch hitter or middle reliever. You can only guess if Maz is the greatest defensive second baseman, and anyone I state such as Hubbard would be equally as good as a guess....unless we want to start nominating the best hitters based on how they look when they swing, and that make a defender for Kevin Maas and his sweet swing to be in the HOF
So far we see that the replacement players played defense as good as Ozzie Smith and Bill mazeroski. I was curious as how that looked league wide. I looked at the NL in 1985 and found this:
In 1985 I looked at the defensive starting shortstop for each team, and then compared them to the reserves. Here are the numbers per inning(expressed over a 1,400 inning season):
We already know that 'greatest' defensive SS and 2B were basically interchangeable with there reserves defensively, and when we look at it on a league wide basis, the evidence is showing the same thing.
Some might say that the replacements are only there for their glove, but then if that is the case, the starters(many of whom who won the job by their bat), should have a much lower defensive performance...but the results are basically as interchangeable as they come.
I know that this study isn't iron clad, however, I also know what is at work on the field. My eye test sees the routine balls being hit and fielded, and the numbers back it up.
The value of the defense comes primarily from the pitcher, and the majority of batted balls hit to a fielder are of the routine variety that all MLB defenders at a position can field at near exact percentages, and they even exhibit similar range in getting to balls.
The players who get these obscene assist totals defensively is primarily because they simply get a higher number of balls hit their way compared to their league counterparts(who are equally as good defensively). Since we know that fielding routine ground balls in MLB is akin to kicking extra points in the NFL, having high assist totas(and consequently higher sabermetric defensive ratings), doesn't mean they are that much better than their peers that these ratings suggest.
Ozzie was great. No problem with him being in the hall. Was he the GOAT? Extremely debatable. Even if just talking defense. Truth is, G.O.A.T. gets thrown around quite a bit. I would contend that there are probably less than 15 athletes that would get 80 out of 100 GOAT votes.
The point in this thread that I found most intriguing, was Ozzie being a first ballot and Trammell being off the ballot entirely after 15 tries. Offensively he seemed to dwarf Ozzie's numbers and he had 4 Gold
Gloves with 2 of them coming with Cal in the league(granted, earlier in Cal's career).
I'd love to see Dallas breakdown the two.
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
@Skin2 said:
Being the greatest defensive second baseman defensively may not be any more important than being the greatest pinch hitter or middle reliever.
Now that's an important point that we haven't really discussed yet. I think you're exaggerating, but your point is valid - the differences between the greatest defensive second baseman, a great one, a good one, an average one, a fair one, a bad one, and the worst one are essentially unknown, but in theory they do have values. And in the end, this is where you and are in fundamental disagreement. My position - which is just a feeling and can't be defended - is that it doesn't matter what those values are. Whatever those values are, my belief is that being the greatest defensive second baseman is worthy of the honor of the HOF. If pinch hitting was more common - nobody has ever pinch hit more than 800 times and the guy with the most made close to 600 outs - I might feel the same way about pinch hitters. If middle relievers weren't cast as middle relievers because they weren't good enough to either start or finish I might feel differently about them.
I also think - and if you have a way to go about confirming or refuting my belief please do so - that your quick and dirty studies of starters vs. replacements are being muddied by too many things to be of much use. As you've noted, the great majority of plays are routine and everyone makes them. If they could be backed out, then a comparison of the remainders would tell us a lot more. What looks like (I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 1% advantage for starters over replacements in, say, DPs, might really be a 20% advantage once the routine plays were filtered out. I think it's probably also the case that starters and replacements are out there with a different mix of pitchers, and in different leverage situations. And mostly, as I've said, it's just not possible to determine how good one group of players is by comparing them to an entirely different set of players, since determining how good the second set of players is depends on comparing them to the first set of players.
For me, that everyone who has tried to determine the best defensive second baseman has concluded that it was Mazeroski is enough to satisfy me that he belongs in the HOF. If I knew a better way to determine who that is and found out it was Hughie Critz, then I'd want Hughie Critz in the HOF instead. But I don't.
If you offered me Bill Mazeroski or his contemporary Dick McAuliffe on my team, I'd take McAuliffe in a heartbeat. McAuliffe, overall, was better than Mazeroski. But come HOF balloting time, I'd vote for Mazeroski and not for McAuliffe. Mazeroski did something (according to the consensus of others) that I think is worth honoring while McAuliffe did not.
You'll notice that I'm not throwing a bunch of stats at you when I debate this. I think it's probably true that the stats - if we could figure out exactly which ones to use - would support everything you've said. Mostly, I think the HOF ought to honor the players with the best stats, especially now that people are figuring out which stats matter. But I don't think that it exists solely to honor the best stats; there are other things worth honoring. If Jackie Robinson had had the career of Cookie Rojas, I'd still want him in the HOF. That's more the context than the stats.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Mark, please accept that Dimeman has spoken and it is fact. arguing with him is useless.
I would agree that there are several shortstops who are/were Ozzie Smiths equal, that doesn't take anything away from Smith's greatness or legacy. I really think that the further we get from witnessing him play the harder it is to be totally objective in comparing him with others. strangely, the statistic which may separate him from other shortstops has nothing to do with his skill level --- for some reason he apparently had more balls hit to him.
@Brick said:
Mazeroski may be best known for his defense but he hit one of the most notable home runs in MLB history.
No way. The only reason anybody talks about Maz's defense is because of that one home run. If he doesn't hit that homer, he's a forgotten player.
You may be right that the only reason most people talk about Mazeroski was that one homer, but everyone who delved into the statistics rates him as the best ever. Total Baseball ranks him as the best defensive player of all time at any position; better than Ozzie, better than Brooks, etc. He did also win 8 Gold Gloves so it isn't like nobody was noticing how good he was while he was playing, either. So while he may be forgotten by most people if you take away that homer, it is not true that he wouldn't be remembered by "anybody"; the stats are there, and people who study them will always notice Mazeroski.
Doug Rader won 5 Gold Gloves. When was the last time anybody talked about him? Dwayne Murphy won 6 straight. And he comes up how often?
I'm not saying that I think Ozzie was better because he had more balls hit at him. I think he was the best because he was the hardest SS to get a ball past. All those other counts don't make a case for GOAT for reasons stated. I'm saying he robbed more hitters of hits and RBI's than anybody. Of course there is no way to prove or disprove this.
Dallas, I really cant argue against a belief of yours, and you articulated that well with what you said above.
I can challenge you when you say with such certainty that Mazeroski was the best defensive second baseman of all time. In reality, based on everything we see, based on the pitchers being 80% of the defense, and based on the facts above of reserve second baseman playing just as good as a guy hailed as the best, it seems most realistically that the top 58 defensive second baseman can be thrown in a hat, and whomever is picked is just as good as the other 57(Or I should say has the same impact on winning as the other 57).
Which brings me back to my overall point. A player who is deriving such a high percentage of his value based on his defensive numbers is not as reliable as a player who does the opposite.
Babe Ruth is often hailed as the greatest hitter of all time, and not only are there no reserves in the league who can play at the same rate, there are very few starters who could. How valuable would he be if the reserves in the league could step in and produce at the same rate? There aren't any because the hitting is 95% of a players own doing, while defense is more like 15 or 20% of their own doing, with luck and the pitcher comprising the rest.
A human being who can pitch to MLB hitters and get them to hit ground balls to the second baseman is a far greater commodity than the human being who can pick up that ground ball and throw it to the first baseman.
The pitcher is the value. The defenders have value, but not to the degree where stats give it the same weight as the hitters value, or the pitchers value....and Dallas that is why I disagree with the best defender at his position being elected to the Hall of Fame based on that merit(especially if it is so clouded to even conclude if he is the best defensive second baseman).
Dimeman, you base that on what? I believe the same about Belanger. The most comprehensive defensive measurement has Ozzie Smith with saving 239 runs and Mark Belanger saving 241. Belanger saved more runs in 6,000 less innings at shortstop, so for you to say it was hardest to get a ball past Ozzie smith, the results are saying it was harder to get one past Belanger as Belanger saved more runs and RBI than Smith.
Just because belanger didn't have to dive as much as Ozzie(perhaps Belanger was better at reading the ball off the bat quicker and was on his feet more when he caught the ball), and just because Belanger wasn't televised doing backflips, doesn't mean he was a lesser defender.
Of course those numbers, as I pointed out above, aren't very valid, but if a guy is saying he saw Smith save more balls than anyone, then they are valid for that guys' eyes because the results show that Belanger did.
@Tabe said:
Doug Rader won 5 Gold Gloves. When was the last time anybody talked about him? Dwayne Murphy won 6 straight. And he comes up how often?
Doug was a fine fielder but while Mazeroski won 8 Gold Gloves because he deserved 8 Gold Gloves, Rader won 5 but probably only deserved 3. And if you look at those seasons, nothing really jumps out. Rader won his Gold Gloves at a time when Santo was fading and Schmidt had not yet arrived; somebody had to win in those years, Rader deserved to win in several of them, but there wasn't much more to it than that. Murphy was phenomenal in 1980 and the memory of that amazing season carried on for years afterward. Go back and look at the stats now and 1980 stands out, but he was nothing special after that.
And my point wasn't that Mazeroski won Gold Gloves, it was that he won Gold Gloves (the people who watched him play thought he was the best) AND when you go back and look at his stats they jump out at you. Only 7 second basemen in history have seasons of 10 or more defensive Win Shares. Only one - Mazeroski - has 2. Of the top 10 seasons of all time, Mazeroski is on the list 3 times (nobody else more than once), and he has the #1 spot. The people who watched Mazeroski, Rader and Murphy play thought they were the best year after year. What makes Mazeroski different is that in his case, people were right. Great fielders get talked about years after they're gone; having lots of Gold Gloves is not the same thing as being a great fielder.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Frank White was better than Mazeroski. Frank had great range on the artificial turf Royals Stadium
had at the time. Can't tell me Maz would have gotten to all the balls Frank White got to.
And if you say Maz had more chances, DP's etc etc, its because of the turf and the balls getting through
the infield so fast at White's home park. Not because Maz had better range.
@Skin2 said:
A human being who can pitch to MLB hitters and get them to hit ground balls to the second baseman is a far greater commodity than the human being who can pick up that ground ball and throw it to the first baseman.
The pitcher is the value. The defenders have value, but not to the degree where stats give it the same weight as the hitters value, or the pitchers value....and Dallas that is why I disagree with the best defender at his position being elected to the Hall of Fame based on that merit(especially if it is so clouded to even conclude if he is the best defensive second baseman).
I'll let this be my last word on this subject - I don't disagree with a word you've said, I just have a different conception of the HOF than you do.
Regarding your comments about Belanger, my sense (based on trying to make sense of the various defensive statistics) is that it is at least as likely that Belanger was the greatest shortstop ever as it is that Ozzie was. I don't mind at all that Ozzie is the HOF, and I wouldn't mind at all if Belanger had gotten there first. I think that Belanger's hitting was just too bad to even get him considered; Ozzie (and Mazeroski before him) weren't good hitters, but they were good enough that people could get past it to look at their fielding. I do wish Belanger was more remembered today than he is - he was oustanding. The 1970 Orioles team was loaded with great fielders; in addition to Belanger, Robinson and Blair are legitimate GOAT candidates at their positions, and Davey Johnson, Rettenmund, and Dave May were also very good.
As for Frank White, I don't know if he was better than Mazeroski, but he was the best in the AL for a long time. Of course he was on the team that stole the WS from the Cardinals in the worst travesty in sports history so I hate him with the fire of a thousand suns, but I'll acknowledge that he was a great fielder.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'll lob this into the mix. How many middle infielder combo's were better then Trammell and Whitaker? Defense and offense. Probably played together for more then 15 years. Separate they were great. As a combo they were awesome. Neither got a whiff of the hall.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Agree on White's defensive prowess.
I'll lob this into the mix. How many middle infielder combo's were better then Trammell and Whitaker? Defense and offense. Probably played together for more then 15 years. Separate they were great. As a combo they were awesome. Neither got a whiff of the hall.
m
19 years
For long-term runs, nobody was better. Surely there were some that were better for a year or two at a time but nobody that was together more than 5 years that I can think of at the moment.
It really is a crime that neither guy got much HOF consideration.
Morgan/Concepcion had a pretty good run. But it that case Joe was the lynchpin
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
How many middle infielder combo's were better then Trammell and Whitaker? Defense and offense.
None.
I'd also like to kick the dead horse one last time and point out something about Mazeroski that I hadn't mentioned yet. One of the main reasons that skin is, shall we say, skeptical that Mazeroski belongs in the HOF is that, even if we could somehow establish that he was the best defensive second baseman, he just didn't play that long. It's a valid point, but in his relatively short career Mazeroski turned more double plays than any other second baseman ever. If you check the single season records for DPs at second base, you'll find Maz on top, in the top 10 3 times and in the top 100 8 times. Shortstops came and went throughout Mazeroski's career, but all of them (Groat, Alley, Schofield) are also on the all-time single season top 100; Groat and Alley several times, Schofield once.
If I had to pick the best defensive second baseman of all time, I'd pick Mazeroski, but I'd only be about 50% sure I had picked the right guy. But if I had to pick the best second baseman of all time at turning double plays I'd pick Mazeroski and be 99% sure I'd picked the right guy. We've talked about ignoring the huge percentage of plays that are routine, so that only the plays that truly differentiate between major leaguers remain; a substantial percentage of what's left for second basemen are double plays.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Justacommeman said:
How many middle infielder combo's were better then Trammell and Whitaker? Defense and offense.
None.
I'd also like to kick the dead horse one last time and point out something about Mazeroski that I hadn't mentioned yet. One of the main reasons that skin is, shall we say, skeptical that Mazeroski belongs in the HOF is that, even if we could somehow establish that he was the best defensive second baseman, he just didn't play that long. It's a valid point, but in his relatively short career Mazeroski turned more double plays than any other second baseman ever. If you check the single season records for DPs at second base, you'll find Maz on top, in the top 10 3 times and in the top 100 8 times. Shortstops came and went throughout Mazeroski's career, but all of them (Groat, Alley, Schofield) are also on the all-time single season top 100; Groat and Alley several times, Schofield once.
If I had to pick the best defensive second baseman of all time, I'd pick Mazeroski, but I'd only be about 50% sure I had picked the right guy. But if I had to pick the best second baseman of all time at turning double plays I'd pick Mazeroski and be 99% sure I'd picked the right guy. We've talked about ignoring the huge percentage of plays that are routine, so that only the plays that truly differentiate between major leaguers remain; a substantial percentage of what's left for second basemen are double plays.
Maz wasn't the only one turning double plays at a high rate for his team.
I should have noticed this earlier, but the method you're using has a clear bias in it. You are only looking at the seasons where the replacements played significant innings, but those are the seasons in which Mazeroski was either old or hurt. You are excluding the seasons in which Mazeroski was young and healthy. In those seasons, Mazeroski's DP per season (using the same 1,458 innings you used) wasn't 129, it was 141. His errors and assists don't change much, but his POs rise to 413.
Does that prove anything? No. But it's part of the picture.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Skin2 said:
1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72 were the years that were used...and Mazeroski never played as an old man.
I realize that, but '58, '60, '61, '62, '64, '66 and '67 were Mazeroski's best years. Those are the years when he was healthy enough to play virtually the entire season. The implication of the way you've set up your analysis is that the comparison is between Mazeroski at his average performance level vs. his replacements at their average performance level. But the years you selected are precisely those in which Mazeroski was below his average level. In '69, '71 and '72, his "replacement" was actually the excellent starting second basemen Dave Cash, and Mazeroski was his replacement. It's a fairly significant distinction to ignore, and it creates a bias.
You can fault Mazeroski for retiring early (for becoming an "old man" earlier than he should have), or you can perform an analysis that treats his last several seasons as if they are not "old man" years, but you can't do both. I look at the decade from 1958 to 1967 and see the best second baseman. You're faulting him for not lasting longer, and then performing an analysis that only "works" if he did last longer.
Mazeroski was an "old man" at 31 (1968) and got worse each year until he retired. The reason, by the way, that this happened was a broken foot in 1965. In his 20's he was strong enough to play well despite the pain and the adjustments he needed to make to his technique but in his 30's he wasn't. Had he retired rather than ride the bench for a few more years, the analogy to Koufax would be nearly perfect. Had Koufax kept playing, despite the pain he was in from arthritis, he might very well have had some pretty ordinary years, pitched less and less each year, and retired at 35. What would you think of an analysis that compared Koufax to other pitchers in only those years, and concluded he wasn't great? It's certainly less dramatic than Koufax, but that's essentially what you've done with Mazeroski.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Re: Mazeroski...17 years is a short career?
You don't have to run that fast when you are circling the bases
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
His name is hard to spell
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Nice to see some love for Belanger. Sad to find out Ruth was over rated :-(
Well come on now, six teams did hit more homers than him in '21.
Mazeroski may be best known for his defense but he hit one of the most notable home runs in MLB history.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I don't believe there is a time limit to round the bases after hitting one out of the park.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I'm trying to imagine how Ruth managed to hit more triples than Pete Rose, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton and Mickey Mantle - and almost as many as Willie Mays - if he was so ridiculously slow. Maybe dimeman has no idea what he's talking about when he says Ruth was slow and out of shape. Maybe the only films of Ruth show him at the end of his career, and running the bases after hitting a homer. And maybe, just maybe, the human race did not evolve quite as dramatically as dimeman believes between 1920 and 1950.
No player dominated his era more then Ruth. It was obsene.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
why do i have this overwhelming feeling that if Babe had played for the Dallas Cowboys the texture of this conversation would be noticeably different
all of a sudden there would be d-man anecdotes coming out of the woodwork about him hanging with bob hayes in flip-flops
I hate Pete Rose
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Romo is a HOFer.
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.
Below the belt
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
we're a barry sanders comment away from a full-fledged conniption fit
Depends on how you measure it; Honus Wagner was in the same ballpark. Wagner didn't do it with homers, and he was sort of the anti-Ruth as far as personality and showmanship, but he is one of very few people that you could mention as GOAT and not be laughed at. (Mays and Mantle are in that group, too; you'll only be laughed at if you say they were "much" better than Ruth. Cobb and Williams, I believe, are the only other members.)
Had to look it up. Ruth with 136 triples.
Just realized my favorite player hit more singles, doubles, and triples than Ruth did.LOL.
Not a bad accomplishment even though he was way behind in HR.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
dallas-
what are your thoughts on Musial? can't recall you talking about him much
@dallasactuary. I never really put Honus and Babe in the same bucket as they only overlapped a couple of seasons. Make no mistake Wagner has an all time great.
Regardless my Grandma K assured me that even back then chicks dug the long ball.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Your favorite player was indeed great. Not close to the same ballpark of greatness as Ruth, of course, but great. To make a more apples to apples comparison, though, you may want to note that he would have beaten Ruth in none of those things except maybe singles had Ruth not spent the first 4+ years of his career as a pitcher and played a 154 game schedule.
Stan Musial was one of the greatest players ever. I don't mention him often because I don't think anyone disagrees much about how great he was, and he wasn't the greatest player of his time (that was Williams). I have noted a few times that Musial's 3 MVPs leave him about five short of the number he ought to have. While Williams was the greatest of that era, Musial towered over the National League as no player had since Honus Wagner and no player has since without cheating. He was also the nicest man to ever play the game.
Apparently twice a game, LOL.
No way. The only reason anybody talks about Maz's defense is because of that one home run. If he doesn't hit that homer, he's a forgotten player.
Babe Ruth, "fat" guy:
You guys are a hoot and I luv ya all. And Dallas I agree with you 100% on Stan the Man.
You may be right that the only reason most people talk about Mazeroski was that one homer, but everyone who delved into the statistics rates him as the best ever. Total Baseball ranks him as the best defensive player of all time at any position; better than Ozzie, better than Brooks, etc. He did also win 8 Gold Gloves so it isn't like nobody was noticing how good he was while he was playing, either. So while he may be forgotten by most people if you take away that homer, it is not true that he wouldn't be remembered by "anybody"; the stats are there, and people who study them will always notice Mazeroski.
Mazeroski only had 1,300 at bats after the age of 30. Very few Hall of Famers did so little in their 30's, and the ones that did were dominant in their 'short' career.
In those 1,300 post age 30 at bats, Mazeroski had an OPS+ of 73, so his short career saved his percentages. Another 3,000 at bats in his 30's, then his rate stats take a hit like all other Hall of Famers with lengthy careers.
Mazeroski Win Probability Added was -11.4 wins. Which means he was 11 wins below average.
At least Ozzie Smith was .9 wins above average, and Ozzie played a long career with many old man at bats to bring down his percentages.
Maz may be the worst Hall of Famer.
Maz was below average as an offensive player, and his defensive replacements on his team did just as good in the field as he did. None of that speaks Hall of Famer. None of it.
THE FIELDING ABILITY OF BILL MAZEROSKI
If he was indeed the great fielder EVER, then I would expect him to perform LIGHT YEARS better than the players on his own team, and at is own position!
During Bill Mazeroski's career, there were 10 different seasons where other 2B on his own team played more than 100 innings at 2B. What I looked at during those ten years is the cumulitive fielding totals of both Bill Mazeroski and all of his replacements during THE SAME SEASONS!
What this does is basically compare what Bill Mazeroski did in relation to other players who played under the same circumstances. I am only using Mazeroski's fielding stats and the replacements from during those years. This way they had the same pitchers, the same field conditions, the same weather, and the same fielding mates. The years used were 1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72. Those were all seasons were Mazeroski played at least 100 innings at 2B, and other on his own team did too.
Here are the fielding totals for Mazeroski, and his replacements for those seasons...
NAME...............INNINGS........PO.............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski.........8,576.......2,208.......3,147........91.............765
Replacements...5,771......1,586.......2,102........83..............499
Here is what the average per inning is....
NAME................INNINGs.......PO............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski----------------------.257-------.366------.010---------.089
Replacements-----------------.274-------.364------.014---------.086
If you look at how they did per inning played, you will see that Mazeroski's replacements performed basically about as good as Mazeroski did himself. Maz edged them in assists, errors, and dp per inning. The replacements advantage in PO per innings pretty much wiped out the edge Maz had.
Let's look at it in more easier terms. Here are those figures per 162 games, or 1,458 innings. This is what a typical full season of those figures would look like.....
NAME...................INNINGS..........PO.........A..........E............DP
Mazeroski..............1,458...........374........533......15...........129
Repacements.........1,458...........399.......531.......20...........125
Call me crazy, but I see the replacement level player from his own team playing equally as well as Mazeroski was defensively. The five extra errors, and four less double plays made are pretty much negated by the extra 25 PO the replacements made. It looks as close to a tie as one can expect.
If Mazeroski was indeed the best fielder in the history of the game, I would certainly expect him to outdistance his own replacements at least somewhat. In fact, he was just merely as good.
Is it because he had superb defensive replacements? If so, then I guess he can't be called the greatest ever if he is already tied with bench players.
Is it because Mazeroski is unfairly being compared because it is his entire career and his old man years hurt him....wait HE DIDN'T HAVE OLD MAN YEARS! He retired by age 35. I would expect any best defensive player ever to be good until age 35. It is the bat that goes quickly, not the glove.
This is by no means a perfect study. But I just can't get over the fact that Mazeroski performed evenly with his replacements. There is bound to be margin of error, but any margin of error will not be enough to convince me that Mazeroski is the greatest fielder of ALL TIME, when I see that the players in his stead did just as good!
The reality is that the best defensive players are NOT as valuable as the best offensive players, because the vast majority of PO and Assists are of the routine variety, and pretty much any replacement player would also make the out. A replacement player cannot come in and do anywhere near as good as hitting as the best hitters.
Skin- you said Maz may be the worst hall of famer.
I might nominate Rabbit Maranville. I don't remember his stats off the top of my head, but
as I recall he hit well below .300 when players hitting .400 was fairly common.
You or Dallas should do an analysis of his stats some time.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
The veterans committee saved Maz.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
skin - by way of defending Mazeroski, I'll note something about your study that you alluded to, and which also came up in the Ozzie discussion. For most of baseball history, and never moreso than in the 1960's, infielders who could hit well were extremely rare. Run through the middle infielders in Mazeroski's time and you'll see that he was one of the best hitters in that group. But Pittsburgh, like other teams, kept other middle infielders on their roster; middle infielders who couldn't hit a lick, but who were excellent fielders. Dick Schofield - Mazeroski's primary replacement - hung on in the major leagues for 19 years with an OPS+ of 73 (try to find anyone else who did that) because he was a damn good fielder, and could play any infield position well. He was for a couple of years the Pirates primary starting shortstop in fact. You call this group "bench players" seemingly to imply that they aren't major league caliber players. That's often correct, but it's their hitting that usually makes it so, not their fielding. The greatest fielding second baseman ever may well have never played major league baseball because he couldn't hit; of the second basemen who played MLB for long enough to qualify for the HOF, though, the overwhelming consensus is that Maz was the best. If it could be proven that Ray Oyler was the greatest fielder of all-time, even I wouldn't want him in the HOF; there has to be some minimum career length, and 10 years works for the HOF and for me.
Note, too, that while Mazeroski doesn't have any "old man" years, his defensive reputation is based on his prime of 1958-1967. He was still good before and after that, but nothing special. Consider that you are making an argument against Sandy Koufax being in the HOF - shorter career, and much shorter prime - that I know you don't believe. A 10-year prime is long enough to identify greatness, as was Koufax's 5-year prime.
I'm still interested to hear who you would nominate as the greatest fielding second baseman of all time, whether you think he deserves a HOF spot or not. I'd be interested, too, to see how he holds up to a replacement analysis like the one you did for Mazeroski.
Finally, I think I need to add Official Defender of Bill Mazeroski to my sigline.
Being the greatest defensive second baseman defensively may not be any more important than being the greatest pinch hitter or middle reliever. You can only guess if Maz is the greatest defensive second baseman, and anyone I state such as Hubbard would be equally as good as a guess....unless we want to start nominating the best hitters based on how they look when they swing, and that make a defender for Kevin Maas and his sweet swing to be in the HOF
So far we see that the replacement players played defense as good as Ozzie Smith and Bill mazeroski. I was curious as how that looked league wide. I looked at the NL in 1985 and found this:
In 1985 I looked at the defensive starting shortstop for each team, and then compared them to the reserves. Here are the numbers per inning(expressed over a 1,400 inning season):
............................................PO......A......E........DP..........Innings
NL Starting shortstops....256....497...26.........92......13,002
NL Reserve shortstops....261....515...32........101......4,421
We already know that 'greatest' defensive SS and 2B were basically interchangeable with there reserves defensively, and when we look at it on a league wide basis, the evidence is showing the same thing.
Some might say that the replacements are only there for their glove, but then if that is the case, the starters(many of whom who won the job by their bat), should have a much lower defensive performance...but the results are basically as interchangeable as they come.
I know that this study isn't iron clad, however, I also know what is at work on the field. My eye test sees the routine balls being hit and fielded, and the numbers back it up.
The value of the defense comes primarily from the pitcher, and the majority of batted balls hit to a fielder are of the routine variety that all MLB defenders at a position can field at near exact percentages, and they even exhibit similar range in getting to balls.
The players who get these obscene assist totals defensively is primarily because they simply get a higher number of balls hit their way compared to their league counterparts(who are equally as good defensively). Since we know that fielding routine ground balls in MLB is akin to kicking extra points in the NFL, having high assist totas(and consequently higher sabermetric defensive ratings), doesn't mean they are that much better than their peers that these ratings suggest.
Ozzie was great. No problem with him being in the hall. Was he the GOAT? Extremely debatable. Even if just talking defense. Truth is, G.O.A.T. gets thrown around quite a bit. I would contend that there are probably less than 15 athletes that would get 80 out of 100 GOAT votes.
The point in this thread that I found most intriguing, was Ozzie being a first ballot and Trammell being off the ballot entirely after 15 tries. Offensively he seemed to dwarf Ozzie's numbers and he had 4 Gold
Gloves with 2 of them coming with Cal in the league(granted, earlier in Cal's career).
I'd love to see Dallas breakdown the two.
Now that's an important point that we haven't really discussed yet. I think you're exaggerating, but your point is valid - the differences between the greatest defensive second baseman, a great one, a good one, an average one, a fair one, a bad one, and the worst one are essentially unknown, but in theory they do have values. And in the end, this is where you and are in fundamental disagreement. My position - which is just a feeling and can't be defended - is that it doesn't matter what those values are. Whatever those values are, my belief is that being the greatest defensive second baseman is worthy of the honor of the HOF. If pinch hitting was more common - nobody has ever pinch hit more than 800 times and the guy with the most made close to 600 outs - I might feel the same way about pinch hitters. If middle relievers weren't cast as middle relievers because they weren't good enough to either start or finish I might feel differently about them.
I also think - and if you have a way to go about confirming or refuting my belief please do so - that your quick and dirty studies of starters vs. replacements are being muddied by too many things to be of much use. As you've noted, the great majority of plays are routine and everyone makes them. If they could be backed out, then a comparison of the remainders would tell us a lot more. What looks like (I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here) a 1% advantage for starters over replacements in, say, DPs, might really be a 20% advantage once the routine plays were filtered out. I think it's probably also the case that starters and replacements are out there with a different mix of pitchers, and in different leverage situations. And mostly, as I've said, it's just not possible to determine how good one group of players is by comparing them to an entirely different set of players, since determining how good the second set of players is depends on comparing them to the first set of players.
For me, that everyone who has tried to determine the best defensive second baseman has concluded that it was Mazeroski is enough to satisfy me that he belongs in the HOF. If I knew a better way to determine who that is and found out it was Hughie Critz, then I'd want Hughie Critz in the HOF instead. But I don't.
If you offered me Bill Mazeroski or his contemporary Dick McAuliffe on my team, I'd take McAuliffe in a heartbeat. McAuliffe, overall, was better than Mazeroski. But come HOF balloting time, I'd vote for Mazeroski and not for McAuliffe. Mazeroski did something (according to the consensus of others) that I think is worth honoring while McAuliffe did not.
You'll notice that I'm not throwing a bunch of stats at you when I debate this. I think it's probably true that the stats - if we could figure out exactly which ones to use - would support everything you've said. Mostly, I think the HOF ought to honor the players with the best stats, especially now that people are figuring out which stats matter. But I don't think that it exists solely to honor the best stats; there are other things worth honoring. If Jackie Robinson had had the career of Cookie Rojas, I'd still want him in the HOF. That's more the context than the stats.
Mark, please accept that Dimeman has spoken and it is fact. arguing with him is useless.
I would agree that there are several shortstops who are/were Ozzie Smiths equal, that doesn't take anything away from Smith's greatness or legacy. I really think that the further we get from witnessing him play the harder it is to be totally objective in comparing him with others. strangely, the statistic which may separate him from other shortstops has nothing to do with his skill level --- for some reason he apparently had more balls hit to him.
Doug Rader won 5 Gold Gloves. When was the last time anybody talked about him? Dwayne Murphy won 6 straight. And he comes up how often?
I'm not saying that I think Ozzie was better because he had more balls hit at him. I think he was the best because he was the hardest SS to get a ball past. All those other counts don't make a case for GOAT for reasons stated. I'm saying he robbed more hitters of hits and RBI's than anybody. Of course there is no way to prove or disprove this.
Dallas, I really cant argue against a belief of yours, and you articulated that well with what you said above.
I can challenge you when you say with such certainty that Mazeroski was the best defensive second baseman of all time. In reality, based on everything we see, based on the pitchers being 80% of the defense, and based on the facts above of reserve second baseman playing just as good as a guy hailed as the best, it seems most realistically that the top 58 defensive second baseman can be thrown in a hat, and whomever is picked is just as good as the other 57(Or I should say has the same impact on winning as the other 57).
Which brings me back to my overall point. A player who is deriving such a high percentage of his value based on his defensive numbers is not as reliable as a player who does the opposite.
Babe Ruth is often hailed as the greatest hitter of all time, and not only are there no reserves in the league who can play at the same rate, there are very few starters who could. How valuable would he be if the reserves in the league could step in and produce at the same rate? There aren't any because the hitting is 95% of a players own doing, while defense is more like 15 or 20% of their own doing, with luck and the pitcher comprising the rest.
A human being who can pitch to MLB hitters and get them to hit ground balls to the second baseman is a far greater commodity than the human being who can pick up that ground ball and throw it to the first baseman.
The pitcher is the value. The defenders have value, but not to the degree where stats give it the same weight as the hitters value, or the pitchers value....and Dallas that is why I disagree with the best defender at his position being elected to the Hall of Fame based on that merit(especially if it is so clouded to even conclude if he is the best defensive second baseman).
Dimeman, you base that on what? I believe the same about Belanger. The most comprehensive defensive measurement has Ozzie Smith with saving 239 runs and Mark Belanger saving 241. Belanger saved more runs in 6,000 less innings at shortstop, so for you to say it was hardest to get a ball past Ozzie smith, the results are saying it was harder to get one past Belanger as Belanger saved more runs and RBI than Smith.
Just because belanger didn't have to dive as much as Ozzie(perhaps Belanger was better at reading the ball off the bat quicker and was on his feet more when he caught the ball), and just because Belanger wasn't televised doing backflips, doesn't mean he was a lesser defender.
Of course those numbers, as I pointed out above, aren't very valid, but if a guy is saying he saw Smith save more balls than anyone, then they are valid for that guys' eyes because the results show that Belanger did.
Doug was a fine fielder but while Mazeroski won 8 Gold Gloves because he deserved 8 Gold Gloves, Rader won 5 but probably only deserved 3. And if you look at those seasons, nothing really jumps out. Rader won his Gold Gloves at a time when Santo was fading and Schmidt had not yet arrived; somebody had to win in those years, Rader deserved to win in several of them, but there wasn't much more to it than that. Murphy was phenomenal in 1980 and the memory of that amazing season carried on for years afterward. Go back and look at the stats now and 1980 stands out, but he was nothing special after that.
And my point wasn't that Mazeroski won Gold Gloves, it was that he won Gold Gloves (the people who watched him play thought he was the best) AND when you go back and look at his stats they jump out at you. Only 7 second basemen in history have seasons of 10 or more defensive Win Shares. Only one - Mazeroski - has 2. Of the top 10 seasons of all time, Mazeroski is on the list 3 times (nobody else more than once), and he has the #1 spot. The people who watched Mazeroski, Rader and Murphy play thought they were the best year after year. What makes Mazeroski different is that in his case, people were right. Great fielders get talked about years after they're gone; having lots of Gold Gloves is not the same thing as being a great fielder.
Frank White was better than Mazeroski. Frank had great range on the artificial turf Royals Stadium
had at the time. Can't tell me Maz would have gotten to all the balls Frank White got to.
And if you say Maz had more chances, DP's etc etc, its because of the turf and the balls getting through
the infield so fast at White's home park. Not because Maz had better range.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I'll let this be my last word on this subject - I don't disagree with a word you've said, I just have a different conception of the HOF than you do.
Regarding your comments about Belanger, my sense (based on trying to make sense of the various defensive statistics) is that it is at least as likely that Belanger was the greatest shortstop ever as it is that Ozzie was. I don't mind at all that Ozzie is the HOF, and I wouldn't mind at all if Belanger had gotten there first. I think that Belanger's hitting was just too bad to even get him considered; Ozzie (and Mazeroski before him) weren't good hitters, but they were good enough that people could get past it to look at their fielding. I do wish Belanger was more remembered today than he is - he was oustanding. The 1970 Orioles team was loaded with great fielders; in addition to Belanger, Robinson and Blair are legitimate GOAT candidates at their positions, and Davey Johnson, Rettenmund, and Dave May were also very good.
As for Frank White, I don't know if he was better than Mazeroski, but he was the best in the AL for a long time. Of course he was on the team that stole the WS from the Cardinals in the worst travesty in sports history so I hate him with the fire of a thousand suns, but I'll acknowledge that he was a great fielder.
Agree on White's defensive prowess.
I'll lob this into the mix. How many middle infielder combo's were better then Trammell and Whitaker? Defense and offense. Probably played together for more then 15 years. Separate they were great. As a combo they were awesome. Neither got a whiff of the hall.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
19 years
For long-term runs, nobody was better. Surely there were some that were better for a year or two at a time but nobody that was together more than 5 years that I can think of at the moment.
It really is a crime that neither guy got much HOF consideration.
Morgan/Concepcion had a pretty good run. But it that case Joe was the lynchpin
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
None.
I'd also like to kick the dead horse one last time and point out something about Mazeroski that I hadn't mentioned yet. One of the main reasons that skin is, shall we say, skeptical that Mazeroski belongs in the HOF is that, even if we could somehow establish that he was the best defensive second baseman, he just didn't play that long. It's a valid point, but in his relatively short career Mazeroski turned more double plays than any other second baseman ever. If you check the single season records for DPs at second base, you'll find Maz on top, in the top 10 3 times and in the top 100 8 times. Shortstops came and went throughout Mazeroski's career, but all of them (Groat, Alley, Schofield) are also on the all-time single season top 100; Groat and Alley several times, Schofield once.
If I had to pick the best defensive second baseman of all time, I'd pick Mazeroski, but I'd only be about 50% sure I had picked the right guy. But if I had to pick the best second baseman of all time at turning double plays I'd pick Mazeroski and be 99% sure I'd picked the right guy. We've talked about ignoring the huge percentage of plays that are routine, so that only the plays that truly differentiate between major leaguers remain; a substantial percentage of what's left for second basemen are double plays.
NAME...................INNINGS..........PO.........A..........E............DP
Mazeroski..............1,458...........374........533......15...........129
Repacements.........1,458...........399.......531.......20...........125
Maz wasn't the only one turning double plays at a high rate for his team.
I should have noticed this earlier, but the method you're using has a clear bias in it. You are only looking at the seasons where the replacements played significant innings, but those are the seasons in which Mazeroski was either old or hurt. You are excluding the seasons in which Mazeroski was young and healthy. In those seasons, Mazeroski's DP per season (using the same 1,458 innings you used) wasn't 129, it was 141. His errors and assists don't change much, but his POs rise to 413.
Does that prove anything? No. But it's part of the picture.
1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72 were the years that were used...and Mazeroski never played as an old man.
I realize that, but '58, '60, '61, '62, '64, '66 and '67 were Mazeroski's best years. Those are the years when he was healthy enough to play virtually the entire season. The implication of the way you've set up your analysis is that the comparison is between Mazeroski at his average performance level vs. his replacements at their average performance level. But the years you selected are precisely those in which Mazeroski was below his average level. In '69, '71 and '72, his "replacement" was actually the excellent starting second basemen Dave Cash, and Mazeroski was his replacement. It's a fairly significant distinction to ignore, and it creates a bias.
You can fault Mazeroski for retiring early (for becoming an "old man" earlier than he should have), or you can perform an analysis that treats his last several seasons as if they are not "old man" years, but you can't do both. I look at the decade from 1958 to 1967 and see the best second baseman. You're faulting him for not lasting longer, and then performing an analysis that only "works" if he did last longer.
Mazeroski was an "old man" at 31 (1968) and got worse each year until he retired. The reason, by the way, that this happened was a broken foot in 1965. In his 20's he was strong enough to play well despite the pain and the adjustments he needed to make to his technique but in his 30's he wasn't. Had he retired rather than ride the bench for a few more years, the analogy to Koufax would be nearly perfect. Had Koufax kept playing, despite the pain he was in from arthritis, he might very well have had some pretty ordinary years, pitched less and less each year, and retired at 35. What would you think of an analysis that compared Koufax to other pitchers in only those years, and concluded he wasn't great? It's certainly less dramatic than Koufax, but that's essentially what you've done with Mazeroski.