I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
you are making it sounds like it's a binary outcome, either a hitter get walked or get a hit and nothing in-between.
there are plenty of guys who don't try to draw walks and hack everything, and by your logic, we should see plenty of guys who can string together 10 years of 200 hits
<< <i>A player with a 145+ OPS is a HOFer! I am trying to point out that any statistic that awards him any number that high has to be looked at with suspicion. >>
Why do you think 145 is too high for Mazzilli in that partial season? He had 66 ABs and hit 4 HRs and had 11 RBIs. At that rate, it would be 40 HRs and 110 RBI over 660 AB. Yes, his BA was .227, however, his OPS was .850 compared to the MLB average of .695. Not bad right? >>
Sorry you can't comprehend what I am trying to point out. I'll try again.
Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything.
Mazzilli was a very nice full time player for FOUR YEARS, from 1977-1980. Ichiro played in virtually every game for TWELVE STRAIGHT years. Just like Mazzilli's 145 OPS+ was a great number for 28 games. Mazzilli's 110 lifetime OPS+ is also a joke because it's computed to show how he did based on a 162 game season. He played in an average of 105.35 games a year. Ichiro played in an average of 156.4 games a year.
Here it comes............Mazzilli was able to achieve a nice OB% over his lifetime BUT he didn't do it for entire seasons, just like he could achieve an impressive 145 OPS+ over a 28 game span, but couldn't do it for an entire season.
>>
I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal.
And besides Ted Williams only stole 2 bases a year. So HA HA. (sarcasm alert)
Look at the other guy I brought up; Pete Rose. He's a MUCH better player to compare Ichiro to.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
you are making it sounds like it's a binary outcome, either a hitter get walked or get a hit and nothing in-between.
there are plenty of guys who don't try to draw walks and hack everything, and by your logic, we should see plenty of guys who can string together 10 years of 200 hits >>
There's nothing logical about his thinking. He's simply trying to diminish a great accomplishment by making a bad comparison.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything. >>
My point was that he deserved a 145 OPS+ for those 28 games. You make it seem like that number is somehow wrong.
<< <i>You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal. >>
Um, you picked one stat, just like you said I shouldn't do.
If Ichiro walked 50-70 times more per season he would have had fewer 200-hit seasons. Would you then think less of him as a player? I wouldn't. There's nothing special about the number 200. A player can be far better with 130 hits than 230 hits. See "Barry Bonds."
<< <i>Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything. >>
My point was that he deserved a 145 OPS+ for those 28 games. You make it seem like that number is somehow wrong. >>
Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. As I said in another post, just because you can prove the math, doesn't mean the statistic proves your point.
If he had one at bat and hit a home run that year, then got hurt and that was all he did for the year, would that have made him the greatest one year hitter of all time? Of course not. As I said, I was trying to prove a point, you have to make GOOD comparisons in order to support your argument.
You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal. >>
Um, you picked one stat, just like you said I shouldn't do.
If Ichiro walked 50-70 times more per season he would have had fewer 200-hit seasons. Would you then think less of him as a player? I wouldn't. There's nothing special about the number 200. A player can be far better with 130 hits than 230 hits. See "Barry Bonds." >>
Either you can't read, or you haven't read the entire thread. I have been told that a walk is worth .75 of a hit, assuming that's at least somewhat accurate, for every hit he loses and gets a walk instead, his value goes down.
The Ichiro bashers (correctly) point out that his OB% wasn't as good as it should have been compared to players that walked more often. I have never argued that. But you are totally incorrect in that it equates to him having less 200 hit seasons. In order for his OB% to get to where they would like it, he would have to get his hits AND walk more often. If he walked more and got fewer hits, he would have LESS value because a walk is not as good as a hit. By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing.
No other player has ever done it to my knowledge.
So now you are bringing up Barry Bonds, what's next Babe Ruth? He could pitch too you know?
Either you can't comprehend that you cannot compare Ichiro to Ted Williams and Barry Bonds in order to make a point, or you are just doing it on purpose to be irritating doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you are impressed with Ichiro or not. I am. He wasn't Ted Williams or Barry Bonds or even Harmon Killebrew. He was an amazing hitter!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. >>
I never said it did.
<< <i> You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing. >>
I don't think it proves anything either.
Ichiro and Mazzilli have a similar career OB% and OPS+, but you'll be happy to know that I rank Ichiro far ahead of Mazzilli.
<< <i>By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing. >>
He did impress me, but players with far less hits impressed me too. The MVP voters agree with me that the raw number of hits aren't everything. Even his 262 hits in 2004 only got him 7th place in the MVP voting. (For the record, I think he deserved 2nd place)
<< <i>Carew's OPS+ is exactly the same as Tony Oliva's. Oliva was a MUCH better hitter than Carew. >>
Nothing else you said is even comprehensible, but I'd like to address this.
Tony Oliva was a great hitter. He wasn't as great as Carew, but he was much better than Ichiro. The issue with Oliva is that he just didn't play that long; basically 11 seasons with another third of a season spread out over four years. So in Oliva's best 11 seasons, his OPS+ was essentially the same as his career OPS+, or 131. In Carew's best 11 seasons, his OPS+ was about 145. That Carew was then able to play the equivalent of six more full seasons does not make him worse than a 145 OPS+ player for 11 seasons, it makes him as good as an 11-season 145 OPS+ player (already better than Oliva) PLUS a six-year above average player.
And in further defense of Carew, he wasn't a bad second baseman and wasn't moved to first because he couldn't handle second. He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore.
You have yet to mention a single meaningful statistic that doesn't show Carew towering over Ichiro. Grote mentioned one, I added another, and I would add a dozen more if I thought for a second that you would understand any of them. But you wouldn't, so I won't.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In Carew's own book he admits that he could no longer play second base after his injury. He said that he couldn't get over the habit of shying away from the runner coming from first and actually failed to tag 2nd at times even though he knew he was not in danger. I don't know what 2nd baseman you are referring to, (does it always have to be a secret?) but you are mistaken about that.
I will take Carew's word over yours and thank you for not listing the dozen reasons that Carew towered over Ichiro, now THAT was funny!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing. >>
He did impress me, but players with far less hits impressed me too. The MVP voters agree with me that the raw number of hits aren't everything. Even his 262 hits in 2004 only got him 7th place in the MVP voting. (For the record, I think he deserved 2nd place) >>
I agree completely. I don't really like any hitter who is incapable of hitting home runs. Ichiro towers over Carew in this area 7.5 to 5 (based on years played not 162 game schedule) but neither of these players, nor Pete Rose, makes me want to watch.
We could argue all day about MVP awards. Some years there is a clear winner others not so much.
It's difficult for any player to play at a high level. To do so for 10 straight years is incredible, with some good luck avoiding injuries. Ichiro is NOT as good as Ted Williams or even Harmon Killebrew. One thing that is seldom mentioned on the boards is consistency at a high level.
I said from the beginning that Ichiro was a great hitter and Carew was a better hitter, but not as good in other aspects of the game. They are comparable players. I guess if I had used the word MUCH, I would be a genius instead of an idiot. RATS!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. >>
I never said it did.
<< <i> You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing. >>
I don't think it proves anything either.
Ichiro and Mazzilli have a similar career OB% and OPS+, but you'll be happy to know that I rank Ichiro far ahead of Mazzilli. >>
We agree AGAIN!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As always, dallasactuary provides thoughtful and insightful analysis. You can lead the horse to water...
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>He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore. >>
Insightful?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore. >>
Insightful? >>
Carew's play at second, while perhaps disappointing to him personally, was fine. It was at first base that the Twins had a problem, as they ran through numerous attempted replacements for Killebrew and failed repeatedly. What they did have was a very good second baseman in the minors - Bob Randall - who they could call up, and move Carew to first. I mistakenly assumed that you knew something about the Twins since you keep saying you watched thousands of games so I didn't feel the need to mention Randall's name. Turns out you lied about that, so now I've told you who replaced Carew at second base.
Carew - I now feel the need to tell you since you are apparently unfamiliar with him - actually improved at second base in his last season there over both the season before and his career averages, as measured by range factor, fielding % and total chances per inning. Was he the best second baseman ever? No, but then he never was. He was a good, not great, second baseman, and he was just as good at second when they moved him to first as he had been his whole career. But Randall at second and Carew at first was a better combination than Carew at second and Briggs/Kelly/Kusick/Bourque/Lis at first.
If you've got something other than a quote of Carew being too hard on himself, or your own (apparently imaginary) recollections, then please share. Meanwhile, all of the actual facts say you're pulling this crap out of your backside, and your arguments are really starting to stink.
But I commend you on having the sense not to mention your inane Oliva comparison again; I suspect even you must realize how silly that made you look by now.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
<< <i>
I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
you are making it sounds like it's a binary outcome, either a hitter get walked or get a hit and nothing in-between.
there are plenty of guys who don't try to draw walks and hack everything, and by your logic, we should see plenty of guys who can string together 10 years of 200 hits
<< <i>A player with a 145+ OPS is a HOFer! I am trying to point out that any statistic that awards him any number that high has to be looked at with suspicion.
>>
Why do you think 145 is too high for Mazzilli in that partial season? He had 66 ABs and hit 4 HRs and had 11 RBIs. At that rate, it would be 40 HRs and 110 RBI over 660 AB. Yes, his BA was .227, however, his OPS was .850 compared to the MLB average of .695. Not bad right? >>
Sorry you can't comprehend what I am trying to point out. I'll try again.
Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything.
Mazzilli was a very nice full time player for FOUR YEARS, from 1977-1980. Ichiro played in virtually every game for TWELVE STRAIGHT years. Just like Mazzilli's 145 OPS+ was a great number for 28 games. Mazzilli's 110 lifetime OPS+ is also a joke because it's computed to show how he did based on a 162 game season. He played in an average of 105.35 games a year. Ichiro played in an average of 156.4 games a year.
Here it comes............Mazzilli was able to achieve a nice OB% over his lifetime BUT he didn't do it for entire seasons, just like he could achieve an impressive 145 OPS+ over a 28 game span, but couldn't do it for an entire season.
>>
I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal.
And besides Ted Williams only stole 2 bases a year. So HA HA. (sarcasm alert)
Look at the other guy I brought up; Pete Rose. He's a MUCH better player to compare Ichiro to.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I don't think much of 200-hit seasons since they are mostly accomplished by hitters that don't walk much. Ted Williams never had more than 194 hits in a season, and he is rightfully known as one of the best hitters ever. >>
you are making it sounds like it's a binary outcome, either a hitter get walked or get a hit and nothing in-between.
there are plenty of guys who don't try to draw walks and hack everything, and by your logic, we should see plenty of guys who can string together 10 years of 200 hits >>
There's nothing logical about his thinking. He's simply trying to diminish a great accomplishment by making a bad comparison.
<< <i>Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything.
>>
My point was that he deserved a 145 OPS+ for those 28 games. You make it seem like that number is somehow wrong.
<< <i>You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal.
>>
Um, you picked one stat, just like you said I shouldn't do.
If Ichiro walked 50-70 times more per season he would have had fewer 200-hit seasons. Would you then think less of him as a player? I wouldn't. There's nothing special about the number 200. A player can be far better with 130 hits than 230 hits. See "Barry Bonds."
<< <i>
<< <i>Finding ONE statistic a part time player like Mazzilli (or Roberts) has achieved and then saying "Look he's got numbers that are like Ichiro" is the same as picking out a partial season where he had an OPS+ of 145. Neither stat proves anything.
>>
My point was that he deserved a 145 OPS+ for those 28 games. You make it seem like that number is somehow wrong. >>
Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. As I said in another post, just because you can prove the math, doesn't mean the statistic proves your point.
If he had one at bat and hit a home run that year, then got hurt and that was all he did for the year, would that have made him the greatest one year hitter of all time? Of course not. As I said, I was trying to prove a point, you have to make GOOD comparisons in order to support your argument.
You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing.
<< <i>
<< <i>You're doing it again, comparing a lead off hitter to a slugger who was either the best or the second best hitter of all time. You might not see it as much of an accomplishment, but getting 200 hits in ONE season is a great accomplishment, doing it 10 straight seasons is phenomenal.
>>
Um, you picked one stat, just like you said I shouldn't do.
If Ichiro walked 50-70 times more per season he would have had fewer 200-hit seasons. Would you then think less of him as a player? I wouldn't. There's nothing special about the number 200. A player can be far better with 130 hits than 230 hits. See "Barry Bonds." >>
Either you can't read, or you haven't read the entire thread. I have been told that a walk is worth .75 of a hit, assuming that's at least somewhat accurate, for every hit he loses and gets a walk instead, his value goes down.
The Ichiro bashers (correctly) point out that his OB% wasn't as good as it should have been compared to players that walked more often. I have never argued that. But you are totally incorrect in that it equates to him having less 200 hit seasons. In order for his OB% to get to where they would like it, he would have to get his hits AND walk more often. If he walked more and got fewer hits, he would have LESS value because a walk is not as good as a hit. By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing.
No other player has ever done it to my knowledge.
So now you are bringing up Barry Bonds, what's next Babe Ruth? He could pitch too you know?
Either you can't comprehend that you cannot compare Ichiro to Ted Williams and Barry Bonds in order to make a point, or you are just doing it on purpose to be irritating doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you are impressed with Ichiro or not. I am. He wasn't Ted Williams or Barry Bonds or even Harmon Killebrew. He was an amazing hitter!
<< <i>Um, you picked one stat, just like you said I shouldn't do. >>
Um, if you can do it so can I. Ha ha ha haha.
Happy trails.
<< <i>Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. >>
I never said it did.
<< <i>
You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing. >>
I don't think it proves anything either.
Ichiro and Mazzilli have a similar career OB% and OPS+, but you'll be happy to know that I rank Ichiro far ahead of Mazzilli.
<< <i>By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing. >>
He did impress me, but players with far less hits impressed me too. The MVP voters agree with me that the raw number of hits aren't everything.
Even his 262 hits in 2004 only got him 7th place in the MVP voting. (For the record, I think he deserved 2nd place)
<< <i>Carew's OPS+ is exactly the same as Tony Oliva's. Oliva was a MUCH better hitter than Carew. >>
Nothing else you said is even comprehensible, but I'd like to address this.
Tony Oliva was a great hitter. He wasn't as great as Carew, but he was much better than Ichiro. The issue with Oliva is that he just didn't play that long; basically 11 seasons with another third of a season spread out over four years. So in Oliva's best 11 seasons, his OPS+ was essentially the same as his career OPS+, or 131. In Carew's best 11 seasons, his OPS+ was about 145. That Carew was then able to play the equivalent of six more full seasons does not make him worse than a 145 OPS+ player for 11 seasons, it makes him as good as an 11-season 145 OPS+ player (already better than Oliva) PLUS a six-year above average player.
And in further defense of Carew, he wasn't a bad second baseman and wasn't moved to first because he couldn't handle second. He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore.
You have yet to mention a single meaningful statistic that doesn't show Carew towering over Ichiro. Grote mentioned one, I added another, and I would add a dozen more if I thought for a second that you would understand any of them. But you wouldn't, so I won't.
In Carew's own book he admits that he could no longer play second base after his injury. He said that he couldn't get over the habit of shying away from the runner coming from first and actually failed to tag 2nd at times even though he knew he was not in danger. I don't know what 2nd baseman you are referring to, (does it always have to be a secret?) but you are mistaken about that.
I will take Carew's word over yours and thank you for not listing the dozen reasons that Carew towered over Ichiro, now THAT was funny!
<< <i>
<< <i>By the way, weather you like it or not 200 hits in a season is a special number. Also, he averaged not 200 but 224 hits a season for 10 years, how many would he have needed to get to impress you, 250, 300? He certainly didn't hit for any power. But to be able to average 224 hits a year for 10 years and never go below 200 (206 actually) is amazing. >>
He did impress me, but players with far less hits impressed me too. The MVP voters agree with me that the raw number of hits aren't everything.
Even his 262 hits in 2004 only got him 7th place in the MVP voting. (For the record, I think he deserved 2nd place) >>
I agree completely. I don't really like any hitter who is incapable of hitting home runs. Ichiro towers over Carew in this area 7.5 to 5 (based on years played not 162 game schedule) but neither of these players, nor Pete Rose, makes me want to watch.
We could argue all day about MVP awards. Some years there is a clear winner others not so much.
It's difficult for any player to play at a high level. To do so for 10 straight years is incredible, with some good luck avoiding injuries. Ichiro is NOT as good as Ted Williams or even Harmon Killebrew. One thing that is seldom mentioned on the boards is consistency at a high level.
I said from the beginning that Ichiro was a great hitter and Carew was a better hitter, but not as good in other aspects of the game. They are comparable players. I guess if I had used the word MUCH, I would be a genius instead of an idiot. RATS!
<< <i>
<< <i>Nothing wrong with the number itself, but my point was it doesn't PROVE anything. >>
I never said it did.
<< <i>
You just don't seem to get it. I was doing the same thing the other guy was to show his bad comparison. I was being a little sarcastic, but the point is the same. Mazzilli was by no means a 145 OPS+ guy, but he was for those 28 games. 28 games proves nothing when comparing players entire careers, just like comparing a guy who plays 100 games a year to one who plays 150 when using a stat like OB% also proves nothing. >>
I don't think it proves anything either.
Ichiro and Mazzilli have a similar career OB% and OPS+, but you'll be happy to know that I rank Ichiro far ahead of Mazzilli. >>
We agree AGAIN!
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>He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore. >>
Insightful?
<< <i>
<< <i>He was moved to first because the Twins had a second baseman in the minors who could hit better than any of the many people they tried at first after Killebrew couldn't handle it anymore. >>
Insightful? >>
Carew's play at second, while perhaps disappointing to him personally, was fine. It was at first base that the Twins had a problem, as they ran through numerous attempted replacements for Killebrew and failed repeatedly. What they did have was a very good second baseman in the minors - Bob Randall - who they could call up, and move Carew to first. I mistakenly assumed that you knew something about the Twins since you keep saying you watched thousands of games so I didn't feel the need to mention Randall's name. Turns out you lied about that, so now I've told you who replaced Carew at second base.
Carew - I now feel the need to tell you since you are apparently unfamiliar with him - actually improved at second base in his last season there over both the season before and his career averages, as measured by range factor, fielding % and total chances per inning. Was he the best second baseman ever? No, but then he never was. He was a good, not great, second baseman, and he was just as good at second when they moved him to first as he had been his whole career. But Randall at second and Carew at first was a better combination than Carew at second and Briggs/Kelly/Kusick/Bourque/Lis at first.
If you've got something other than a quote of Carew being too hard on himself, or your own (apparently imaginary) recollections, then please share. Meanwhile, all of the actual facts say you're pulling this crap out of your backside, and your arguments are really starting to stink.
But I commend you on having the sense not to mention your inane Oliva comparison again; I suspect even you must realize how silly that made you look by now.