<< <i>Yaz typically gets bashed, because as Dallas pointed out, he produced so good in the second dead ball era, that people fail to put his numbers in perspective those years. Also, the rest of his years are not as bad as people say.
On the other side of the coin, Clemente typically gets vaulted a bit too high.
They played a good chunk in the same era, here are their best 15 OPS+ years stacked side by side:
Yaz's top five years easily beats Clemente's Clemente's next five beats Yaz, by about the same margin as Yaz beat Clemente in the top five Yaz's 11-15 yrs beat's Clemente's
So 2/3 of the top 15 years has Yaz ahead of Clemente.
Then remarkably, Yaz threw up even more above average years: 113 112 112 111 108 106 96 91
The fact that Yaz was STILL able to be an above average hitter so long, should NOT be a penalty toward him...and that is what people falsely do.
From age 35-43 Yaz had an OPS+ of 113...with 4,876 Plate Appearances. That is a positive, not a negative.
People mistakingly call that 'compiling', and they are flat out WRONG. As shown above, the only thing Yaz 'compiled' was a five year peak better than Clemente's, and then a 15 year peak as good or better than Clemente's.
After ACCOMPLISHING all that, he threw up another 4,100 plate appearances, as an old man, with an OPS+ of 113.....and to put that into terms, Ichiro's career OPS+ was 110 >>
Yaz played in Fenway Park and Clemente played at Forbes field. Clemente is considered one of the best outfielders in history. >>
<< <i>Beginning with Tier IV, reasonable people can start having debates about whether the player truly belongs in the HOF. I think the great majority of them do, but for those who hold that the HOF should only be for the “best of the best”, then it starts getting gray in Tier IV whether these players meet that standard. >>
Debate is not whether Nolan Ryan belongs in Cooperstown as much as why is he down in your tier IV. Seven no hitters, 5714 strike outs. No doubt a mere compiler.
Fantastic book on Berra "Yogi Berra Eternal Yankee" compares him with all the great catchers using several different systems and he comes out as the best catcher of all time, about equal with Bench. Bench having a higher peak value. Carter is also highly rated.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
skin - I'm looking at the original analysis and your suggestions and have a few questions.
WPA appears to exit only post-1940, at least on bb-ref. Is that correct? If so, I can't use it without making my system exponentially more complicated.
Batter Runs and wins exist for every year, but the values on bb-ref appear to be really low for players who steal a lot of bases. Do those stats include stolen bases? If not, then I need something else. If so, then some of the big base stealers are going to take a tumble down the Tiers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Debate is not whether Nolan Ryan belongs in Cooperstown as much as why is he down in your tier IV. Seven no hitters, 5714 strike outs. No doubt a mere compiler.
Looks like your buckets have some termite damage. >>
First, Nolan Ryan is my favorite player of all time. The seven no hitters, the countless no-hitters taken into the seventh inning, the mountains of strikeouts, the brushback pitches, the old man pounding of Robin Ventura - no doubt he was one of the most exciting and entertaining pitchers in history. And a HOF that excluded Nolan Ryan would be an absolute joke.
But second, there were a whole lot of pitchers, historically and at the same time Ryan was pitching, who were better. Is Tier IV too low? Maybe, but if he had ended up higher than Tier III it would have bothered me quite a bit. Ryan's "peak" was really on a game-by-game basis; on any given day he could be the greatest pitcher ever. But when Ryan wasn't great, he wasn't much better than average, and had several seasons when he wasn't even that. Ryan wasn't a "mere" compiler, but he was a compiler. Blyleven was a better pitcher.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>skin - I'm looking at the original analysis and your suggestions and have a few questions.
WPA appears to exit only post-1940, at least on bb-ref. Is that correct? If so, I can't use it without making my system exponentially more complicated.
Batter Runs and wins exist for every year, but the values on bb-ref appear to be really low for players who steal a lot of bases. Do those stats include stolen bases? If not, then I need something else. If so, then some of the big base stealers are going to take a tumble down the Tiers. >>
Yes...that is all correct.
For the Batter Runs, you would have to add Stolen Base runs, which is another step.
I could see some of the difficulty that would bring when comparing the pre war guys.
Good points on Ryan. A lot of people forgot that while Ryan was a strikeout machine, he also led the league in base on balls like seven times...even walking over 200 a couple times. For example, a 341 strikeout -to 204 BB ratio, isn't quite as impressive as just looking at the raw strikeout totals.
He did have WHIP totals that were good though, leading the league twice, with several top 10's.
Ryan had one phenomenal season with a 195 ERA+, however, that was only over 149 IP, so it doesn't quite have the value of that over a pitcher doing it in 200+ innings.
His best ERA+ rankings in his league were: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th. Not too bad.
I have taken situational hitting into account (I won't say how - it's certainly not ideal, but it was simple) and tweaked the era adjustment and a few other things and have the new Tiers. I will say right off that I like these results a lot better. In every case, when a player changed Tiers, I either thought it was an improvement, or said "meh, that looks OK, too". A lot more movement for the hitters than the pitchers. In fact, the only real movement for the pitchers is because I misallocated them last time and had too many of them in Tier II. So a handful of Tier II got bumped to Tier III, which meant a handful of Tier III had to get bumped to Tier IV, at which point the allocation was even.
So with that, I present Tiers, Part Two, and I will note the player's prior Tier only if it has changed.
Tier I
Hank Aaron Grover Alexander Johnny Bench Ty Cobb Lou Gehrig Lefty Grove Rickey Henderson Rogers Hornsby Randy Johnson Walter Johnson Greg Maddux Mickey Mantle Willie Mays Joe Morgan Stan Musial Kid Nichols Babe Ruth Mike Schmidt Tom Seaver Honus Wagner Ted Williams Carl Yastrzemski Cy Young
Tier II
Luke Appling Ernie Banks Bert Blyleven Wade Boggs Lou Boudreau (was in Tier III - OK with this) George Brett Dan Brouthers Roy Campanella Rod Carew Steve Carlton Gary Carter (was in Tier I - very happy about this) John Clarkson Roberto Clemente Eddie Collins Joe DiMaggio Bob Feller Jimmie Foxx Bob Gibson Hank Greenberg (was in Tier III - like this) Reggie Jackson Al Kaline Tim Keefe Nap Lajoie Barry Larkin (was in Tier III - OK with this) Pedro Martinez Eddie Mathews Christy Mathewson Willie McCovey (was in Tier III - like this) Johnny Mize Eddie Murray (was in Tier III - like this) Phil Niekro Mel Ott Gaylord Perry Cal Ripken, Jr. Robin Roberts Frank Robinson Jackie Robinson Amos Rusie Ron Santo Ozzie Smith Duke Snider Warren Spahn Tris Speaker (was in Tier I - not crazy about this, but not distraught) Arky Vaughan Robin Yount
Tier III
Roberto Alomar Cap Anson (dropped from II - OK with that) Frank Baker Yogi Berra (still here, a little closer to II, but I can't get him there) Craig Biggio Mickey Cochrane Roger Connor Stan Coveleski Joe Cronin George Davis Ed Delahanty Bill Dickey (up fromIV - OK with that) Carlton Fisk (down from II - like that) Pud Galvin (down from II - like that) Charlie Gehringer (down from II - like that) Joe Gordon Tony Gwynn Harry Heilmann Ferguson Jenkins (down from II - OK with that) Hugh Jennings (up from IV - iffy) Harmon Killebrew (up from IV - like that) Ralph Kiner Sandy Koufax Juan Marichal Hal Newhouser Jim Palmer Eddie Plank (down from II - OK with that) Charles Radbourn Brooks Robinson (down from II - OK with that) Ryne Sandberg (down from II - OK with that) Willie Stargell (up from IV - like that) Frank Thomas (down from II - like that) Dazzy Vance Ed Walsh (down from II - iffy) Paul Waner Pee Wee Reese Mickey Welch Billy Williams Vic Willis Dave Winfield
Tier IV
Richie Ashburn (down from III - like that) Dave Bancroft (up from IV - iffy) Mordecai Brown Jim Bunning (down from III - OK with that) Jesse Burkett Orlando Cepeda (up from V - like that) Fred Clarke (up from V - OK with that) Sam Crawford Andre Dawson (down from III - like that) Dizzy Dean Larry Doby Bobby Doerr Don Drysdale Dennis Eckersley Red Faber Elmer Flick Nellie Fox Frankie Frisch (down from III - like that) Tom Glavine Goose Goslin Billy Hamilton Gabby Hartnett (up from V - OK with that) Billy Herman Carl Hubbell Chuck Klein Tony Lazzeri (up from V - OK with that) Ted Lyons Joe McGinnity (down from III - OK with that) Joe Medwick Paul Molitor (down from III - like that) Kirby Puckett Jim Rice Nolan Ryan Joe Sewell (up from V - iffy) Al Simmons (down from III - OK with that) George Sisler (down from III - OK with that) Enos Slaughter John Smoltz Bill Terry Rube Waddell (down from III - OK with that) Bobby Wallace Deacon White Hack Wilson (up from V - like that)
Tier V
Luis Aparicio Earl Averill (down from IV - like that) Jake Beckley Chief Bender Roger Bresnahan Lou Brock Max Carey Frank Chance Jack Chesbro Jimmy Collins (down from IV - like that) Earle Combs Kiki Cuyler Johnny Evers Buck Ewing Whitey Ford Lefty Gomez Rich Gossage Burleigh Grimes Catfish Hunter Travis Jackson Addie Joss Willie Keeler (down from IV - like that) Joe Kelley King Kelly (down from IV - like that) Freddie Lindstrom Ernie Lombardi Heinie Manush Bid McPhee Jim O'Rourke Herb Pennock Tony Perez (down from IV - like that) Eppa Rixey Phil Rizzuto Edd Roush Red Ruffing Red Schoendienst Don Sutton Sam Thompson Joe Tinker Zack Wheat Early Wynn Ross Youngs
Tier VI
Jim Bottomley Hugh Duffy (down from V - like that) Rick Ferrell Rollie Fingers Chick Hafey Jesse Haines Harry Hooper Waite Hoyt George Kell George Kelly Bob Lemon Rabbit Maranville (down from V - like that) Rube Marquard Bill Mazeroski Tommy McCarthy Sam Rice Ray Schalk Bruce Sutter Pie Traynor Lloyd Waner John Ward Hoyt Wilhelm
Quite a few changes for the better, I think. I wish Berra had moved up a Tier, but oh well. I wish Ford had moved up to Tier IV, too, but the more I look at him the more I see his best seasons being those in which he pitched the fewest innings, and the seasons he pitched the most innings not being all that great (no, I don't look at W/L records). Solid HOFer for a consistent career, but his peak isn't all that different from the rest.
But lots of people moved up or down into what I think are more appropriate Tiers, and only a few got bumped when they maybe, possibly shouldn't have. The system is a fair degree more complicated now, so I haven't redone the non-HOFers yet; I'll post those when I have them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Like to see Murray and McCovey both bumped to Tier II. Agree that Tier I was a bit lofty for Carter, too.
ETA: Stargell definitely deserved the bump, as well.
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.
Still having a hard time fathoming Yaz being in the same tier with Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Hornsby, etc. He's not even remotely in the same realm with those guys. No way, no how.
Not to mention those other arcane stats like OPS+ and OPS.
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>Still having a hard time fathoming Yaz being in the same tier with Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Hornsby, etc. He's not even remotely in the same realm with those guys. No way, no how. >>
Well, this is a semantic problem, not an analysis problem. I could make Tier I a whole lot smaller, so that it only contained the half dozen or so people "in the same realm" as Ruth. As it is, Tier I is half as big as Tiers II through V, and that still makes it too big to contain only people not laughably far behind Ruth. So yes, I agree that Yaz is a long, long way from the top few guys, but so are lots of other guys in Tier I; Yaz isn't near the bottom of Tier I, either. And, again, I've weighted peak value very heavily here, and Yaz's peak simply dwarfs everyone in Tier II. If you look at his 1968 season and his .301 average and decide it wasn't that great a season, then you'll miss that. Realize that the league average that year was .245, that Yaz walked 119 times and led the league in BA, OBP, OPS and OPS+ and that he won a Gold Glove and you'll see it. Add a 1967 season that was Ruthian, and 1965 and 1970 seasons that were as dominant as his 1968 season and you have a peak that nobody in Tier II can touch. There are still a handful of players that I am less than 100% comfortable with where they rank, but Yaz is not one of them.
With respect to the "inflated valuation of bases on balls" (different poster), that's an interesting comment since you have no idea, since I haven't said, how I valued them. I will say that in 99% of the player evaluations that have ever been published, bases on balls are severely undervalued, if not ignored entirely. Yaz walked 900 times (out of 1845 total) with the bases empty. Those walks were worth identically the same as singles. He walked 305 times with a man on first; some of those walks were worth the same as a single, some less. He walked 39 times with the bases loaded; those were worth quite a bit, too. The 448 times he walked with a man on second or third or both were worth quite a bit less, but still had some value. Add it all up, and his walks, like everyone else's walks, were worth about 2/3 of a single - or about 1,200 singles over the course of his career. If you think I've inflated the value of his walks, then please disclose what you think they're really worth, and why.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I like the fact that you are heavily weighting their absolute peaks. That does a couple of things:
1) It reduces the 'compiler' argument. The compiler argument doesn't fit for any HOF candidate, and people misuse that term incorrectly all the time. By looking at their peaks, it is now basically a moot point. For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. They mistakingly take his career percentages, not realizing the statistical impact of playing for so long as an old man, and come up with inaccurate assumptions.
2)It highlights the greatness of a player, and that is basically what people always say about the HOF...they want guys that were the best of the best. For instance, Johnny Bench. At his peak, he was so darn good, and by putting him into Tier I, he is recognized and accounted for. That is exactly the way he is remembered...a true legend. If he was just looked at in terms of career value, then he would lose some luster...and his luster was so good, that it would be a shame.
As for the gentleman not understanding the value of walks...that comes primarily from an Ichiro bias...so I wish you luck in getting an answer that makes any sense. Dallas, what you described as per the value of the walk is spot on, both logically, and statistically. Since baseball hitting lends itself so well to statistical measurements, there really is no arguing against the play by play data and value of each event.
<< <i>As for the gentleman not understanding the value of walks...that comes primarily from an Ichiro bias... >>
Which would be ironic, since in Ichiro's specific case a walk just may be worth virtually the same as a single since so many of his singles never leave the infield. Ichiro grounds into a really low number of DPs because he's so fast, but I suspect that he grounds into an inordinately high number of FCs. If there's a way to check that, I don't know what it is. Ichiro, like every player ever, would be a better hitter if he took more walks.
I was never a great baseball player, but I did figure out at a fairly early age that kids, even the one's who pitch well for kids, generally throw more balls than strikes. My last year of organized ball (high school freshman) I came up to bat 33 times (in a 9 game season) and walked 19 times. Since I also figured out that few kids have a decent move to first, and few kids can complete the catcher to fielder play to throw out a baserunner, I stole second virtually every time it was open, and often third. I wasn't that great at baseball, I was slower than average, and I scored more runs than anyone else on the team by a wide margin. Taking walks was my value, and even though most of the rest of the team hit better than I did, I would bet my BatterRuns, or WPA, or whatever, was second or third highest on the team (my OPS was 1.258).
Walks are tremendously undervalued by 99% of fans, 90% of sportswriters who vote for the HOF, and probably a majority of people who have no excuse (baseball GMs, people who publish greatest player rankings, etc.). Anyone who thinks of Gene Tenace as "a .241 hitter" (his BA) is further from the truth than the person who thinks of him as "a .388 hitter" (his OBP).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
To that I have only one question: In the years 2001-2004, were the pitchers who intentionally walked Barry Bonds increasing or decreasing their team's chances of winning the game?
<< <i> Yes, reaching base safely is highly overrated.
To that I have only one question: In the years 2001-2004, were the pitchers who intentionally walked Barry Bonds increasing or decreasing their team's chances of winning the game? >>
Bonds is arguably the greatest hitter of all time and, yes, that is also due in large part to his ability to reach base safely. I'm sure that depending on the situation, a walk, or as dallas effectively illustrated, the equivalent of 2/3 of a single statistically, seemed the safer choice, even though the likelihood of a base hit, or extra base hit, was less likely than getting the out, had they pitched to him, statistically speaking. But managers are not typically anything but safe or by the book.. How many guys can you afford to walk intentionally, though? It certainly increases the likelihood of a run scoring as even Barry made an out almost 70% of the time of his official at bats. And that is for one of baseball's all time greatest hitters.
The value of a walk or reaching base safely, however, is probably more evident when utilizing the pool of the 99.999% of hitters not at Bonds' level.
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.
Pitchers also intentionally walk 8th place hitters to get to face the opposing pitcher batting. That does not negate the value of the walk in all the other situations. The value of the walk in THAT situation has its value. The value of the walk in the other situations, have their values. If you want to look into all that, the play by play data will tell you it.
However, those extreme cases don't do ANYTHING to devalue the walks of Yaz, or any other player remotely close to being in the HOF discussion. So your point is lost on the topic at hand.
Ichiro batting leadoff and not drawing walks is bad. Any other batter, who is not batting eigth in front of the pitcher, who is not drawing walks...is doing a disservice to his team compared to other players in the same situation who DO draw walks(and still have high SLG%).
As for Bonds, that is another extreme situation. He was such an extremely effective hitter, that intentionally walking him was actually a viable strategy. However, usually the intentional walk(other than the bonds case and in the case of the pitcher on deck), is usually a zero sum game. Bonds would simply have the same OPS...but with values coming more from HR rather than IBB.
Back to Ichiro. Ichiro simply isn't as valuable as other hitters who have higher OB% and higher SLG%....regardless of what his batting average says(which itself is also a weak sister batting average since so many of his hits are of the infield variety and do not advance runners at the same level as players who get more singles to deeper parts of the outfield).
Dallasactuary stated that the year Yaz had in 1967 was one of the greatest seasons ever, yet it didn't even make the top 50 OPS+ seasons ever recorded. What's the explanation for that?
<< <i>Dallasactuary stated that the year Yaz had in 1967 was one of the greatest seasons ever, yet it didn't even make the top 50 OPS+ seasons ever recorded. What's the explanation for that? >>
Since you are equating "top OPS+" with "greatest season", I'd be interested to hear why you think Fred Dunlap had the greatest season ever, except for Barry Bonds.
OPS+ is a great statistic, in that it tells you how much better a hitter was than his peers in a given season. And it's why the top 50 OPS+ seasons include only two seasons from the entire decade of the 1960's (McCovey in 1969, Mantle in 1961), none at all from the 1970's, and only one (Brett in 1980) from the 1980's. Because being that much better than your peers during that period was virtually impossible to do. Taking steroids and playing against weak competition account for close to 80% of the top 50.
OPS+ also doesn't take fielding into account, at the top of a fairly lengthy list of things it doesn't consider. Use a comprehensive measurement, and you get a better picture. Yaz's place on the all-time list for WARP? Tied for third (with Ruth, who also holds the top two spots). Even just confined to hitting, a more comprehensive measurement like base-out runs added has Yaz at 17th - 9th if you throw out the known steroid abusers.
I'll say it one last time and then let it go - Yaz's 1967 season was epic; one of the greatest seasons any baseball player has ever played. If you are not seeing that, then you need to trust me that you are looking in the wrong places.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ford has the 4th best winning percentage of all time. Of course it helps that he played for the Yankees. He easily exceeds the HOF Monitor and standards at baseball-reference.com. OTOH, his stats were held down by the fact that Casey held him back to pitch against the better teams.
"Ford pitched for Casey for nine seasons and started more than 30 games in a season just once, which even by today’s standards doesn’t seem impressive. Why so few? Casey didn’t like to waste his best pitcher against the Washington Senators of the world. In Whitey’s years with Casey, he started 81 games against the two best American League teams in each season (not including the Yankees, who of course were usually the best), and just 58 against the worst two (I’m looking in your direction, Kansas City Athletics). That’s a huge difference, especially considering how easy he had it in his rookie season.
The Yankees fired Casey after the 1960 World Series, and new manager Ralph Houk started using Whitey in something like a regular rotation for the first time in his career. The immediate effect of this was that Ford’s starts shot way up (the new 162-game schedule probably added one or two starts a year, too). In 1961, Houk’s first year as manager, Whitey paced the AL with 39 starts, and he averaged 37 from 1961 through 1965. Whitey was now being used every four or five days, whether the Bombers were playing the Go-Go White Sox or the Abominable A’s. He was starting so often there just wasn’t room to “save” him for the better clubs. "
Under Casey, Ford's opponents had a .500 winning percentage. Note that Ford lost two years to the military.
Of course, with your sig line right below that post, why would anyone think you'd feel any different, LOL..
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.
You could drop everybody in tier 6 and half the guys in tier 5 and that would make the Hall better.
Great work Dallas
MJ
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> For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. >>
Outside of his four year peak from 1967-70, Yaz was a .265/16/76 guy. For a corner outfielder, regardless of OBP, especially one playing in Fenway, that isn't "good". It's average.
His four year peak was outstanding. But Tier I guys should have more than a four year stretch of outstanding backed up by 19 years of average.
<< <i> For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. >>
Outside of his four year peak from 1967-70, Yaz was a .265/16/76 guy. For a corner outfielder, regardless of OBP, especially one playing in Fenway, that isn't "good". It's average.
His four year peak was outstanding. But Tier I guys should have more than a four year stretch of outstanding backed up by 19 years of average. >>
Tabe, I'm failing to see the 19 years of average seasons from Yaz. You are penalizing him for having the ability to play age 39-44. That is a plus to his resume, not a negative.
Age 22-24 OPS+ 130....2,033 plate appearances
Age 25-30 OPS+ 158....4,000 plate appearances. This is his six year prime.
Age 31-37 OPS+ 124....4,353 plate appearances. Many stars don't even make it past age 35 as a viable MLB player...yet here he is still going. This is what is starting to bring his career % down.
Age 38-43 OPS+ 109....2,963 plate appearances. This is what brings his career percentages down. His ability to play at this time is a positive, and is something guys couldn't do.
He hardly has 19 average years. His six year OPS+ prime of 158 is pretty darn impressive.
I agree though that he should probably be a Tier II player...because he really is more similar to guys like Murray, McCovey, Stargell, as opposed to Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Gehrig.
Dallas, in my eyes, I wouldn't mind the Tier I group getting smaller.
PS. Dick Allen has one of the best prime careers in history. I would assume that he would be way up there in Dallas's Tiers.
Which other .306 hitters would you drop in a heartbeat? Must be some others. >>
There are many factors other than BA that go into determining a players qualification for the HOF. Kell was a corner infielder with no power (112 career OPS+). His career was not particularly long-7500 PAs. He did not sniff at entry through the writers. He is tied all time for 591st all time in OPS. You can have him in your HOF, I do not want him in mine.
<< <i>Which other .306 hitters would you drop in a heartbeat? Must be some others. >>
You never acknowledged my reference to Matty Alou, but I'll try again.
The following players with averages higher than Kell's are NOT in the HOF:
Lefty O'Doul - .349 Dave Orr - .342 Pete Browning - .342 Jake Stenzel - 338 Riggs Stephenson - .336 Mike Donlin - .333 Bill Lange - .330 Tip O'Neill - .326 Bob Fothergill - .326 Babe Herman - .325 Ken Williams - .319
And, you know what? There's too many to type them all out, but they include Matty Alou and Johnny Pesky and a whole host of players who have no business in a HOF discussion. Why does George Kell being tied for 139th on the all-time BA list mean he's a HOFer? Does being tied for 799th on the slugging average list matter, or is hitting singles the most important thing a baseball player can do? If you could explain why George Kell - who hit .306 when the average player hit .268 belongs in the HOF, while Matty Alou, who hit .307 when the average player hit .259 does not, that would probably clear all this up. And if what you're saying is that Matty Alou belongs in the HOF, then just say that you think the HOF ought to have 1,000 or so people in it and then there's no more confusion. George Kell was one of the greatest 1,000 players of all time, he just wasn't close to a HOF level player.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
No mention of Steve Garvey in any of the non-HOF tiers, that doesn't seem quite right. And including Kevin Brown on the list of non-HOF tier III players is strange, when Brown was named in the Mitchell Report as a known steroid user, and your list didn't include other juicers, like Palmeiro and McGwire.
<< <i>Why does George Kell being tied for 139th on the all-time BA list mean he's a HOFer? >>
Ten time all star third baseman and #9 career fielding percentage leader at that position.
Alou looks weak in the RBI department (427) against Kell's (870). >>
That's a better argument, but still pretty far short of a HOF argument. Kell was an "all star" in that he played in the All-Star game 10 times, but most of those appearances were as a reserve, and then, as now, somebody off of every team, however godawful like the Tigers of that era, had to be there. How many times did Kell start, and deserve to start, in an All-Star game? I don't know, but it was a lot fewer than 10.
And Kell was an adequate third baseman, but he wasn't great, and certainly not the 9th best of all time. I remember posting years ago (it's probably still out there somewhere) about the greatest third basemen of all time in terms of offense and defense, and in terms of peak and career value. I know I never listed Kell on any list, and I don't recall that anyone in the thread ever mentioned his name. His fielding percentage was good, but that was a result of being relatively immobile and only playing the balls hit right to him than of any particular skill on his part.
As for RBI totals, you're comparing a guy who mostly batted third or fourth in a high run environment to a guy who mostly batted first or second in a low run environment. Of course Kell got a lot more RBI; Alou would have gotten a lot more had he batted third or fourth on the Tigers in the 40's and 50's, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Kell was an "all star" in that he played in the All-Star game 10 times, but most of those appearances were as a reserve, and then, as now, somebody off of every team, however godawful like the Tigers of that era, had to be there. >>
Kell was on the Tigers roster from 1946-1952. He was voted as a starter and/or started in 4 of the five years that he made the all star team during that stretch. 1948 was the exception.
You'll have to forgive my confusion. You said that Kell was a 10-time all star, as if that was important. I said he was an actual all star "a lot fewer" times than that, and you have now referenced the four times that he was an actual all-star. Were you still arguing a point, or was this your way of conceding mine? I honestly can't tell. With regard to the other points that I made and that you have not addressed, do you disagree with anything I've said, or are you conceding those points, too? I guess I'm wondering if we all agree now that George Kell has an extremely weak case for the HOF, or if you're still arguing otherwise. If you are, who else do you think ought to be in the HOF, based on the factors that you think make George Kell deserving?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Tabe, I'm failing to see the 19 years of average seasons from Yaz. You are penalizing him for having the ability to play age 39-44. That is a plus to his resume, not a negative. >>
I'm really not punishing him for the length of his career. The type of things I'm talking about, he was doing early in his career as well as late. As I said, ignoring OBP, I expect more from a corner outfielder, particularly one playing at Fenway for high-powered Boston teams than .265/16/76. Yaz played 23 years and hit 20 HRs just 8 times. He never even reached 30 outside of the four-year anomaly of 1967-1970. We're talking a guy who played a full season (1971) where he didn't even reach 200 total bases. Back to back to seasons, in his prime of .391 and .392 slugging. But because he put up good OBPs each year, he comes out with 113 and 118 OPS+ numbers. In a 13-year stretch from 1971 to the end of his career in 1983, he reached a .470 slugging percentage just once - .505 in 1977. And that's right when he started spending most of his time at 1B, making his thoroughly-mediocre - at best - power output stick out even more.
Yaz's career OPS+ of 130 is good for a tie for 164th all-time.
Yaz is often given credit for his defense in left field. And that's all well and good. While Fenway's left field is, admittedly, tougher than most places, it's also in some ways easier because you have soooo much less ground to cover. I mean, we're talking a position that was patrolled by defensive duds like Ted Williams and Manny Ramirez. Not to mention left field, in general, is the second least important defensive position behind first base (not counting pitcher).
Add it all up and I just can't see any legitimate defense for calling Yaz one of the top 25 players of all-time.
<< <i>You'll have to forgive my confusion. You said that Kell was a 10-time all star, as if that was important. I said he was an actual all star "a lot fewer" times than that, and you have now referenced the four times that he was an actual all-star. Were you still arguing a point, or was this your way of conceding mine? I honestly can't tell. With regard to the other points that I made and that you have not addressed, do you disagree with anything I've said, or are you conceding those points, too? I guess I'm wondering if we all agree now that George Kell has an extremely weak case for the HOF, or if you're still arguing otherwise. If you are, who else do you think ought to be in the HOF, based on the factors that you think make George Kell deserving? >>
You implied that Kell made the All-Star team because he was a Tiger and somebody had to make it. So he addressed those years specifically to refute your point.
Don't confused that with a defense of Kell as a HOF. Even as a kid who grew up watching Kell as an announcer for the Tigers, I couldn't believe it when he got elected.
Ignoring OBP is ignoring about half a player's contribution to hitting. Makes zero sense to do that.
Sure, if you ignore half of the equation...of course he won't look as good. Especially since he excelled so well in OB%.
The play by play data shows exactly the value of a BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and Out made. Taking ANY of those events out of the equation when evaluating a hitter, makes no sense, and will lead to an inaccurate conclusion...and you are taking a few of them out when you ignore OB%.
Your opinion does not change the value of each of those events in hitting in MLB. They have their value. THe millions of play by play data backs it up.
People tend to forget the negative impact of making an out. I'll give a hint...it isn't good to make outs. Makes no sense to ignore that.
I don't put him in the top 25 either...but your way of going about it simply doesn't make sense.
PS. Yes, I know, making an out to advance a runner can have value...and that is already measured in all the play by play data. No mystery there.
<< <i>I'm guessing that Lou Brock is listed as a Tier V Hall of Famer because he didn't walk as much as a leadoff hitter is supposed to, is that correct? >>
If you ignore his Base on Balls totals, and ignore the number of outs he made, then you lost any chance of coming to an accurate conclusion.
BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, Out Made...all have a very valid value in baseball hitting. It isn't that hard to see. Play by Play data shows it quite clearly.
One's opinions means absolutely nothing in this matter.
As for Lou Brock, his value with the bat basically comes from his contributions in BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and Outs made. If his actual value is lower than your opinion, it isn't because those values are wrong, but rather because he was low in the two categories you don't seem to understand(BB and OUts made).
If he(or you) wanted his value to be higher, then he should have made up for his lacking in those elements by getting more 2B, 3B, and HR, then his value would be more accurate with your opinion.
Any list that has DiMaggio and Clemente tier 2 is a joke. How many players had 56 game hitting streaks and 12 gold gloves? Dimaggio was better than Mantle
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Brock had a lifetime BA of .391 in 21 World Series games and there is no way the Cards even make it to any of the three series without him as their leadoff hitter.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Yaz typically gets bashed, because as Dallas pointed out, he produced so good in the second dead ball era, that people fail to put his numbers in perspective those years. Also, the rest of his years are not as bad as people say.
On the other side of the coin, Clemente typically gets vaulted a bit too high.
They played a good chunk in the same era, here are their best 15 OPS+ years stacked side by side:
Yaz.....Clemente
193.....171
177.....168
171.....160
156.....152
148.....150
140.....146
139.....146
136.....143
125.....138
124.....136
120.....136
120.....121
119.....114
118.....106
116......95
Yaz's top five years easily beats Clemente's
Clemente's next five beats Yaz, by about the same margin as Yaz beat Clemente in the top five
Yaz's 11-15 yrs beat's Clemente's
So 2/3 of the top 15 years has Yaz ahead of Clemente.
Then remarkably, Yaz threw up even more above average years:
113
112
112
111
108
106
96
91
The fact that Yaz was STILL able to be an above average hitter so long, should NOT be a penalty toward him...and that is what people falsely do.
From age 35-43 Yaz had an OPS+ of 113...with 4,876 Plate Appearances. That is a positive, not a negative.
People mistakingly call that 'compiling', and they are flat out WRONG. As shown above, the only thing Yaz 'compiled' was a five year peak better than Clemente's, and then a 15 year peak as good or better than Clemente's.
After ACCOMPLISHING all that, he threw up another 4,100 plate appearances, as an old man, with an OPS+ of 113.....and to put that into terms, Ichiro's career OPS+ was 110
Yaz played in Fenway Park and Clemente played at Forbes field. Clemente is considered one of the best outfielders in history. >>
Those numbers are adjusted for Fenway
<< <i>Beginning with Tier IV, reasonable people can start having debates about whether the player truly belongs in the HOF. I think the great majority of them do, but for those who hold that the HOF should only be for the “best of the best”, then it starts getting gray in Tier IV whether these players meet that standard. >>
Debate is not whether Nolan Ryan belongs in Cooperstown as much as why is he down in your tier IV. Seven no hitters, 5714 strike outs. No doubt a mere compiler.
Looks like your buckets have some termite damage.
Fantastic book on Berra "Yogi Berra Eternal Yankee" compares him with all the great catchers using several different systems and he comes out as the best catcher of all time, about equal with Bench. Bench having a higher peak value. Carter is also highly rated.
<< <i> Yaz played in Fenway Park and Clemente played at Forbes field. Clemente is considered one of the best outfielders in history. >>
As a frequent Yaz basher, I must chime in and say he was a tremendous defensive player as well.
WPA appears to exit only post-1940, at least on bb-ref. Is that correct? If so, I can't use it without making my system exponentially more complicated.
Batter Runs and wins exist for every year, but the values on bb-ref appear to be really low for players who steal a lot of bases. Do those stats include stolen bases? If not, then I need something else. If so, then some of the big base stealers are going to take a tumble down the Tiers.
<< <i>Debate is not whether Nolan Ryan belongs in Cooperstown as much as why is he down in your tier IV. Seven no hitters, 5714 strike outs. No doubt a mere compiler.
Looks like your buckets have some termite damage.
First, Nolan Ryan is my favorite player of all time. The seven no hitters, the countless no-hitters taken into the seventh inning, the mountains of strikeouts, the brushback pitches, the old man pounding of Robin Ventura - no doubt he was one of the most exciting and entertaining pitchers in history. And a HOF that excluded Nolan Ryan would be an absolute joke.
But second, there were a whole lot of pitchers, historically and at the same time Ryan was pitching, who were better. Is Tier IV too low? Maybe, but if he had ended up higher than Tier III it would have bothered me quite a bit. Ryan's "peak" was really on a game-by-game basis; on any given day he could be the greatest pitcher ever. But when Ryan wasn't great, he wasn't much better than average, and had several seasons when he wasn't even that. Ryan wasn't a "mere" compiler, but he was a compiler. Blyleven was a better pitcher.
<< <i>skin - I'm looking at the original analysis and your suggestions and have a few questions.
WPA appears to exit only post-1940, at least on bb-ref. Is that correct? If so, I can't use it without making my system exponentially more complicated.
Batter Runs and wins exist for every year, but the values on bb-ref appear to be really low for players who steal a lot of bases. Do those stats include stolen bases? If not, then I need something else. If so, then some of the big base stealers are going to take a tumble down the Tiers. >>
Yes...that is all correct.
For the Batter Runs, you would have to add Stolen Base runs, which is another step.
I could see some of the difficulty that would bring when comparing the pre war guys.
Good points on Ryan. A lot of people forgot that while Ryan was a strikeout machine, he also led the league in base on balls like seven times...even walking over 200 a couple times. For example, a 341 strikeout -to 204 BB ratio, isn't quite as impressive as just looking at the raw strikeout totals.
He did have WHIP totals that were good though, leading the league twice, with several top 10's.
Ryan had one phenomenal season with a 195 ERA+, however, that was only over 149 IP, so it doesn't quite have the value of that over a pitcher doing it in 200+ innings.
His best ERA+ rankings in his league were: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 10th. Not too bad.
I have taken situational hitting into account (I won't say how - it's certainly not ideal, but it was simple) and tweaked the era adjustment and a few other things and have the new Tiers. I will say right off that I like these results a lot better. In every case, when a player changed Tiers, I either thought it was an improvement, or said "meh, that looks OK, too". A lot more movement for the hitters than the pitchers. In fact, the only real movement for the pitchers is because I misallocated them last time and had too many of them in Tier II. So a handful of Tier II got bumped to Tier III, which meant a handful of Tier III had to get bumped to Tier IV, at which point the allocation was even.
So with that, I present Tiers, Part Two, and I will note the player's prior Tier only if it has changed.
Tier I
Hank Aaron
Grover Alexander
Johnny Bench
Ty Cobb
Lou Gehrig
Lefty Grove
Rickey Henderson
Rogers Hornsby
Randy Johnson
Walter Johnson
Greg Maddux
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Joe Morgan
Stan Musial
Kid Nichols
Babe Ruth
Mike Schmidt
Tom Seaver
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Carl Yastrzemski
Cy Young
Tier II
Luke Appling
Ernie Banks
Bert Blyleven
Wade Boggs
Lou Boudreau (was in Tier III - OK with this)
George Brett
Dan Brouthers
Roy Campanella
Rod Carew
Steve Carlton
Gary Carter (was in Tier I - very happy about this)
John Clarkson
Roberto Clemente
Eddie Collins
Joe DiMaggio
Bob Feller
Jimmie Foxx
Bob Gibson
Hank Greenberg (was in Tier III - like this)
Reggie Jackson
Al Kaline
Tim Keefe
Nap Lajoie
Barry Larkin (was in Tier III - OK with this)
Pedro Martinez
Eddie Mathews
Christy Mathewson
Willie McCovey (was in Tier III - like this)
Johnny Mize
Eddie Murray (was in Tier III - like this)
Phil Niekro
Mel Ott
Gaylord Perry
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Robin Roberts
Frank Robinson
Jackie Robinson
Amos Rusie
Ron Santo
Ozzie Smith
Duke Snider
Warren Spahn
Tris Speaker (was in Tier I - not crazy about this, but not distraught)
Arky Vaughan
Robin Yount
Tier III
Roberto Alomar
Cap Anson (dropped from II - OK with that)
Frank Baker
Yogi Berra (still here, a little closer to II, but I can't get him there)
Craig Biggio
Mickey Cochrane
Roger Connor
Stan Coveleski
Joe Cronin
George Davis
Ed Delahanty
Bill Dickey (up fromIV - OK with that)
Carlton Fisk (down from II - like that)
Pud Galvin (down from II - like that)
Charlie Gehringer (down from II - like that)
Joe Gordon
Tony Gwynn
Harry Heilmann
Ferguson Jenkins (down from II - OK with that)
Hugh Jennings (up from IV - iffy)
Harmon Killebrew (up from IV - like that)
Ralph Kiner
Sandy Koufax
Juan Marichal
Hal Newhouser
Jim Palmer
Eddie Plank (down from II - OK with that)
Charles Radbourn
Brooks Robinson (down from II - OK with that)
Ryne Sandberg (down from II - OK with that)
Willie Stargell (up from IV - like that)
Frank Thomas (down from II - like that)
Dazzy Vance
Ed Walsh (down from II - iffy)
Paul Waner
Pee Wee Reese
Mickey Welch
Billy Williams
Vic Willis
Dave Winfield
Tier IV
Richie Ashburn (down from III - like that)
Dave Bancroft (up from IV - iffy)
Mordecai Brown
Jim Bunning (down from III - OK with that)
Jesse Burkett
Orlando Cepeda (up from V - like that)
Fred Clarke (up from V - OK with that)
Sam Crawford
Andre Dawson (down from III - like that)
Dizzy Dean
Larry Doby
Bobby Doerr
Don Drysdale
Dennis Eckersley
Red Faber
Elmer Flick
Nellie Fox
Frankie Frisch (down from III - like that)
Tom Glavine
Goose Goslin
Billy Hamilton
Gabby Hartnett (up from V - OK with that)
Billy Herman
Carl Hubbell
Chuck Klein
Tony Lazzeri (up from V - OK with that)
Ted Lyons
Joe McGinnity (down from III - OK with that)
Joe Medwick
Paul Molitor (down from III - like that)
Kirby Puckett
Jim Rice
Nolan Ryan
Joe Sewell (up from V - iffy)
Al Simmons (down from III - OK with that)
George Sisler (down from III - OK with that)
Enos Slaughter
John Smoltz
Bill Terry
Rube Waddell (down from III - OK with that)
Bobby Wallace
Deacon White
Hack Wilson (up from V - like that)
Tier V
Luis Aparicio
Earl Averill (down from IV - like that)
Jake Beckley
Chief Bender
Roger Bresnahan
Lou Brock
Max Carey
Frank Chance
Jack Chesbro
Jimmy Collins (down from IV - like that)
Earle Combs
Kiki Cuyler
Johnny Evers
Buck Ewing
Whitey Ford
Lefty Gomez
Rich Gossage
Burleigh Grimes
Catfish Hunter
Travis Jackson
Addie Joss
Willie Keeler (down from IV - like that)
Joe Kelley
King Kelly (down from IV - like that)
Freddie Lindstrom
Ernie Lombardi
Heinie Manush
Bid McPhee
Jim O'Rourke
Herb Pennock
Tony Perez (down from IV - like that)
Eppa Rixey
Phil Rizzuto
Edd Roush
Red Ruffing
Red Schoendienst
Don Sutton
Sam Thompson
Joe Tinker
Zack Wheat
Early Wynn
Ross Youngs
Tier VI
Jim Bottomley
Hugh Duffy (down from V - like that)
Rick Ferrell
Rollie Fingers
Chick Hafey
Jesse Haines
Harry Hooper
Waite Hoyt
George Kell
George Kelly
Bob Lemon
Rabbit Maranville (down from V - like that)
Rube Marquard
Bill Mazeroski
Tommy McCarthy
Sam Rice
Ray Schalk
Bruce Sutter
Pie Traynor
Lloyd Waner
John Ward
Hoyt Wilhelm
Quite a few changes for the better, I think. I wish Berra had moved up a Tier, but oh well. I wish Ford had moved up to Tier IV, too, but the more I look at him the more I see his best seasons being those in which he pitched the fewest innings, and the seasons he pitched the most innings not being all that great (no, I don't look at W/L records). Solid HOFer for a consistent career, but his peak isn't all that different from the rest.
But lots of people moved up or down into what I think are more appropriate Tiers, and only a few got bumped when they maybe, possibly shouldn't have. The system is a fair degree more complicated now, so I haven't redone the non-HOFers yet; I'll post those when I have them.
link
ETA: Stargell definitely deserved the bump, as well.
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.
Not to mention those other arcane stats like OPS+ and OPS.
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>Still having a hard time fathoming Yaz being in the same tier with Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Hornsby, etc. He's not even remotely in the same realm with those guys. No way, no how. >>
Well, this is a semantic problem, not an analysis problem. I could make Tier I a whole lot smaller, so that it only contained the half dozen or so people "in the same realm" as Ruth. As it is, Tier I is half as big as Tiers II through V, and that still makes it too big to contain only people not laughably far behind Ruth. So yes, I agree that Yaz is a long, long way from the top few guys, but so are lots of other guys in Tier I; Yaz isn't near the bottom of Tier I, either. And, again, I've weighted peak value very heavily here, and Yaz's peak simply dwarfs everyone in Tier II. If you look at his 1968 season and his .301 average and decide it wasn't that great a season, then you'll miss that. Realize that the league average that year was .245, that Yaz walked 119 times and led the league in BA, OBP, OPS and OPS+ and that he won a Gold Glove and you'll see it. Add a 1967 season that was Ruthian, and 1965 and 1970 seasons that were as dominant as his 1968 season and you have a peak that nobody in Tier II can touch. There are still a handful of players that I am less than 100% comfortable with where they rank, but Yaz is not one of them.
With respect to the "inflated valuation of bases on balls" (different poster), that's an interesting comment since you have no idea, since I haven't said, how I valued them. I will say that in 99% of the player evaluations that have ever been published, bases on balls are severely undervalued, if not ignored entirely. Yaz walked 900 times (out of 1845 total) with the bases empty. Those walks were worth identically the same as singles. He walked 305 times with a man on first; some of those walks were worth the same as a single, some less. He walked 39 times with the bases loaded; those were worth quite a bit, too. The 448 times he walked with a man on second or third or both were worth quite a bit less, but still had some value. Add it all up, and his walks, like everyone else's walks, were worth about 2/3 of a single - or about 1,200 singles over the course of his career. If you think I've inflated the value of his walks, then please disclose what you think they're really worth, and why.
I like the fact that you are heavily weighting their absolute peaks. That does a couple of things:
1) It reduces the 'compiler' argument. The compiler argument doesn't fit for any HOF candidate, and people misuse that term incorrectly all the time. By looking at their peaks, it is now basically a moot point. For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. They mistakingly take his career percentages, not realizing the statistical impact of playing for so long as an old man, and come up with inaccurate assumptions.
2)It highlights the greatness of a player, and that is basically what people always say about the HOF...they want guys that were the best of the best. For instance, Johnny Bench. At his peak, he was so darn good, and by putting him into Tier I, he is recognized and accounted for. That is exactly the way he is remembered...a true legend. If he was just looked at in terms of career value, then he would lose some luster...and his luster was so good, that it would be a shame.
As for the gentleman not understanding the value of walks...that comes primarily from an Ichiro bias...so I wish you luck in getting an answer that makes any sense. Dallas, what you described as per the value of the walk is spot on, both logically, and statistically. Since baseball hitting lends itself so well to statistical measurements, there really is no arguing against the play by play data and value of each event.
<< <i>As for the gentleman not understanding the value of walks...that comes primarily from an Ichiro bias... >>
Which would be ironic, since in Ichiro's specific case a walk just may be worth virtually the same as a single since so many of his singles never leave the infield. Ichiro grounds into a really low number of DPs because he's so fast, but I suspect that he grounds into an inordinately high number of FCs. If there's a way to check that, I don't know what it is. Ichiro, like every player ever, would be a better hitter if he took more walks.
I was never a great baseball player, but I did figure out at a fairly early age that kids, even the one's who pitch well for kids, generally throw more balls than strikes. My last year of organized ball (high school freshman) I came up to bat 33 times (in a 9 game season) and walked 19 times. Since I also figured out that few kids have a decent move to first, and few kids can complete the catcher to fielder play to throw out a baserunner, I stole second virtually every time it was open, and often third. I wasn't that great at baseball, I was slower than average, and I scored more runs than anyone else on the team by a wide margin. Taking walks was my value, and even though most of the rest of the team hit better than I did, I would bet my BatterRuns, or WPA, or whatever, was second or third highest on the team (my OPS was 1.258).
Walks are tremendously undervalued by 99% of fans, 90% of sportswriters who vote for the HOF, and probably a majority of people who have no excuse (baseball GMs, people who publish greatest player rankings, etc.). Anyone who thinks of Gene Tenace as "a .241 hitter" (his BA) is further from the truth than the person who thinks of him as "a .388 hitter" (his OBP).
To that I have only one question: In the years 2001-2004, were the pitchers who intentionally walked Barry Bonds increasing or decreasing their team's chances of winning the game?
<< <i> Yes, reaching base safely is highly overrated.
To that I have only one question: In the years 2001-2004, were the pitchers who intentionally walked Barry Bonds increasing or decreasing their team's chances of winning the game? >>
Bonds is arguably the greatest hitter of all time and, yes, that is also due in large part to his ability to reach base safely. I'm sure that depending on the situation, a walk, or as dallas effectively illustrated, the equivalent of 2/3 of a single statistically, seemed the safer choice, even though the likelihood of a base hit, or extra base hit, was less likely than getting the out, had they pitched to him, statistically speaking. But managers are not typically anything but safe or by the book.. How many guys can you afford to walk intentionally, though? It certainly increases the likelihood of a run scoring as even Barry made an out almost 70% of the time of his official at bats. And that is for one of baseball's all time greatest hitters.
The value of a walk or reaching base safely, however, is probably more evident when utilizing the pool of the 99.999% of hitters not at Bonds' level.
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.
However, those extreme cases don't do ANYTHING to devalue the walks of Yaz, or any other player remotely close to being in the HOF discussion. So your point is lost on the topic at hand.
Ichiro batting leadoff and not drawing walks is bad. Any other batter, who is not batting eigth in front of the pitcher, who is not drawing walks...is doing a disservice to his team compared to other players in the same situation who DO draw walks(and still have high SLG%).
As for Bonds, that is another extreme situation. He was such an extremely effective hitter, that intentionally walking him was actually a viable strategy. However, usually the intentional walk(other than the bonds case and in the case of the pitcher on deck), is usually a zero sum game. Bonds would simply have the same OPS...but with values coming more from HR rather than IBB.
Back to Ichiro. Ichiro simply isn't as valuable as other hitters who have higher OB% and higher SLG%....regardless of what his batting average says(which itself is also a weak sister batting average since so many of his hits are of the infield variety and do not advance runners at the same level as players who get more singles to deeper parts of the outfield).
<< <i>ETA: Wow - quadruple post! I have no idea what happened there. >>
The George Kell curse.
<< <i>Dallasactuary stated that the year Yaz had in 1967 was one of the greatest seasons ever, yet it didn't even make the top 50 OPS+ seasons ever recorded. What's the explanation for that? >>
Since you are equating "top OPS+" with "greatest season", I'd be interested to hear why you think Fred Dunlap had the greatest season ever, except for Barry Bonds.
OPS+ is a great statistic, in that it tells you how much better a hitter was than his peers in a given season. And it's why the top 50 OPS+ seasons include only two seasons from the entire decade of the 1960's (McCovey in 1969, Mantle in 1961), none at all from the 1970's, and only one (Brett in 1980) from the 1980's. Because being that much better than your peers during that period was virtually impossible to do. Taking steroids and playing against weak competition account for close to 80% of the top 50.
OPS+ also doesn't take fielding into account, at the top of a fairly lengthy list of things it doesn't consider. Use a comprehensive measurement, and you get a better picture. Yaz's place on the all-time list for WARP? Tied for third (with Ruth, who also holds the top two spots). Even just confined to hitting, a more comprehensive measurement like base-out runs added has Yaz at 17th - 9th if you throw out the known steroid abusers.
I'll say it one last time and then let it go - Yaz's 1967 season was epic; one of the greatest seasons any baseball player has ever played. If you are not seeing that, then you need to trust me that you are looking in the wrong places.
From: http://robneyer.com/baseball-books/big-book-of-baseball-lineups/new-york-yankees-whitey-ford/
"Ford pitched for Casey for nine seasons and started more than 30 games in a season just once, which even by today’s standards doesn’t seem impressive. Why so few? Casey didn’t like to waste his best pitcher against the Washington Senators of the world. In Whitey’s years with Casey, he started 81 games against the two best American League teams in each season (not including the Yankees, who of course were usually the best), and just 58 against the worst two (I’m looking in your direction, Kansas City Athletics). That’s a huge difference, especially considering how easy he had it in his rookie season.
The Yankees fired Casey after the 1960 World Series, and new manager Ralph Houk started using Whitey in something like a regular rotation for the first time in his career. The immediate effect of this was that Ford’s starts shot way up (the new 162-game schedule probably added one or two starts a year, too). In 1961, Houk’s first year as manager, Whitey paced the AL with 39 starts, and he averaged 37 from 1961 through 1965. Whitey was now being used every four or five days, whether the Bombers were playing the Go-Go White Sox or the Abominable A’s. He was starting so often there just wasn’t room to “save” him for the better clubs. "
Under Casey, Ford's opponents had a .500 winning percentage. Note that Ford lost two years to the military.
<< <i>
<< <i>The only two players in Tier VI that I think belong in the HOF are Mazeroski and Wilhelm, >>
So you would bounce George Kell with his .306 career batting average? >>
In a heartbeat. I would bounce Maz as well.
<< <i>Killebrew still too low. >>
Of course, with your sig line right below that post, why would anyone think you'd feel any different, LOL..
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.
Great work Dallas
MJ
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> For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. >>
Outside of his four year peak from 1967-70, Yaz was a .265/16/76 guy. For a corner outfielder, regardless of OBP, especially one playing in Fenway, that isn't "good". It's average.
His four year peak was outstanding. But Tier I guys should have more than a four year stretch of outstanding backed up by 19 years of average.
<< <i>
<< <i> For Yaz specifically, he was good for so long, that people actually don't realize how great he was at his peak. >>
Outside of his four year peak from 1967-70, Yaz was a .265/16/76 guy. For a corner outfielder, regardless of OBP, especially one playing in Fenway, that isn't "good". It's average.
His four year peak was outstanding. But Tier I guys should have more than a four year stretch of outstanding backed up by 19 years of average. >>
Tabe, I'm failing to see the 19 years of average seasons from Yaz. You are penalizing him for having the ability to play age 39-44. That is a plus to his resume, not a negative.
Age 22-24 OPS+ 130....2,033 plate appearances
Age 25-30 OPS+ 158....4,000 plate appearances. This is his six year prime.
Age 31-37 OPS+ 124....4,353 plate appearances. Many stars don't even make it past age 35 as a viable MLB player...yet here he is still going. This is what is starting to bring his career % down.
Age 38-43 OPS+ 109....2,963 plate appearances. This is what brings his career percentages down. His ability to play at this time is a positive, and is something guys couldn't do.
He hardly has 19 average years. His six year OPS+ prime of 158 is pretty darn impressive.
I agree though that he should probably be a Tier II player...because he really is more similar to guys like Murray, McCovey, Stargell, as opposed to Mantle, Mays, Ruth, Gehrig.
Dallas, in my eyes, I wouldn't mind the Tier I group getting smaller.
PS. Dick Allen has one of the best prime careers in history. I would assume that he would be way up there in Dallas's Tiers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The only two players in Tier VI that I think belong in the HOF are Mazeroski and Wilhelm, >>
So you would bounce George Kell with his .306 career batting average? >>
In a heartbeat. I would bounce Maz as well. >>
Which other .306 hitters would you drop in a heartbeat? Must be some others.
Which other .306 hitters would you drop in a heartbeat? Must be some others. >>
There are many factors other than BA that go into determining a players qualification for the HOF. Kell was a corner infielder with no power (112 career OPS+). His career was not particularly long-7500 PAs. He did not sniff at entry through the writers. He is tied all time for 591st all time in OPS. You can have him in your HOF, I do not want him in mine.
<< <i>Dick needs to be put in, Allen in the Hall, that is. >>
LMAO
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Which other .306 hitters would you drop in a heartbeat? Must be some others. >>
You never acknowledged my reference to Matty Alou, but I'll try again.
The following players with averages higher than Kell's are NOT in the HOF:
Lefty O'Doul - .349
Dave Orr - .342
Pete Browning - .342
Jake Stenzel - 338
Riggs Stephenson - .336
Mike Donlin - .333
Bill Lange - .330
Tip O'Neill - .326
Bob Fothergill - .326
Babe Herman - .325
Ken Williams - .319
And, you know what? There's too many to type them all out, but they include Matty Alou and Johnny Pesky and a whole host of players who have no business in a HOF discussion. Why does George Kell being tied for 139th on the all-time BA list mean he's a HOFer? Does being tied for 799th on the slugging average list matter, or is hitting singles the most important thing a baseball player can do? If you could explain why George Kell - who hit .306 when the average player hit .268 belongs in the HOF, while Matty Alou, who hit .307 when the average player hit .259 does not, that would probably clear all this up. And if what you're saying is that Matty Alou belongs in the HOF, then just say that you think the HOF ought to have 1,000 or so people in it and then there's no more confusion. George Kell was one of the greatest 1,000 players of all time, he just wasn't close to a HOF level player.
<< <i>Why does George Kell being tied for 139th on the all-time BA list mean he's a HOFer? >>
Ten time all star third baseman and #9 career fielding percentage leader at that position.
Alou looks weak in the RBI department (427) against Kell's (870).
<< <i>
<< <i>Why does George Kell being tied for 139th on the all-time BA list mean he's a HOFer? >>
Ten time all star third baseman and #9 career fielding percentage leader at that position.
Alou looks weak in the RBI department (427) against Kell's (870). >>
That's a better argument, but still pretty far short of a HOF argument. Kell was an "all star" in that he played in the All-Star game 10 times, but most of those appearances were as a reserve, and then, as now, somebody off of every team, however godawful like the Tigers of that era, had to be there. How many times did Kell start, and deserve to start, in an All-Star game? I don't know, but it was a lot fewer than 10.
And Kell was an adequate third baseman, but he wasn't great, and certainly not the 9th best of all time. I remember posting years ago (it's probably still out there somewhere) about the greatest third basemen of all time in terms of offense and defense, and in terms of peak and career value. I know I never listed Kell on any list, and I don't recall that anyone in the thread ever mentioned his name. His fielding percentage was good, but that was a result of being relatively immobile and only playing the balls hit right to him than of any particular skill on his part.
As for RBI totals, you're comparing a guy who mostly batted third or fourth in a high run environment to a guy who mostly batted first or second in a low run environment. Of course Kell got a lot more RBI; Alou would have gotten a lot more had he batted third or fourth on the Tigers in the 40's and 50's, too.
<< <i>Kell was an "all star" in that he played in the All-Star game 10 times, but most of those appearances were as a reserve, and then, as now, somebody off of every team, however godawful like the Tigers of that era, had to be there. >>
Kell was on the Tigers roster from 1946-1952. He was voted as a starter and/or started in 4 of the five years that he made the all star team during that stretch. 1948 was the exception.
All Star Tigers.
1947: Kell, Mullin, Newhouser, Trout.
1948: Kell, Evers, Mullin, Newhouser.
1949: Kell, Trucks, Wertz.
1950: Kell, Gray, Houttman, Evers.
1951: Kell, Hutchenson, Wertz.
<< <i>Tabe, I'm failing to see the 19 years of average seasons from Yaz. You are penalizing him for having the ability to play age 39-44. That is a plus to his resume, not a negative. >>
I'm really not punishing him for the length of his career. The type of things I'm talking about, he was doing early in his career as well as late. As I said, ignoring OBP, I expect more from a corner outfielder, particularly one playing at Fenway for high-powered Boston teams than .265/16/76. Yaz played 23 years and hit 20 HRs just 8 times. He never even reached 30 outside of the four-year anomaly of 1967-1970. We're talking a guy who played a full season (1971) where he didn't even reach 200 total bases. Back to back to seasons, in his prime of .391 and .392 slugging. But because he put up good OBPs each year, he comes out with 113 and 118 OPS+ numbers. In a 13-year stretch from 1971 to the end of his career in 1983, he reached a .470 slugging percentage just once - .505 in 1977. And that's right when he started spending most of his time at 1B, making his thoroughly-mediocre - at best - power output stick out even more.
Yaz's career OPS+ of 130 is good for a tie for 164th all-time.
Yaz is often given credit for his defense in left field. And that's all well and good. While Fenway's left field is, admittedly, tougher than most places, it's also in some ways easier because you have soooo much less ground to cover. I mean, we're talking a position that was patrolled by defensive duds like Ted Williams and Manny Ramirez. Not to mention left field, in general, is the second least important defensive position behind first base (not counting pitcher).
Add it all up and I just can't see any legitimate defense for calling Yaz one of the top 25 players of all-time.
<< <i>You'll have to forgive my confusion. You said that Kell was a 10-time all star, as if that was important. I said he was an actual all star "a lot fewer" times than that, and you have now referenced the four times that he was an actual all-star. Were you still arguing a point, or was this your way of conceding mine? I honestly can't tell. With regard to the other points that I made and that you have not addressed, do you disagree with anything I've said, or are you conceding those points, too? I guess I'm wondering if we all agree now that George Kell has an extremely weak case for the HOF, or if you're still arguing otherwise. If you are, who else do you think ought to be in the HOF, based on the factors that you think make George Kell deserving? >>
You implied that Kell made the All-Star team because he was a Tiger and somebody had to make it. So he addressed those years specifically to refute your point.
Don't confused that with a defense of Kell as a HOF. Even as a kid who grew up watching Kell as an announcer for the Tigers, I couldn't believe it when he got elected.
<< <i>
As I said, ignoring OBP,
>>
Ignoring OBP is ignoring about half a player's contribution to hitting. Makes zero sense to do that.
Sure, if you ignore half of the equation...of course he won't look as good. Especially since he excelled so well in OB%.
The play by play data shows exactly the value of a BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and Out made. Taking ANY of those events out of the equation when evaluating a hitter, makes no sense, and will lead to an inaccurate conclusion...and you are taking a few of them out when you ignore OB%.
Your opinion does not change the value of each of those events in hitting in MLB. They have their value. THe millions of play by play data backs it up.
People tend to forget the negative impact of making an out. I'll give a hint...it isn't good to make outs. Makes no sense to ignore that.
I don't put him in the top 25 either...but your way of going about it simply doesn't make sense.
PS. Yes, I know, making an out to advance a runner can have value...and that is already measured in all the play by play data. No mystery there.
<< <i>I'm guessing that Lou Brock is listed as a Tier V Hall of Famer because he didn't walk as much as a leadoff hitter is supposed to, is that correct? >>
If you ignore his Base on Balls totals, and ignore the number of outs he made, then you lost any chance of coming to an accurate conclusion.
BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, Out Made...all have a very valid value in baseball hitting. It isn't that hard to see. Play by Play data shows it quite clearly.
One's opinions means absolutely nothing in this matter.
As for Lou Brock, his value with the bat basically comes from his contributions in BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, and Outs made. If his actual value is lower than your opinion, it isn't because those values are wrong, but rather because he was low in the two categories you don't seem to understand(BB and OUts made).
If he(or you) wanted his value to be higher, then he should have made up for his lacking in those elements by getting more 2B, 3B, and HR, then his value would be more accurate with your opinion.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED