Best hitter - another POV

dallasactuary

Yeah, it's another unbelievably complicated ranking, but I hope it's interesting.

I won't swear I didn't miss anyone, but listed below are the people I could think of that (1) played in 1981 and (2) played in at least 10 seasons of MLB. I picked 1981 more or less randomly, but it serves as the foundation of the players who are ranked. Some of these players started in the early 60's and were barely hanging on by 1981, others had their rookie seasons in 1981, and everyone else is somewhere in between. I did this to remove, or at least minimize, any era differences.

And what is being ranked? Hitting ability, or at least one way of thinking about hitting ability. The foundation of the ranking is the "base" and the out. How many bases did a team gain from what the player did in each plate appearance. A single is worth one base, obviously, for the hitter, but it's also worth one more base if there was a runner on third, one or two bases if there was a runner on second, as many as six bases altogether if the bases were loaded. A walk is worth between one and four bases, a triple between three and nine bases, etc. I didn't look at who was actually on what bases for each at bat, but rather looked at averages. How often does the average player come up with the bases empty, full, first and third, etc. SB and HBP are taken into account as positives, and CS and GIDP both count for -1 bases as well as an out (or two). Which is the other part of the ranking - outs. In accumulating all those "bases", how many outs did the player use up? The final ranking considers both how many bases the player added per out made and per plate appearance. It also adjusts for park factors and for how much better or worse a player hits with men on base.

And, just as importantly, I'll disclose what the ranking does NOT take into account.

1. Length of career. I limited the scope to players with at least 10 years, and that's it. A player who plays for 10 years at a given average level will be ranked exactly the same as a player who played at the same average level for 20 years.
2. Peak value. Every stat I used was a career total or average.
3. Anything at all related to defense or position played.
4. Postseason play
5. Runs scored, RBIs, or anything else that tells you how good a player's teammates were not how good the player was
6. Platooning (what skin has always called "the Ken Phelps problem"); if a player sat out against lefty pitchers because he couldn't hit them, this ranking misses that (more below)

Add it all up and you have a statistic, nothing more, nothing less. Think of it this way - you are going to play strat-o-matic and you are going to pick a team. And what you get from any given player is what he was likely to do with a given at bat over the course of his career. Pick Pete Rose and you aren't going to get Pete Rose circa 1969, you are going to get Pete Rose in all his 1960's glory combined with the steaming mess he became in the 1980's. So what this statistic tells you is, over the entire course of a player's career, what was the average result of a given plate appearance? If your strat-o-matic is programmed correctly, you should draft in roughly the same order as the list below. The one exception is the platooning; if you put Ken Phelps up against a righty, you'll be glad you drafted as high as he is on this list, but if you put him up against a lefty, you'll be sorry. I don't know how to easily identify people with the Ken Phelps problem, and I don't know how to adjust for it when I do find it. So I ignored it. I'm disclosing it rather than excusing it, because there may be a few players way out of whack for this reason (see, for example, Ken Phelps).

I normalized the results so that 100 is exactly average, but average for this group not for all players. It's like OPS+ in scale, but it considers GIDP and SB/CS that OPS does not, and the peer group is only those players good enough to stay in the majors for 10 years or more.

With that lengthy introduction out of the way, below are the rankings. I will throw in a comment only once in a while and only when I found a result particularly interesting.

Willie Stargell …………….. 196 (Damn, Pops could hit! Surprised me that he came in #1, and by a relative mile.)
Mike Schmidt …………….. 171
Gene Tenace …………….. 170 (Yeah, that Gene Tenace. Prolly surprises me less than it does most of you, but still shocked me he was this high.)
Reggie Jackson …………….. 160
Joe Morgan …………….. 154
Tim Raines …………….. 153
Bobby Bonds …………….. 153 (a general comment on base stealers - most ABs come with the bases empty, and a walk/single + SB is just as good as a double most of the time.
Pedro Guerrero …………….. 150
George Brett …………….. 150
Rickey Henderson …………….. 150
Keith Hernandez …………….. 149 (way underrated hitter and a beast with men on base; solid, deserving HOFer. That he was the go-to guy for cocaine in the NL doesn't help him, though)
Ken Phelps ................... 149 (yep, "the Ken Phelps problem" is a very real problem)
Rod Carew …………….. 148
Jack Clark …………….. 141
Dwayne Murphy …………….. 137 (short career, but a terror at the plate while he was there)
Reggie Smith …………….. 136
Cesar Cedeno …………….. 134
Jose Cruz …………….. 132 (hopefully, this doesn't shock anyone, but I'm guessing it does)
Eddie Murray …………….. 131
Kirk Gibson …………….. 130
Bobby Murcer …………….. 130
Bob Watson …………….. 128 (ditto from Cruz; those Astros could hit, they just couldn't pitch)
Rusty Staub …………….. 128
Fred Lynn …………….. 127
Pete Rose …………….. 126
Darrell Evans …………….. 126
Greg Luzinski …………….. 125
Dave Parker …………….. 124
Paul Molitor …………….. 124
Dave Winfield …………….. 123
Ken Singleton …………….. 123
Sal Bando …………….. 121
Carl Yastrzemski …………….. 121
Johnny Bench …………….. 120
Rick Monday …………….. 120
Tony Perez …………….. 119
Jason Thompson …………….. 118
Don Baylor …………….. 117
Joe Rudi …………….. 117
Al Oliver …………….. 116
Amos Otis …………….. 115
Bobby Grich …………….. 114
Cecil Cooper …………….. 114
Dale Murphy …………….. 113
Toby Harrah …………….. 113
Chili Davis …………….. 113 (I found Chili, anybody seen Jim yet?)
Ron Cey …………….. 112
Brian Downing …………….. 112
Hal McRae …………….. 112
Dwight Evans …………….. 111 (I found a Red Sox outfielder, that makes three so far, but still no sign of Jim)
Mike Hargrove …………….. 111
Bill Madlock …………….. 111
George Foster …………….. 110
Darrell Porter …………….. 110
John Mayberry …………….. 109
Jeff Burroughs …………….. 108
Rich Hebner …………….. 108
Ken Griffey …………….. 108
Von Hayes …………….. 108
Robin Yount …………….. 108
Ben Oglivie …………….. 108
Bruce Bochte …………….. 107
Davey Lopes …………….. 107
Chet Lemon …………….. 106
Andre Dawson …………….. 105
Ted Simmons …………….. 105
Richie Zisk …………….. 105
Lou Whitaker …………….. 104
Harold Baines …………….. 103
Gary Carter …………….. 103
Al Bumbry …………….. 103
Jim Rice …………….. 103 (Found him! He was hiding down here near average)
Dusty Baker …………….. 102
Andre Thornton …………….. 102
Dave Kingman …………….. 101 (I think a lot of people have overblown the Dave Kingman myth. He wasn't a bad hitter, he was an average hitter.)
Lee May …………….. 99
Ruppert Jones …………….. 97
Steve Garvey …………….. 97 (Surprised me that he was this low, but not that he was below all the HOF hitters)
Dan Driessen …………….. 97
Gary Roenicke …………….. 97
Gary Matthews …………….. 97
Willie Randolph …………….. 97
Graig Nettles …………….. 96
Mickey Rivers …………….. 96
Willie Montanez …………….. 96
Doug DeCinces …………….. 94
Carlton Fisk …………….. 94
Jerry Mumphrey …………….. 94
Garry Templeton …………….. 94
Carney Lansford …………….. 93
Dickie Thon …………….. 90
Alan Trammell …………….. 90
Chris Chambliss …………….. 89
Don Money …………….. 88
Claudell Washington …………….. 88
Dan Ford …………….. 88
Tony Armas …………….. 88
George Hendrick …………….. 87
Lloyd Moseby …………….. 87
Larry Parrish …………….. 86
Hubie Brooks …………….. 84
Willie Wilson …………….. 84 (Stealing a lot of bases helps, but it only helps so much)
Garry Maddox …………….. 84
Lou Piniella …………….. 84
Buddy Bell …………….. 84
Phil Garner …………….. 83
Jorge Orta …………….. 80
Bill Buckner …………….. 78 (If anyone ever tells you Bill Buckner was a good hitter, slap them for me)
Enos Cabell …………….. 76
Lance Parrish …………….. 75
Ozzie Smith …………….. 75
Tom Paciorek …………….. 74
Ken Oberkfell …………….. 73
Roy Smalley …………….. 73
Al Cowens …………….. 71
Steve Sax …………….. 68
Ivan DeJesus …………….. 66
Jim Sundberg …………….. 66
Chris Speier …………….. 64
Bert Campaneris …………….. 63
Omar Moreno …………….. 62
Bill Russell …………….. 61
Dave Concepcion …………….. 60
Manny Trillo …………….. 59
Rick Manning …………….. 57
Frank White …………….. 57
Steve Yeager …………….. 56
Rafael Ramirez …………….. 55
Jim Gantner …………….. 53
Larry Bowa …………….. 50
Bob Boone …………….. 49
Jerry Remy …………….. 49
Aurelio Rodriguez …………….. 49
Alfredo Griffin …………….. 46
Mark Belanger …………….. 44
Rick Burleson …………….. 43
Frank Taveras …………….. 42
Tony Pena …………….. 38 (I remembered Tony Pena as a pretty decent hitter. I was wrong.)
Tim Foli …………….. 37
Tom Veryzer …………….. 31


That's it; any comments are welcome.

DIMEMAN

This is not a best hitter list. It's a total bases list.

A best hitter is just that .....how well he does at the plate. It doesn't matter how many if any is on.....it's does he get a hit or make an out.

Having Willie Stargell ahead of Pete Rose and Rod Carew is silly.

MCMLVTopps

WOW!!! You have a lot of free time on your hands !!!

dallasactuary

<< <i>This is not a best hitter list. It's a total bases list.

A best hitter is just that .....how well he does at the plate. It doesn't matter how many if any is on.....it's does he get a hit or make an out.

Having Willie Stargell ahead of Pete Rose and Rod Carew is silly. >>



I'm pretty sure you misunderstand what it is I'm doing. First, "a hit" vs "an out" is not the only distinction that matters, and in fact isn't always even the most important distinction. What kind of hit is vitally important, and any kind of hit with men on base is worth more than the same hit with the bases empty. And getting on base via a walk or HBP is worth a lot. And if the player who gets himself on base can steal another base, that has value, too. And while making "an out" is bad, making two in the same at bat is much worse. And the ability to get on base in a ballpark that is stacked against hitters has added value, too.

To think that having Stargell ahead of Rose and Carew is "silly" also confirms that you're looking at batting average and basically nothing else. If you start with OPS+ - which is infinitely better than batting average at identifying the best hitters - you see that Stargell is already way ahead of Rose and Carew. What I've done is to start with the basic logic of OPS+ and add base-stealing, offset for GIDP, and adjust for men-on hitting. And where OPS+ is basically weighted 1 for walk, 2 for single, 3 for double, 4 for triple and 5 for HR, I adjusted those weights to take into account not only the bases that the hitter advances, but also the bases advanced by the runners already on base. They aren't dramatically different weights, but they're different, and I like them better.

I think it's probably a universal belief that Carew was a better baserunner than Stargell, and there's some truth in that. But Carew unfortunately thought of himself as a better baserunner than he actually was and hurt his team as a result. Using the basic formula that a runner needs to steal more than two bases for each time he's caught stealing in order to add value, Carew was actually a -21; he comes up 21 SB short of the minimum 2*CS that he needs. Stargell knew that he wasn't a good base stealer and so he rarely tried. He still comes up negative, but he's only 15 stolen bases short. As far as the added value of stealing bases, Stargell actually beats Carew by standing still. And, this surprised me because I thought Carew was faster than that, Carew ground into double plays 30% more frequently than did Stargell. They were both much better hitters when there were men on base, but Stargell's improvement was a little bit greater. So starting from OPS+, where Stargell was already way ahead of Carew, his lead gets a little bit bigger with every adjustment that is made. (Essentially the same argument also applies to Rose, but Rose starts so far behind Stargell that there are no adjustments that could ever make up the difference. Rose played a very long time - both at the beginning and end of his career - as a well below-average hitter. History tend to ignore that, but this statistic does not.)

I'm certainly not going to claim that I've devised the greatest baseball stat ever known, because there are clearly flaws in it. But that Stargell is ranked ahead of Rose and Carew is not one of those flaws. I already knew Stargell was a better hitter than those two; it's the gap between him and Schmidt that really struck me.

mlbfan2

<< <i>I think it's probably a universal belief that Carew was a better baserunner than Stargell, and there's some truth in that. But Carew unfortunately thought of himself as a better baserunner than he actually was and hurt his team as a result. Using the basic formula that a runner needs to steal more than two bases for each time he's caught stealing in order to add value, Carew was actually a -21; he comes up 21 SB short of the minimum 2*CS that he needs. Stargell knew that he wasn't a good base stealer and so he rarely tried. He still comes up negative, but he's only 15 stolen bases short. As far as the added value of stealing bases, Stargell actually beats Carew by standing still. And, this surprised me because I thought Carew was faster than that, Carew ground into double plays 30% more frequently than did Stargell. >>



When he was on base, Stargell took an extra base (eg. taking more than than 1 base on a single, etc.) 38% of the time. For Carew, it was 58% of the time. A huge difference. I don't have any data on it, but since Carew hit into more DPs I'm guessing that it was due to him being more of a groundball hitter than Stargell.

dallasactuary

<< <i>I don't have any data on it, but since Carew hit into more DPs I'm guessing that it was due to him being more of a groundball hitter than Stargell. >>

No doubt that's true. But the point is that ground ball hitters cost their teams a lot via increased double plays relative to fly ball hitters. Groundball hitters also don't advance other runners as many bases when they single in, or barely past, the infield as hitters whose singles land in the outfield. I've said it in countless other threads, and I'll say it again: the list of most overrated players is dominated by singles hitters, and the most underrated list is dominated by players who take a lot of walks. If baseball cards showed, and the triple crown was based on, on-base percentage rather than batting average, nobody would know or care what a player's batting average was, or have any reason to care. Once you have access to OBP and slugging average, batting average is a completely worthless statistic.

As for Carew taking an extra base more often, I also agree that this is true and that it adds value. For my purposes, mostly because that kind of data is hard to combine with the other data since it involves someone else's single, I have assumed that Carew's added value from taking an extra base is offset by his reduced ability to advance other runners with his relatively weak hits. I think that overall that's not a terrible assumption, but there are probably players who are being helped or harmed in my ranking because those two things don't offset exactly. I hesitate to call it a "flaw" in my system since I don't know that there's any way to correct for it, but it is admittedly a limitation in my system. I think it's probably a pretty minor one, though.

Skin regularly refers to the play-by-play data, from which you can see exactly how many times a player advanced a runner, took an extra base, or anything else you care to look at, and I agree, as does presumably everyone else, that this is a better way to value a player's accomplishments than any other. What I'm trying to do, in this thread and elsewhere, is see how reasonable a ranking can be made with the easily accessible published data on baseball-reference. I like how the rankings came out here. I don't like that Ken Phelps comes out that high, and I'm sure there are a few others that are "off", but overall I think it's a pretty solid ranking. As with my HOF ranking, I certainly welcome any suggestions for improving it, but please point me to a statistic or statistical method, not just a gut feeling that so-and-so "should" be ranked higher than such-and-such.

Skin2

I think you already pointed the things out that caused the list to be skewed....perhaps you did that to illustrate that longevity should not be discounted.

For the average fans out there. A player who goes 10 for 20 the entire season has a .500 batting average. A player who goes 200 for 600 has a .333 average. If you just look at the percentage, you will get a horribly flawed view of reality, because it shows the guy with a .500 batting average is better, when it is pretty obvious that is not the case(which is the Ken Phelps factor).

There are some measurements that do balance longevity and peak a little better than others, and those would be the ones that put it into terms of runs produced above average. In the above example, the .500 batting average would only be worth about ONE run above average, and the other guy probably 30 runs above average(depending on the other factors of course)...which is a more accurate view of their value to the teams.

Guys like Keith Hernandez and Gene Tenace should get 2,500 worth of plate appearances added at their level of ability that they owned from age 36-42...which is about the same as mine was, about a .180 AVG/.205 OB%/.210 SLG%

When you use one of the stats that credit their actual run value(the play by play data), you get a more accurate picture of what their hitting ability and value was to their teams.

dallasactuary

<< <i>I think you already pointed the things out that caused the list to be skewed....perhaps you did that to illustrate that longevity should not be discounted.

For the average fans out there. A player who goes 10 for 20 the entire season has a .500 batting average. A player who goes 200 for 600 has a .333 average. If you just look at the percentage, you will get a horribly flawed view of reality, because it shows the guy with a .500 batting average is better, when it is pretty obvious that is not the case(which is the Ken Phelps factor).

There are some measurements that do balance longevity and peak a little better than others, and those would be the ones that put it into terms of runs produced above average. In the above example, the .500 batting average would only be worth about ONE run above average, and the other guy probably 30 runs above average(depending on the other factors of course)...which is a more accurate view of their value to the teams.

Guys like Keith Hernandez and Gene Tenace should get 2,500 worth of plate appearances added at their level of ability that they owned from age 36-42...which is about the same as mine was, about a .180 AVG/.205 OB%/.210 SLG%

When you use one of the stats that credit their actual run value(the play by play data), you get a more accurate picture of what their hitting ability and value was to their teams. >>


No question, I agree with you. But my more limited goal here was to create something like an OPS++, similar to OPS+ but taking into account some of the important things that OPS+ does not take into account. As with OPS+, you'd still need to look at longevity, and things like the Phelps factor, to make a better evaluation, but as a starting point I like my OPS++ better than OPS+. In that context, do you see anyone besides Phelps himself that you think looks significantly out of place?

Skin2

Yes, the guys with the much shorter careers who had their percentages saved because they weren't good enough to hold a full time MLB job by the age of 33-35.

Take Keith Hernandez and Murray. They played in the league together for 14 years. In Win Probability Added(the play by play), Murray was better than him in ten of those fourteen years. Those fourteen years comprise all of Hernandez's careeer(except for the first 1 3/4 seasons before Murray started).

Hernandez stopped being a viable Major League baseball player by age 35. His age 35/36 years were a combined .220/.308/.293. He was rightfully no longer employed to be a MLB player after he lost it at a relatively young age....and those were partial seasons. In fact, his last season remotely close to full-time was at age 33, where his OPS+ resided at 131 with 6,677 plate appearances.

Through 6,800 plate appearances, Murray's OPS+ resided at 141.. better than Hernandez's 131 at the 6,677. So Murray was better.


Then Murray was good enough to play in MLB to amass another 4,337 plate appearances at a rate of OPS+ of 111. While Hernandez was awful and unemployed.

You said you would get the player at "any point in their career,"....at what value do you give Hernandez for being unemployed while Murray was employed for 4,337 plate appearances with an OPS+ of 111...clearly better than being unemployed.

In conclusion, if you are looking at that list and at possibly getting them at 'any point in their career', then you have a solid five years where you may get Hernandez as a guy that is awful and unemployed. Yeah, I might get those few years where Murray was a 103 OPS+ hitter....but that is better than getting an awful unemployed Hernandez when Hernandez had the ability to be about a 43 OPS+ hitter(if even that). That has to be reflected in your rankings.

Hernandez wasn't a better hitter than Murray.


Obviously with Ken Phelps being so high, there is something wrong. Why stop at Phelps? Why not add Terry Forester? His lifetime batting average is .397, and his OPS+ is 146.





PS, this is different than Mantle, because Mantle would dwarf Murray so much by what he did when he was playiing, that the longer career doesn't even matter....and Mantle was still incredibly good when he retired. If push came to shove, I would still take Mickey Mantle in the year of 1972...because he would probably still be better than league average hitter. I wouldn't fathom taking Heranandez even a year after he retired, because he was already so God Awful.

grote15

I really appreciate the effort you put into this analysis, Dallas. It is definitely a different approach.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Yes, the guys with the much shorter careers who had their percentages saved because they weren't good enough to hold a full time MLB job by the age of 33-35. >>

We're talking past each other I think. If you rank players by their OPS+, John Kruk outranks Tony Gwynn and Joe Morgan - it's just the nature of statistics like this. I'm not trying to create a greatest players, or greatest hitters, list - in which case I would definitely need to take career length, old man years, etc. into account - but rather an improvement on OPS+ which could be used as one piece of a greatest hitters list. So in that context, do you see anything that looks especially "off"?

dallasactuary

OK, my list didn't go over very well primarily, I think, because it didn't take longevity into account. So here's my second try. This list measures everything it did before (OPS+, essentially plus SB/CS, GIDP, and men-on hitting) but now also takes career length into account. There's really nobody on the list that I think looks way out of place. In general, try not to quibble if a player is ranked behind another player by less than five points; let's just say that if player A and player B are within a few points of each other they're tied.

Rickey Henderson …………….. 164
Pete Rose …………….. 160
Reggie Jackson …………….. 155
Willie Stargell …………….. 153 (among the top group - down to Carew - Pops is the only player in the top three of both men-on hitting and hardest hitting environment)
George Brett …………….. 153
Mike Schmidt …………….. 152
Carl Yastrzemski …………….. 150
Eddie Murray …………….. 150
Joe Morgan …………….. 149
Tim Raines …………….. 145 (you didn't need this list to tell you this (I hope) but shame, shame, shame on the HOF voters for not inducting Raines on the first ballot)
Paul Molitor …………….. 143
Dave Winfield …………….. 143
Rod Carew …………….. 141 (you'll notice a significant drop from here to the next player - everyone above this line was basically a HOFer by virtue of their offense alone)
Rusty Staub …………….. 134 (down from here the only HOFers you'll find deserve to be in for reasons including their defense, or got very lucky to get in)
Darrell Evans …………….. 132
Robin Yount …………….. 132 (HOFer, and deservedly, for this much production from the SS position)
Dave Parker …………….. 131
Tony Perez …………….. 131 (borderline HOFer, for sure)
Bobby Bonds …………….. 129
Cal Ripken …………….. 128 (HOF - infield, lots of "extras")
Keith Hernandez …………….. 127
Dwight Evans …………….. 127
Andre Dawson …………….. 126 (no real business in the HOF; offense below the Evans's, and nothing else to add)
Harold Baines …………….. 125
Chili Davis …………….. 124 (not sure how many people appreciate how good Chili was; a beast with men on and a tough park to hit in, but no HOFer)
Jack Clark …………….. 123
Jose Cruz …………….. 123
Al Oliver …………….. 121
Reggie Smith …………….. 121
Cesar Cedeno …………….. 121
Don Baylor …………….. 120
Dale Murphy …………….. 119
Johnny Bench …………….. 118 (for a catcher, this is really good; catching takes a quick toll on everyone who ever played the position)
Lou Whitaker …………….. 117
Fred Lynn …………….. 117
Brian Downing …………….. 116
ROY WHITE ................... 116
Ted Simmons …………….. 115
Ken Singleton …………….. 115
Jim Rice …………….. 115 (from Lynn down to Otis is essentially a tie for offense; at this level only the skilled defenders should be talked about as HOFers)
Bobby Murcer …………….. 114
Graig Nettles …………….. 113
RON FAIRLY ................. 113
Carlton Fisk …………….. 113
Toby Harrah …………….. 112
Greg Luzinski …………….. 112
Amos Otis …………….. 112
Sal Bando …………….. 111
Ron Cey …………….. 111
Cecil Cooper …………….. 111
Steve Garvey …………….. 110
Gary Carter …………….. 110
Bobby Grich …………….. 110
Pedro Guerrero …………….. 109
Hal McRae …………….. 109
Kirk Gibson …………….. 109
George Foster …………….. 108
Ken Griffey …………….. 107
Willie Randolph …………….. 107
Bob Watson …………….. 107
Gene Tenace …………….. 106
Alan Trammell …………….. 106
Rick Monday …………….. 106
Chet Lemon …………….. 105
Bill Madlock …………….. 104
Buddy Bell …………….. 104
Lee May …………….. 104
Gary Matthews …………….. 104
Dusty Baker …………….. 104
Bill Buckner …………….. 102
Davey Lopes …………….. 102
Oscar Gamble …………….. 102
Ozzie Smith …………….. 102 (I like the juxtaposition here; Ozzie contributed a bit more offense than Kong)
Dave Kingman …………….. 101
Tim Wallach …………….. 101
Lonnie Smith …………….. 100
Rich Hebner …………….. 100
Chris Chambliss …………….. 98
Carney Lansford …………….. 98
Willie Wilson …………….. 98
Ben Oglivie …………….. 97
Garry Templeton …………….. 96
Mike Hargrove …………….. 96
Darrell Porter …………….. 96
Jeff Burroughs …………….. 95
Joe Rudi …………….. 95
George Hendrick …………….. 95
John Mayberry …………….. 94
Claudell Washington …………….. 94
Von Hayes …………….. 93
Larry Parrish …………….. 93
Jason Thompson …………….. 93
Dwayne Murphy …………….. 93
Andre Thornton …………….. 92
Gorman Thomas …………….. 92
Sixto Lezcano …………….. 91
Doug DeCinces …………….. 90
Bruce Bochte …………….. 90
Bert Campaneris …………….. 90
Don Money …………….. 90
Dan Driessen …………….. 90
Richie Zisk …………….. 89
Lance Parrish …………….. 89
Lloyd Moseby …………….. 89
Garry Maddox …………….. 88
Dave Concepcion …………….. 87
Willie Montanez …………….. 87
Mickey Rivers …………….. 87
Phil Garner …………….. 87
Al Bumbry …………….. 85
Hubie Brooks …………….. 83
Steve Sax …………….. 83
Lou Piniella …………….. 82
Jorge Orta …………….. 82
Jerry Mumphrey …………….. 82
Chris Speier …………….. 82
Frank White …………….. 80
Ruppert Jones …………….. 80
Tony Armas …………….. 80
Roy Smalley …………….. 80
Bill Russell …………….. 78
Enos Cabell …………….. 78
Del Unser …………….. 77
Larry Bowa …………….. 76
Al Cowens …………….. 75
Jim Sundberg …………….. 75
Dickie Thon …………….. 74
Dan Ford …………….. 73
Bob Boone …………….. 72
Ken Oberkfell …………….. 72
Bake McBride …………….. 71
Manny Trillo …………….. 70
Jim Gantner …………….. 69
Omar Moreno …………….. 68
Bob Horner …………….. 68
Tom Paciorek …………….. 67
Ken Phelps …………….. 66 (down where he belongs)
Aurelio Rodriguez …………….. 66
Ivan DeJesus …………….. 66
Alfredo Griffin …………….. 65
Rick Manning …………….. 65
Gary Roenicke …………….. 64
Rafael Ramirez …………….. 64
Tony Pena …………….. 61
Mark Belanger …………….. 60
Rick Burleson …………….. 58
Jerry Remy …………….. 57
Tim Foli …………….. 56
Steve Yeager …………….. 53
Frank Taveras …………….. 50
Tom Veryzer …………….. 35

Just a reminder, this is a best hitter's list, not a best player's list, and it only includes players who played in 1981 whether at the end, middle or beginning of their careers). I threw in Roy White and Ron Fairly just because they're among the most underrated players of all time and they played almost until 1981. I think there's a very good debate to be had regarding whether Jim Rice was better that Ron Fairly, but not so with Roy White. If you think Jim Rice was better than Roy White, you're just wrong; on offense, White was only a little bit better, but throw in defense and they're not really all that close.

(I know I'm missing some people who played in 1981, and played at least 10 years, but I don't think I missed anyone whose score would even be close to 100. If you notice anyone missing that you think was an above average player, please let me know.)

Skin2

I would say that list looks much better. The studs of the era are represented properly, and the underrated guys like Hernandez, Raines, Darrell Evans,etc..are given their proper due.

Rice is exactly where he belongs offensively in the company of Luzinski, Cey, Singleton, Lynn, Simmons, etc... Rice has no business being in the Hall of Fame when so many contemporaries were actually better and more feared ... and none of those guys are in...and that isn't even accounting for defense.

dallasactuary

Based on this 1981 baseline, I think there are some fairly clear, if broad, lines that can be drawn.

Career value of 140 or more: HOFer based on offense alone; no reasonable argument against at this level

Career value of 130 to 140: the gray area; right below the HOF line with offense, any significant "extra" and you're in

Career value below 130: no longer gray; below this point, offense alone just isn't enough; infielders and catchers only, and the further below the offense line, the better the defense needs to be


I went back another decade (people who played in the 1970's not already on the list) and without exception, I think they all fit the same categories nicely. I only looked at people who scored at least 100, so if you can't find a name, that's probably why (I might have missed someone, too).

Hank Aaron - 194
Willie Mays - 184
Frank Robinson -167
Willie McCovey -153
Al Kaline - 149
Harmon Killebrew - 147
Billy Williams - 144
Frank Howard - 140

Other than Howard, I don't think anyone ever questions the HOF bona fides of these players. I think people should stop questioning Howard's, too, and question instead why he's not in the HOF.

Dick Allen - 139 (a HOF player, but excluded for other reasons)
Boog Powell - 133 (one of the greatest men-on hitters in history; I'd vote him into the HOF)
Roberto Clemente - 132 (borderline offensively, enough "extras" to merit inclusion easily)

Lou Brock - 129 (people question his being in the HOF; he's close on offense alone, and I think he qualifies easily considering his extras)
Ernie Banks - 129 (close on offense in any event; from a shortstop he's a slam dunk)
Norm Cash - 123
Joe Torre -123 (considering how much of his career was at catcher and 3B, I think Torre should have gone in as a player a long time ago)
Orlando Cepeda - 120 (why they plucked Cepeda out from among Cash, Torre and others is a mystery; no business in the HOF)
Ron Santo - 119 (for a Gold Glove infielder, he should have been a slam dunk)
Willie Davis - 118
Jimmy Wynn - 116 (very comparable player to Jim Rice; good power, shortish career; no business in the HOF)
Vada Pinson - 112
Tony Oliva - 112
Brooks Robinson - 110 (That Robinson got in easily and Santo waited almost 30 years reflects poorly on the HOF voters)
Willie Horton - 108
Rico Carty - 105
Lee May - 104
Felipe Alou - 102
Johnny Callison -101

dallasactuary

Despite the fact that nobody cares, I went back another decade (people who played into the 1960's). This stat works really, really well.

Above the "no question" HOF line

Ted Williams .............. 198
Mickey Mantle ........... 187
Stan Musial ............... 184
Eddie Mathews .......... 155

In the "gray area"

None

In the "you better have added a ton with defense" to make the HOF zone

Duke Snider .............. 124 (great peak, and nothing else. Was 30 the last time he played a full season. Way overrated, IMO)
Yogi Berra ................ 117 (one of the best ever from a catcher)
Minnie Minoso ............ 116
Rocky Colavito ........... 115
Mickey Vernon ........... 114
Richie Ashburn .......... 107
Eddie Yost ................. 106
Roy Sievers ............... 105
Vic Wertz .................. 102
Gene Woodling .......... 102
Gil Hodges ................ 101 (WAAAAAYYYY overrated. Offensively, he's Dave Kingman. Easy home park (see also Duke Snider) creates the illusion of greatness)
Joe Adcocck ................ 100 (stupid word filter)

In case anyone was wondering, I also checked Roger Maris, Ted Kluszewski, Harvey Kuenn and a few others, and they all came in at less than 100.

I can't go back any further than this (hold your applause) because the data isn't there, so this concludes this study.

I think this stat measures offensive greatness extremely well, and I hope you agree with me. If you don't, then it's probably because you think how a player did in a handful of his best seasons is much more important than how he did in his other 15 seasons, including those he wasn't good enough to play. That's purely a matter of opinion, so I won't try to (further) argue the point. I disagree, but I am not saying that you're wrong.

But if you disagree for another reason, I hope you'll at least consider the following:

1. It matters a great deal whether a hit is a single or a home run; batting average measures nothing important and you should stop looking at it
2. It matters much less whether a batter gets a walk or a single; if you're ignoring walks, you're missing too much for the rest to matter
3. Offense includes SB, CS and GIDP. Ignoring these when deciding how great a player was isn't as bad as ignoring walks, but it's close.

Skin2

<< <i>

But if you disagree for another reason, I hope you'll at least consider the following:

1. It matters a great deal whether a hit is a single or a home run; batting average measures nothing important and you should stop looking at it
2. It matters much less whether a batter gets a walk or a single; if you're ignoring walks, you're missing too much for the rest to matter
3. Offense includes SB, CS and GIDP. Ignoring these when deciding how great a player was isn't as bad as ignoring walks, but it's close. >>



I only quoted this part because I want to say how succinctly and effectively you phrase those points. There really is no argument to refute what you are saying. I've gone the long road in detailing it, but you hit the nail on the head in three short points. Very good job.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>batting average measures nothing important and you should stop looking at it >>



Agreed with most of your post, but this is just wrong. No single stat (not combination stats like ops) by itself proves everything, you need to look at several. Career home runs excepted.

While batting average by itself is no longer regarded as highly as it once was, players who hit home runs in conjunction with a high batting average are rare.

Only can find eight players who have over 300 home runs and a .325 or more lifetime batting average. Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Hornsby, DiMaggio, Simmons, Fox.

Mays, Mantle and Aaron were all fantastic, but batting averages were all around .300. Mantles huge number of walks raises his value, but even he admitted disappointment at his BA dropping below .300.

Williams, DiMaggio and Musial would seem to be the best of the "modern day" hitters, especially Musial with his HUGE number of at bats. To retire with almost 11,000 at bats and maintaining a .331 BA is pretty amazing to me to go with his 475 home runs. Too bad Williams lost so much time to two wars, his numbers would have been staggering.

If Puhols is clean, he is one of the all time greats with Cabrera in the discussion among current players

grote15

Batting average can be deceptive, but obviously anyone who consistently hits over .300 is typically pretty good, particularly those who can also hit for power. I would say that it can unfairly diminish the true greatness of some, while elevating others, whose base hits are not as meaningful in the greater picture as a solely higher batting average would make it seem.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Batting average can be deceptive, but obviously anyone who consistently hits over .300 is typically pretty good, particularly those who can also hit for power. >>


Yes, someone who consistently hits over .300 is typically, but not always, pretty good, but is someone who hits .320 for their career better than someone who hits .310? Is a player who hits .300 better than a player who hits .250? There's simply no way to know because batting average hasn't provided any useful information. Gorman Thomas was a career .225 hitter, and he wasn't very good. Bake McBride was a career .299 hitter, and he not only wasn't very good, he wasn't as good as Gorman Thomas. If anything, their batting averages were a distraction that might mislead you into thinking McBride was better, and it would only be after looking at the things that matter that you'd no longer be deceived. And that's the whole point: when the things that matter - how often does a player get on base, and how many extra bases does he get - are already there in other stats, batting average is completely useless. In a trivial sense, sure, knowing a player's batting average is better than knowing how many triples or sac flies he has, but there are so many better stats than batting average out there, why not use them? If you're already looking at OBP and slugging, you're already looking at everything batting average measures, and much more.

grote15

I'm not disagreeing with your assertions, Dallas. I agree that stats like OBP% and SLG% are certainly much more revealing than simple BA. I do think that if you look at hitters who batted comfortably over. 300 for their career that the other stats are typically but not always going to be impressive, too. Ichiro is probably one of the more overrated players today with a high career BA. There certainly is a lot more debate once you get into the .250 to. 299 range.

coinkat

Interesting read... Not exactly sure where to start or where to end so I will be brief.

Frank Howard should be in the HOF... I even think we had a thread here discussing that a few years back

JoeBanzai

<< <i>Frank Howard should be in the HOF... I even think we had a thread here discussing that a few years back >>



Great hitter but with less than 6500 at bats, career is a little on the short side. Great years 1961-63 and again 1967-70. If the years between would have been a little better, I would be right there with full support for "The Capital Punisher" (great nick-name). I am on the fence as far as him being HOF worthy, but I wouldn't be upset if he made it.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>Batting average can be deceptive, but obviously anyone who consistently hits over .300 is typically pretty good, particularly those who can also hit for power. I would say that it can unfairly diminish the true greatness of some, while elevating others, whose base hits are not as meaningful in the greater picture as a solely higher batting average would make it seem. >>



Batting average is what it is, a simple number that shows how many times out of 1000 a batter gets a base hit. I don't think anyone feels that it by itself means that someone is the "best" hitter (unless it's someone like Ted Williams who had one hell of a batting average) but it certainly shows how successful a player is at making contact and getting safely on base which is a VERY important part of baseball.

To say it's meaningless and should be ignored is ridiculous.

Edited to add; Ichiro is not so overrated to me as to many of you, 10 straight years of 200 hits and .300 average and 9 out of the 10 with 30 or more steals, 11 of 12 years playing nearly every game. I won't bat him 3rd or 4th, but I'll take him as a lead off guy any day. Don't get me wrong he had a lower slg% and didn't walk as much as he could have, but he was a damn good hitter!

dallasactuary

<< <i>Batting average is what it is, a simple number that shows how many times out of 1000 a batter gets a base hit. I don't think anyone feels that it by itself means that someone is the "best" hitter (unless it's someone like Ted Williams who had one hell of a batting average) but it certainly shows how successful a player is at making contact and getting safely on base which is a VERY important part of baseball.

To say it's meaningless and should be ignored is ridiculous. >>


If you have OBP and slugging - as we do - then batting average is meaningless. It measures nothing that is not already measured by the other two, and the other two measure quite a bit more. What batting average does is mislead people into thinking singles hitters who swing at bad pitches rather than taking a walk are much better than they actually are. Bill Buckner, Dave Cash, Matty Alou and Ichiro, among many examples, are/were not nearly as good as their batting averages make some people think. If you are aware of a single example of a player that would be underrated by the people who look at their OBP and slugging average, and who can only be correctly evaluated by looking at their batting average, then please share it. If you have none, and you can't because there are none, then why do you object to batting average being called meaningless?

JoeBanzai

<< <i>

<< <i>Batting average is what it is, a simple number that shows how many times out of 1000 a batter gets a base hit. I don't think anyone feels that it by itself means that someone is the "best" hitter (unless it's someone like Ted Williams who had one hell of a batting average) but it certainly shows how successful a player is at making contact and getting safely on base which is a VERY important part of baseball.

To say it's meaningless and should be ignored is ridiculous. >>



If you have OBP and slugging - as we do - then batting average is meaningless. It measures nothing that is not already measured by the other two, and the other two measure quite a bit more. What batting average does is mislead people into thinking singles hitters who swing at bad pitches rather than taking a walk are much better than they actually are. Bill Buckner, Dave Cash, Matty Alou and Ichiro, among many examples, are/were not nearly as good as their batting averages make some people think. If you are aware of a single example of a player that would be underrated by the people who look at their OBP and slugging average, and who can only be correctly evaluated by looking at their batting average, then please share it. If you have none, and you can't because there are none, then why do you object to batting average being called meaningless? >>



I have NEVER claimed that looking at BA only is a good way to evaluate a hitter, only that it is not meaningless! Please stop twisting the discussion. How can batting average be meaningless if it's used to determine opb and slg? Obp and slg obviously give more information about what kind of hitter the player is, but batting average is and always will be a great way to measure ONE facet of a hitters ability, an important one.

All hitters in a lineup do not need to be (or can be) great sluggers. A good "table setter" has great value to the sluggers coming up behind them. A leadoff/singles type hitter that also steals a lot of bases (Ichiro 2006) is either in scoring position at second base (or third base depending on how he got on base), is this value included in any of these stats? A single and stolen base is as good as a double for a leadoff man.

Looking again at Ichiro's 2006 year. He has an ops of .786 and yet somehow ends up with your ops+ number of 106 (seems a bit low). In 1967 Mickey Mantle has an ops of .825 and ops+ of 149! Please explain how this can be correct. Ballpark factor improves Mantles value because he walked 108 times in 144 games? Can't really see how that can be accurate, Ichiro beats Mantle in (meaningless) batting average by 78 points, Mantle outslugs him by 18 points, Ichiro steals 45 bases (only caught 2 times) and ops+ says Mantle CRUSHES Ichiro by 37 points. Ichiro walked only 49 times but scored 110 runs to Mickeys 63. RBI's Mantle wins by 6, but I guess you might say RBI is a less meaningful stat than BA. Ichiro also wins in total bases by about 100.

Please explain to me how any good statistic should be able to prove Mantle's year was better or more valuable than Ichiro's at all, not to mention by 37 ops+ points.

grote15

Ichiro is not an ideal leadoff hitter. He hits for a high average, yes (which is where fans get duped), and the stolen bases help, but he simply doesn't reach base nearly as frequently enough as you'd expect from a player with that kind of batting average and he has little to no power. His career OPS+ of 110 pretty much puts him where he belongs~a bit above average.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Please explain to me how any good statistic should be able to prove Mantle's year was better or more valuable than Ichiro's at all, not to mention by 37 ops+ points. >>


I will, even though I know you won't listen. Maybe someone else will.

And thank you for picking a perfect example to demonstrate why batting average is useless. Despite Ichiro's huge 78 point advantage in batting average, who got on base more, Ichiro or Mantle? It was Mantle, 39.1% of the time to Ichiro's 37.0% of the time. And since Ichiro only got an extra base hit 5% of the time he came up, you can't reasonably argue that Mantle's walks weren't every bit as important as Ichiro's hits, which were virtually all weak singles. Then, on top of Mantle's 21 point advantage in getting on base, he has an additional 18 point advantage in slugging. If we stop there, it's a huge win for Mantle. But wait, there's more.

In 1967, in the heart of the second deadball era, the average AL player got on base 30.1% of the time, and slugged .351. In 2006, the average AL figures were 33.9% and .437. So simply by virtue of playing in the live ball era, Ichiro should get on base about 11% more often and have a slugging average 25% higher. Instead, he was worse at both. We could stop there, with Ichiro humiliated and begging for mercy, but wait, there's more.

Yankee stadium wasn't an average AL park, in fact it was tied with Angels and White Sox for the toughest park in which to hit in the entire AL; about 6% tougher than the average park. By 2006, Seattle's park was actually one of the toughest to hit in too, but only about 3% tougher than the average park.

So Mantle got on base more often, his average hit was for more bases, he played in a tougher park and he played in a very much tougher era. Mickey Mantle was not only better than Ichiro in the years in question, he crushed him mercilessly and left him bleeding by the side of the road. If Ichiro cared to leave his last remaining shred of dignity intact he kept his pathetic murmur of "but my batting average was 78 points higher" to himself. But I'll lend him a hand and allow that he did add value with his stolen bases and by grounding into fewer double plays. OPS+ doesn't measure those things and the galactic-scale gap between the two is narrowed when you take those into account. OPS+ says Ichiro was basically an average offensive performer, but he was actually solidly above average. He had a B season at the plate, and played well in the outfield; I'd grade the season a B+ overall. Mantle had a borderline A/A+ season offensively (he was somewhere from the 5th to the 10th best in the league that year), but he was old and slow and his defense was little more than adequate. I'd give him an A- overall.

In the end, Mantle was better in 1967 than Ichiro was in 2006. He was a lot better at the plate - a LOT better - but Ichiro makes up a good amount of ground on the bases, and in the field. That, if you're interested, is a thorough, unbiased, analysis of their two seasons. And nothing in it depends at all on their batting averages. Why? Because batting average is an entirely meaningless statistic. grote actually said the same thing much more succinctly, but I don't do succinct.

Skin2

Banzi, it is a waste of time to even consider the measurements you are using between ichiro and mantle...because the Win Probability Added accounts for all the ones you are using, and more.

WPA
Mantle 3.9
Ichiro 1.6

The case is closed right there, especially considering Mantle beat him while also having 200 LESS plate appearances!!!!

Banzi, how proud would you beat if you beat a professional in a race?
Then how much more proud would you be if in that race you ran 60 yds, him only 40, AND you also ran with a parachute behind your back..because that is basically what Mantle did while beating Ichiro



...but I also want to put it into laymen's terms.

You use Ichiro's run and RBI totals, yet you are not accounting for three major things that impact those, the number of RBI opportunities, the hitting numbers of the players in the lineup following each player, and the number of at bats by each player in total.

Then you have the whole run scoring environment in the league for each of those times, which are far different...and each run or RBI that Mantle scored has about 15% more value than each run/RBI that Ichiro did. Save that for later though.

1). Ichiro had 695 at bats, Mantle had 440. So right off the bat, any counting stat is going to unfairly favor Ichiro. Mantle averaged one HR every 20 at bats, and if you account for the fact that Mantle had 255 less at bats than Ichiro, that is about 13 extra HR's Mantle is 'missing'. Right that there, that is 13 runs, and about 22 RBI. He also missed another 10 doubles, which is about 4 more runs and 6 more RBI. I'm not even going to look at the other missing events.

So your new value of their Run and RBI totals are:

Mantle 80 Runs and 83 RBI
Ichiro 110 runs and 49 RBI




2) RBI opportunities. Check out the following RBI opportunities in the splits below:

Name......Men on...RISP... 2nd and 3rd.....Bases loaded
Mantle ....188.......93............1.....................7
Ichiro.......221......127..........10...................13

An AVERAGE hitter drives in appx 28% of runners in scoring position...........so that is 6 more RBI for Mantle(only six because I took the two situations below out of this total so it isn't double counted).
An average hitter will gain an average of about 1 RBI per each bases loaded situation........so that is 6 more RBI for Mantle
Av average hitter will gain about .67 RBI for each 2/3 situation...................so that is 6 more RBI for Mantle.

There are more opportunities I'm not even going to look at, because I'm going the simple rout.


Here are their new Run and RBI values after accounting for some of the Men on Opportunities:
Mantle 80 runs and 101 RBI
Ichiro 110 runs and 49 RBI


3) The hitting ability of the players behind them. Obviously, a guy isn't going to score many runs if the players behind him keep making outs, and a guy is going to score more runs if the players behind him are getting hits and advancing runners, and even more so when they are getting extra base hits.

Here are the top three OPS's of the players in the Yankee lineup other than Mantle:.678, .678, .641
Here are the top three OPS's of the players in the Mriners lineup other than Ichiro: .869, .842,. 792. Their team AVERAGE was .749, which was better than any other Non Mantle Yankee.

Ichiro should be scoring a ton more runs when the hitters behind him are doing so at a 25% higher rate.

So here are their new run and RBI total accoutning for the efficiency of the batters behind them:

Mantle 100 runs scored and 101 RBI
Ichiro 110 runs scored and 49 RBI.



Then you have to account for the league environment too. Step three of the hitters behind kind of shows that. A run scored by Mantle in 1966 is worth more than a run scored by Ichiro in 2006...that is if winning is important to you. Mantle's runs and RBI have about a 15% more win value than Ichiro's does(doing that off the top of my head, sorry for any error there). I'll just reduce that to 10% and play it safe.


So, accounting for all the key things as mentioned above(noting that I did not even include several other missing elements!), here is really how their run and RBI value look in laymens terms:

Mantle 110 Runs Scored and 111 RBI
Ichiro 110 Runs Scored and 49 RBI.

An easy victory for Mantle, with a lead of 62 more runs created.

We could have just saved all the trouble and referred back to the Win Probability Added where Mantle added 2.3 more wins than Ichiro....and did it in 200 less plate appearances.

skrezyna23

JoeBanzai

This has gotten somewhat far afield (big surprise), my original point was batting average is not meaningless, even though it doesn't tell the whole story.

Ichiro is certainly not the greatest or even one of the greatest hitters or leadoff guys of all time. Averaging 200 hits a year for 12 years is an impressive achievement.

Measures up pretty close to Pete Rose's numbers with a LOT less at bats.

JoeBanzai

<< <i>The hitting ability of the players behind them. Obviously, a guy isn't going to score many runs if the players behind him keep making outs, and a guy is going to score more runs if the players behind him are getting hits and advancing runners, and even more so when they are getting extra base hits.

Here are the top three OPS's of the players in the Yankee lineup other than Mantle:.678, .678, .641
Here are the top three OPS's of the players in the Mriners lineup other than Ichiro: .869, .842,. 792. Their team AVERAGE was .749, which was better than any other Non Mantle Yankee. >>



Thank you! This is exactly why I have been saying that a walk has a greater value to a leadoff hitter than to a cleanup guy, yet in the "advanced" measurements a walk has the same value to both players!

Adding to your point is the fact that if a leadoff guy steals a lot of bases he is even more valuable because he is in scoring position with good hitters coming up.

Skin2

Banzi, I detailed it above, but more on the runs scored and batting average.

If on one hand you hail batting average as an important indicator of offense, and then on the other also hail runs scored, then you must take into account that Mantle scoring less runs that Ichiro has a big part in the fact that the three lineup spots behind Mantle on the Yankees in 1967, hit .239, .217, and .216. They slugged .354, .335, and .300.

I ask, how many runs do you expect Mantle to score with such abysmal hitting behind him?

Compare that to Ichiro and the three lineup spots following him, they hit .284, .263, and .275. Slugged .471, .437, .497.

Lets look at the "percentage of times the player advanced more than one base on a single, and more than two bases on a double when possible":

Mantle took the extra base 36% of the time
Ichiro took the extra base 36% of the time.

Hmmm. So Ichiro wasn't even taking extra bases at a higher rate than Mantle that created more runs scored...so it had nothing to do with the baserunning.

So really, the things that caused Ichiro to score more runs that Mantle were 1)He came to the plate 200 more times, 2)The batters behind him hit at a rate that was equivalent to about the difference between Babe Ruth and Ivan DeJesus so they failed to deliver in Mantle when he was on base, and 3)Mantle had to hit in an environment where it was much harder to hit.


The RBI opportunities are already laid out above in the earlier post.


But again, the Win Probability already has all that(and more), and Mantle beat Ichiro 3.9 to 1.6....despite having 200 LESS PLATE APPEARANCES. So basically, Mantle beat him on one leg.




PS Banzi, the walk does have a slightly higher value to a leadoff guy than a cleanup guy...but it is VERY slight, almost nominal...that has been figured.

And it is ironic you say that the walk has more value to a leadoff hitter....YET ICHIRO DIDN"T WALK VERY MUCH!!! Make sense?? That blows your entire batting average argument out of the water!

In Mantle's case above, it is simply the abysmal hitting of his teammates, not anything else.

Skin2

PS Banzi, the walk does have a slightly higher value to a leadoff guy than a cleanup guy...but it is VERY slight, almost nominal...and that has been figured.

And it is ironic you say that the walk has more value to a leadoff hitter....YET ICHIRO DIDN"T WALK VERY MUCH!!! Make sense?? That blows your entire batting average argument out of the water! That is exactly what Dallas is telling you why batting average is a horrible measurement, lol.

The play by play data shows all the values of the walk in leadoff spot compared to that in three or four hole. The Margin of difference is extremely small. A walk from the #3 hitter has the cleanup hitter and five hitter behind them...so those are excellent scoring opportinies. On average, the 4th and 5th place hitter are about as good as the 2nd and 3rd place hitter combined.

The only time the value of the walk truly diminishes is for the 7th and 8th place hitters in the NL when the pitcher is coming up.

So once again, EVERY answer you seek is already known in the play by play. No mystery.


In Mantle's case above, it is simply the abysmal hitting of his teammates, not anything else.


PS, one of the reasons why the '67 yanks had such bad hitting behind Mantle is because it was a deadball era.

Skin2

Now that it is crystal clear that Mantle was far superior a hitter in 1967 than Ichiro in 2006, lets move back to the topic of batting average being a poor stat. Ichiro comes to mind again of course, since he has one of the emptiest .300 averages to be found.

I guarantee that if you ask who was a better hitter, Ichiro or Tony Phillips, nearly all fans would say Ichiro was vastly better, and they would point to the batting average and hit totals as their 'overwhelming' evidence.

Ichiro hit . 317
Phillips hit .266

As we know, a whole lot more goes into measuring the hitter. One of the simplest(and effecitve measuresments) is OPS+. For their career:

Ichiro 110 OPS+
Phillips 109 OPS+

That is a far different view than what the batting average says.

As banzi did above, a lot of those same fans tend to look at RBI and runs scored as their barometer to hitting. So if we give those people some of their 'own medicine' and look at their runs scored and RBI totals, we have:

Ichiro 1,303 runs scored. 717 RBI..............note that Ichiro had 500+ more plate apperances, which means he was worse in both runs and RBI.
Phillips 1,300 runs scored. 819 RBI

So if Ichiro's batting average and hits were so important, then how come he was worse at scoring runs and worse at driving them in than Tony Phillips? Some of your own medicine, since you hold those measurements in such high regard

I already know the pitfalls that go into using RUns Scored and RBI(and that is laid out above in the Mantle/Ichiro debate)...but the same fans that promote batting average also disregard the pitfalls for runs scored and RBI, and then make judgements based on those flawed criteria. Those fans are now in a pickle with their favorite stats of RBI(and runs). So to be consistent, those fans now have to do that here, and take the runs scored and RBI at face value like they do in every other case.




For all you Ichiro fans, and fans of the batting average stat, you must now admit that Phillips was just as good a hitter as Ichiro; and every time you say that Ichiro is one of the great hitters ever, you must also say the same about Phillips. If you are not willing to do that, then I don't ever want to hear you use runs scored or RBI as any type of measurement in any debate ever again

PSASAP

Walks will always be viewed as a pitcher's inability to find the strike zone, and not the batter's ability to reach base safely.

grote15

<< <i>Walks will always be viewed as a pitcher's inability to find the strike zone, and not the batter's ability to reach base safely. >>



Will be viewed that way by whom? I've never heard such a misconception as that.

PSASAP

You could put a comatose patient in a gurney up to the plate, and if the guy on the mound can't find the plate, guess what, Mr. Horizontal gets wheeled down to first.

dallasactuary

<< <i>You could put a comatose patient in a gurney up to the plate, and if the guy on the mound can't find the plate, guess what, Mr. Horizontal gets wheeled down to first. >>


True, and to the degree that this is actually how a walk should be perceived every player would get a walk the same percentage of the time. But you're saying that there are people that think a player who walks 1,500 times in 10,000 chances hasn't done anything better than a player who walks 500 times in 10,000 chances. I hope you're wrong that there are really people out there that stupid; they no doubt pose a threat to themselves and others.

Skin2

<< <i>Walks will always be viewed as a pitcher's inability to find the strike zone, and not the batter's ability to reach base safely. >>



I didn't think your baseball knowledge could get any worse...guess I was wrong.

By the way, that Ichiro/Tony Phillips post above is pretty much directed toward your type of thinking. As usual, your type of thinking has painted yourself into a corner, just like your ridiculous assertions with Lou Brock and the post season that made you look like a complete idiot and hypocrite.

Skin2

Last season in MLB

Pitchers(when batting) walked once every 34.5 trips to the plate.
First baseman(batting) walked once every 10.3 trips to the plate.

This huge difference holds true every year in baseball.

So no, walks are not random occurrences from the pitcher. The person batting has great control if they get a walk, based on their eye, the number of pitches they see per at bat, and their hitting ability forcing the pitcher to work the corners or work around them because they are simply too good to have pitchers throw it near the middle.

Can a walk occur simply because a pitcher throws four awful pitches? Sure. Maybe more in little league(which is probably where you are getting your philosophies from). So of course it is possible a batter gets a lucky free pass.

However, it is also possible a batter gets a lucky hanging slider over the middle of the plate, a pitch that any MLB hitter will take advantage of, most likely resulting in an extra base hit. That is on the pitcher just as much as a wild walk is on the pitcher.

Skin2

Lets talk more about walks. The play by play data shows the value of a walk, how often it scores runs when it occurs, and how often the walk gets driven in from the subsequent batters. THe value of them is no mystery, arguing that is pointless because the millions of play by play data shows it ALL.

Many fans seem to think that it is the #3 or #4 hitter's job to drive in runs. Actually, their job is to create runs...but lets stick with that notion of their job is to drive in runs.

First, if both the number thee and four hitter's job is to drive in runs, then wouldn't the number three hitter drawing a walk be setting up the number four hitter to drive in runs anyway?? Actually, it would mean driving in more runs for the number four hitter. The number five hitter's job is to drive in runs too. So the number four hitter getting on sets him up for that job.

So right there, people are automatically wrong to think it is a bad thing for a #3 or #4 hitter to draw walks.

What IS a bad thing is when the #3 or #4 hitter makes an out. That is bad. Problem with the guys who don't draw walks is twofold 1)They aren't on base enough for their teammates to drive them in, and 2)they are making more outs, ending more innings earlier, and taking the bat out of the hands of the guy behind them who's job is to drive runs in.


To clear these things up, lets look at two excellent middle of the order hitters on the opposite end of the walk spectrum, Clemente and Mantle.

Clemente's hitting value is not as high as many think, because he simply didn't get on base too much. Mantle, got any base as good as almost anyone in history, and some actually don't recognize his greatness.

They will say, "It is Clemente's job to drive in runs, not walk and leave it up to the next guy." As pointed out above, his job is actually to create runs, not just knock them in...but if you still believe in the notion that it is his job to drive in runs, thus the reason why his lack of walks doesn't matter, then lets look at that. Hmmmm.


Clemente VS RH pitchers in his career had the following line .308 BA, .346 OB%, .455 SLG %, .801 OPS. He walks once every 18.36 plate appearances vs RH(which isn't good at all...Mantle drew them every 5.6). His fans, or the archaic fans that don't understand the value of the walk will simply say, "Him not walking is ok, because it is his job to drive in runs."

OK...then what was Willie Stargell's job??? He was the predominant batter hitting behind Clemente.

Here is what Stargell did vs RH pitchers in his career. 294 BA, .376 OB%, .559 SLG %, .935 OPS. Keep in mind that those percentages include his old man years. They were even higher when he was hitting behind Clemente.

So tell me, which of these two situations have a better chance of scoring runs:

1. Clemente batting vs a RH pitcher with man on 2B.................................Clemente hitting ability at a .308 AVG, 455 SLG%, and .801 OPS
2. Stargell batting vs a RH pitcher with Clemente on 1B, and runner on 2B? Stargell hitting ability at a .294 AVG, .559 SLG%, and a .935 OPS

If one doesn't see that #2 is obviously a better run producing state, then they should get off the computer and get back out to recess.


Now you can see how much a disservice it was for the team to have a hitter not draw enough walks. He was doing his team a disservice for not getting on for Stargell enough.




Not everyone has a Stargell behind them. Mantle never did. Some guys like Bonds had garbage behind them and walked 200 times. In extreme cases like that where Bonds was so good, the option was either take the walk, or swing at a pitch out of the zone and pop up and make an out, which would be worse than taking the walk and letting the next guy hit. That is what the bad hitters do, they chase those bad pitches instead of taking the walks. What happens is they make more outs because of doing that.


What about Mantle? He took so many walks, partly because of his batting eye and skill set, and partly because if he got anything over the plate he would have hit it 500 feet. Pitchers know this, and they pitched Mantle accordingly. They weren't going to pitch to him unless they had to. If Mantle were a dumb hitter, he would have chased those pitches out of the zone and would have made a lot more outs(hitting the occasional extra hit), and doing his team a disservice...all in the name of, "its my job to drive in runs?"

But look at the lineup spots behind Mantle when he was in his prime. Looking from '56-'61 when he was drawing walks like a mad man(and hitting HR's like a mad man too), look at at the OPS of the two spots behind Mantle.

Keep in mind that Clemente's OPS was .801.

'56: .991, .855
'57: .779, .801
'58: .779, .776
'59: .804, .781
'60: .814, .814
'61: .836, .899


So was Mantle doing a disservice to his team by drawing walks if the next two lineup spots had similar OPS's to Clemente(who's job it was to supposedly drive in runs)?? Absolutely not!

Mantle not only drove in the runners in ahead of him, he also set up the runners for the guys who were behind him...guys with similar hitting ability to Clemente!!
Clemente drove them in ok...but failed at setting up the hitters behind him(one hitter actually being better than Clemente himself), and that is one of the reasons why he wasn't near the hitter as Mantle.

A three/four hitter isn't suppose to just knock them in, he has to set them up for the Berra's and Stargell's too


In the event that Mantle would have terrible hitters behind him, he would draw more walks. If he had amazing hitters behind him, he would draw less walks and hit more HR because he would be pitched to. In the end, he would have the same value, but getting there in a different route. Either a higher OB% or more HR.


It wasn't Clemente's choice to draw less walks, that was his skill set. If he had the ability to hit a ton like Mantle, then pitchers would have recognized that, and pitched around him more, and he would have drawn more. Or, if he had a better eye and an equal reaction time as Mantle, then he would have laid off more bad pitches, made less outs, and drew more walks.

PSASAP

Baseball is being micro managed to death by all the bean counters and lawyers who are currently running the game. The players of the past just went out and played, for as long as it took, until the game was over. Would a manager ever move his centerfielder to shortstop on the eve of the World Series? Mayo Smith did, right before the 1968 World Series. The game was different back then, it was played differently, strategized differently, and most of all, treated like a game. An attempt at revisionist history, which is what taking baseball in the 60's or any other era which didn't utilize sabermetrics, and trying to make it fit into a 21st century mindset, misses the point entirely.

Skin2

Wrong,

The game is/was still played to score runs, prevent runs, and win games. Throughout baseball history, the job of teams was to find guys who could do each at the highest level.

Guys who did what Mantle did, filled that need greater than other players who couldn't do what he did.

Same goes for all other players down the line.

PSASAP, You use stats often...just the wrong ones, and you contradict yourself often. If you really believe the above statement, then you shoulnd't be using any stats to prove your points. Instead, you just continue to use the wrong ones, and miss a lot of pertinent information.

Every point you make, I simply point out that it is inaccurate, invalid, and filled with unsubstantiated assumptions. Your 'take' on base on balls being one of them(as pointed out above).

So if your final point is what you just said, great...but then don't contradict yourself by pointing out any measurements as you have done.

So then we should hear no more about a batting average or RBI from you, since those are stats It could be your first time being consistent in what you say.



Batting average is not a good stat. You tried to say otherwise.

Base on Balls have the value as pointed out by the good measurements. You mad some insanely stupid assumptions in regard to base on ball above. Insanely stupid.

And if you truly believe it is 'what you do in the post season' as you said in relation to Brock, then you need to recognize that in relation to Mantle ...but the ignorant bias in you simply can't.

So stop talking about some nonsense, just because you got your brains beat in with your stupid comments.

PSASAP

Consistency is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds, or didn't your mama tell you that.

Skin2

Batting average is not a good stat. You tried to say otherwise.

Base on Balls have the value as pointed out by the good measurements. You mad some insanely stupid assumptions in regard to base on ball above. Insanely stupid. Insanely stupid.

And if you truly believe it is 'what you do in the post season' as you said in relation to Brock, then you need to recognize that in relation to Mantle ...but the ignorant bias in you simply can't.

So stop talking about some nonsense, just because you got your brains beat in with your stupid comments.


PSASAP you may be the dumbest poster in the history of these boards. You make stupid comments, back them up with nothing, and then when you are thoroughly crushed in a debate, you make some feeble attempt to change the topic to some other theme.




PS: Evolving statistical measurements have been as much a part of the game as the evolving equipment. Branch Ricky was the guy promoting On Base percentage as being better than batting average, and that was in the 1940's/50's. So stop talking about revisionist history. In no part of baseball history was it preferable to swing at balls or bad pitches you moron.



HERE is an excerpt from a 1954 Life Magazine article about Rickey. If there were no dates or names, you could easily mistake it for an article published by a GM today. That work was furthered more and more as time went on...and got extremely accurate with the advent of the play by play data.

" INTRODUCTION

In a 1954 Life magazine article, Branch Rickey introduced an equation relating a baseball team's performance in a season to various measures of offense and defense. One of his findings was that on-base percentage dominates batting average in the measure of offense, which, as Schwarz notes, was way ahead of its time. (1) Rickey's analysis is quite interesting. It is probably largely due to Allan Roth, whom he mentions in the article. Rickey and Roth were not mathematical statisticians, and they took their figures to "mathematicians at a famous research institute" (alas, Princeton, not Yale). (2) They got their results back in six weeks, "which constituted a framework around which to build a formula." (3) Rickey does not discuss in a mathematically rigorous way the derivation of his formula, but there is enough discussion of technique in the article to see roughly what he did.

In this paper, Rickey's equation is examined using a more formal statistical technique, regression analysis, which is often used in the social sciences. The equation is first examined using data from Rickey's own period, 1934 to 1953, and then it is extended to the present to see how it does with data from the modern era. It will be seen that the results from 1934 to 1953 support Rickey's conclusions and that the equation holds up well when extended fifty-one years through 2004. Although Rickey's equation was largely ignored at the time, the results in this paper suggest that perhaps it should not have been.

THE EQUATION

Rickey said he used the last twenty years worth of data to build his formula; we will assume that 1934 to 1953 were the twenty years in question. The data are yearly and by team. (4) In this period, there were sixteen teams, eight per league, so the number of observations we can use is 320. Rickey used as the measure of team performance the number of games behind the league leader for the season, denoted G. He was also interested in a team's average runs per game in a season relative to the average runs per game of the team's opponents. Rickey first noted that this variable and G have a strong positive correlation. This is not surprising. The more runs a team scores relative to its opponents, the more games it is likely to win. Rickey's aim was then to see if he could find measures of offense that were highly correlated with a team's average runs per game and measures of defense that were highly correlated with the average runs per game of the team's opponents. Such measures would then be highly correlated with G and would give one an idea of the kinds of offense and defense that are most effective. In the end (after getting back the results from the mathematical experts), he came up with three measures of offense and four measures of defense.

The first measure of offense is on-base percentage

onbase = H+BB+HP/AB+BB+HP

where H is hits, BB is bases on balls, HP is hit by pitch, and AB is at bats. (5) These variables are all a team's totals for the season. The second equation is a measure of extra base power

power = 0.75 TB-H/AB

where TB is total bases (calculated by multiplying the number of home runs by 4, the number of triples by 3, the number of doubles by 2, and adding those figures to the number of singles). Rickey said that (TB-H)/AB had a lower correlation with a team's average runs per game than did the other two measures (equations 1 and 3), and he adjusted for this by multiplying it by 0.75, which is something we will return to later on. The third measure is what Rickey calls "clutch"

clutch = R/H+BB+HP

H+BB+HP

where R is runs scored. This variable is the percent of players on base who score. (6) The total offense measure is then the sum of these first three formulas:

offense = onbase + power + clutch

Rickey used four measures to calculate defense. These are measures that are meant to be highly correlated with the average runs per game of a team's opponents. … "

PSASAP

Skin, it's amusing to see you get in a lather over this. It's downright Pavlovian the way you take the bait time and again. Tell us again how you excel at hitting contests and how you could dunk a basketball if it weren't for your bum knee and excessive gut.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Would a manager ever move his centerfielder to shortstop on the eve of the World Series? Mayo Smith did, right before the 1968 World Series. >>


Completely off-topic from the rest of the thread, but the 1968 Tigers were a fascinating team. You hit on one thing that made them fascinating - they couldn't find a shortstop who could hit major league pitching. They used three different shortstops throughout the season and combined they hit .155. And the one who got the most at bats was the worst hitter - BA of .135 and an OPS+ of 20! If any team today somehow found themselves in a similar situation, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone else play shortstop in the WS.

And here's a quiz that I bet nobody can get right: of the 1968 Tigers with at least 90 plate appearances, who were the top three in slugging average? I would bet that nearly everyone would guess Kaline, Horton and Cash in some order, but that guess only identifies one of the three (Horton). The other two were Gates Brown who slugged .685 for a mind-boggling OPS+ of 234, and Earl Wilson, their #3 starting pitcher, who slugged .489 for an OPS+ of 118 (his numbers were .500 and 120 in 1966).

And, if you go back far enough so that everyone has had their chance with the voters, how many World Series winning teams can you name that had zero HOFers as everyday players? Kaline was hurt for much of that year, and only platooned, and Eddie Mathews was barely hanging on.

Skin2

<< <i>Skin, it's amusing to see you get in a lather over this. It's downright Pavlovian the way you take the bait time and again. Tell us again how you excel at hitting contests and how you could dunk a basketball if it weren't for your bum knee and excessive gut. >>



Not in a lather, I'm having fun toying with a moron...maybe that makes me kind of mean, but it is fun.

I've seen stupid, but PSASAP, you take the cake. I don't think I have ever seen anybody make dumb statement after dumb statement, and have it obliterated for the foolishness as it is, as much as you have.

Yup, still excel at hitting. No, can't dunk a basketball anymore...not because of a gut, as I have a flat stomach




You on the other hand, need to stop stealing quotes from famous writers, and passing them off as your own...especially since those quotes don't even apply to this type of topic or exercise.

Can you get any dumber and more false? Hypocrite? Bias, ignorant? Jeez, you are building up quite a resume with your foolish statements and philosophies in regard to evaluating baseball.

...and yes, INCONSISTENT and CONTRADICTORY


BY the way, every time you quote him, you break one of the things that he is saying, 'Individuals should speak their ideas instead of quoting the words of historical people because it will not help one understand his own inspiration.' By the way, I'm not quoting him because I believe what he is saying, just doing so since you are so foolish that you don't even realize that your methods are actually contradicting the ideas of the man you are stealing them from...

...as you should also then follow his words about not following the traditional established thinking(like you do with Batting average, Walks, and RBI), and realize that you should challenge those archaic principles that have been banged into everyone's head. Have the courage to think and further yourself.

Finally, inconsistencies and contradicting yourself in matters such as these is bad, and doesn't apply to Emerson's essay. If today you say two plus two is four, and tomorrow you claim it is eight...it is no longer a matter of individualism...it just shows that you are simply a moron.



Emerson is my biotch...and THAT is Emerson

PSASAP

Do you have your protest signs made and ready to roll out when Ichiro makes the Hall? Because you know he'll get in, and all you'll have is your smug sense of superiority that will have you believing that the writers who voted him in know nothing about baseball. That and $4.00 will get you a latte.

Skin2

Emerson is my biotch.

PSASAP...my toy, when I am bored.


"Writers know nothing about baseball" is the first accurate thing you have said on these boards. Congrats, you are learning.

Maybe those writers should read Emerson to challenge their established archaic thinking, lol.

I don't take what the writers say as anything important...not sure why YOU do since you seem to be such a big follower of Emerson's philosophy

I do however enjoy pointing out their stupidity...it is a hobby. Don't need a latte to enjoy a hobby. I already have a fulfilling career, and sexy woman, to get me what I need.

Skin2

Classic thread that illustrates some of the things on value of a walk that has been talked about again on these boards...and also Ichiro, who was as good a hitter as Tony Phillips, to highlight it..

THere was a brief interlude with PSASP trying to pawn off Emerson's quotes as his own, and it was fun toying with him.

I also like the Branch Rickey article, because there are some people who claim that baseball players in previous generations didn't understand the value of taking a walk, which Branch Rickey would disagree with. So joebanzi, if you are still on the line of thinking you would take Mantle's word for him needing to retire, then shouldn't you do the same in regard to Rickey?

From 1952-1957 the Dodgers Hitter's led the league in walks every one of those seasons. In 1951 they finsihed second. I would say that is pretty good idea that they had somewhat of a philosophy on the value of a walk in both finding players who were capable of doing it and/or emphasizing it.

Heck, Babe Ruth knew the value of taking a walk...and that value is PRECISELY measured in the play by play data, so it is foolish for anyone to guess or assume what it is. WE ALREADY KNOW.

And in the end, Ichiro is still no better of a hitter than Tony Phillips. So anyone who is claiming Ichiro is the 100th best hitter in baseball history MUST have Phillips at either 99 or 101....just as pointed out above in the breakdown.

Interesting note, check out the baserunning abilities of Ichiro and Mantle:
Look at their extra base running percentage, which is the percentage of times they go two bases on a single, and three on a double(when on first).

Mantle 55% taking the extra base, with the league average typically at 44-47%
Ichiro 41% taking the extra base, with the league average at typically 40-41%

Pretty amazing that Mantle was actually a better baserunner than Ichiro

I mean, that is all moot since Win Probability already covers ALL OF THAT info...but I just thought we could put it in laymen's terms to understand it a little better.