Player A is better..........but not by much. If you change the 3 20s for player A to 10s it does change my answer to player B.....but not by much, based on the information given, which is insufficient. In the end both players are too close to call unless other factors are included.
For example; if in year 5 player A produces a 10 and his team finishes a close 2nd place in it's division, I am going to say "player A was a big factor in not winning the division because he was expected to come up with a 40 (his average up to that point) a 30 like player B achieved might have been enough to win the division".
On the other hand in the years player A totals 40 and B 30, if Bs team finishes just behind the first place team A will be considered better.
P.S. you guys should relax a little bit.
I understand what you're saying, but you've thrown in a lot of "if"s. What about all the other possibilities for where their teams finish? What I'm asking is, presented with the opportunity to draft either Player A or Player B, and having no idea how anyone else on your team will do, or whether your team will compete for a postseason spot in any year, which player would you take? If we assume that Win Shares "works" - and that's pretty much the premise of the entire thread - then why would you draft the player that will win you fewer games? Sure, there's a chance that Player A's few down years will happen to match up with your only postseason tries, but it's more likely that several of his up years will put your team in contention or take you to a title when Player B's consistent seasons wouldn't have.
IF we eliminate all the "ifs" the answer is "it depends". I think the issue here is combining the individual achievements with the fact that the players are playing a team game. Win shares attempts to show us how many wins a player is worth, but if player earns those wins when his team doesn't need them he's not as valuable. Example being Mickey Mantle in the 1960 WS, he batted .400 with an OPS of 1.345, but went hitless in two games the Yankees lost that were close. His hitting heroics were in the games that the Yankees didn't "need" him.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
This really made me laugh. Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979. Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs! A huge amount of wasted walks! Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him, "Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
Originally posted by: Darin Dallas- You can't compare Willie Wilson to Ron Cey straight up like that, they both had extremely different roles as hitters. Wilson did his job in 1979 to perfection, scoring 113 runs and stealing 83 bases.
Cey had an okay year for the Dodgers that year, as his job was driving in runs, and he didn't do very well at it.
Wilson was much more valuable in his role for the Royals that year than Cey was with his team.
Here's what you need to do a study of. How many times did a player you like, Ron Cey for instance, score after he walked. Probably not a very high percentage, since if he had anyone decent hitting behind him he wouldn't be walking so often in the first place. He was probably stranded at first the majority of the time, making all those walks you so highly value completely meaningless. A walk for Wilson was probably 3-4 times as valuable for the Royals as a walk for Cey was to the Dodgers. The Royals had Brett, McRae, and Otis to drive him in. That's also why he didn't walk much. Would you walk Willie Wilson when a .469 hitter with RISP was hitting behind him?
So his .315 avg. is much more important than you give it credit for, as every pitcher in the league was told by his manager, 'hey, whatever you do don't walk this guy'.
Agree with this! A walk to a number 9,1 or 2 hitter is worth more than a walk to Killebrew or Reggie Jackson. 5,6,7 hitters usually are not big run producers so the manager says "hey, whatever you do, don't let this guy beat you".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Darin This really made me laugh. Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979. Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs! A huge amount of wasted walks! Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him, "Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying, you said it better.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Darin Dallas- You can't compare Willie Wilson to Ron Cey straight up like that, they both had extremely different roles as hitters. Wilson did his job in 1979 to perfection, scoring 113 runs and stealing 83 bases.
Cey had an okay year for the Dodgers that year, as his job was driving in runs, and he didn't do very well at it.
Wilson was much more valuable in his role for the Royals that year than Cey was with his team.
Here's what you need to do a study of. How many times did a player you like, Ron Cey for instance, score after he walked. Probably not a very high percentage, since if he had anyone decent hitting behind him he wouldn't be walking so often in the first place. He was probably stranded at first the majority of the time, making all those walks you so highly value completely meaningless. A walk for Wilson was probably 3-4 times as valuable for the Royals as a walk for Cey was to the Dodgers. The Royals had Brett, McRae, and Otis to drive him in. That's also why he didn't walk much. Would you walk Willie Wilson when a .469 hitter with RISP was hitting behind him?
So his .315 avg. is much more important than you give it credit for, as every pitcher in the league was told by his manager, 'hey, whatever you do don't walk this guy'. And don't bring up Rickey with all his walks, with his crouch it was like pitching to a little leaguer. Wilson was 6' 3", and much harder for him to draw a walk than Rickey.
I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. I'll note that central to your theory appears to be the idea that Willie Wilson was capable of doing something other than what he did (hit more extra base hits, take more walks, strike out less, whatever) but chose to hit an empty .300 because that was all his team needed him to do. Alternatively, you may be saying that had Wison done exactly the same thing on another team - because he was only capable of doing what he actually did for the Royals - then he would have been better or worse depending on how his teammates hit behind them. One of those must necessarily be true, so tell me which one it is that you're saying and I'll respond to that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I already laid out the value of walks to you guys in the past in other threads. Here is one post(of many) that eliminates all of your arguments that render a walk meaningless:
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.
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.
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiIF we eliminate all the "ifs" the answer is "it depends". I think the issue here is combining the individual achievements with the fact that the players are playing a team game. Win shares attempts to show us how many wins a player is worth, but if player earns those wins when his team doesn't need them he's not as valuable. Example being Mickey Mantle in the 1960 WS, he batted .400 with an OPS of 1.345, but went hitless in two games the Yankees lost that were close. His hitting heroics were in the games that the Yankees didn't "need" him.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
You're making two significant mistakes.
1. It makes no difference to the team whether a player wins a game for them in the first half or second half of the season. A player who wins 15 games for a team is better/more valuable than a player who wins 12 even if the split is 11/4 vs 6/6. If you want to use consistency as some kind of tiebreaker, be my guest. But where there is no tie, consistency doesn't enter into the equation.
2. Jackson played in a much tougher hitter's park than Killebrew.
Killebrew and Jackson both had great years in 1969 and I won't argue with Killebrew's winning the MVP. I'd have voted for Jackson, mostly because he played the outfield well while Killebrew stunk up the place at third and was barely adequate at first, but Killebrew has his advantages, too.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: Darin This really made me laugh. Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979. Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs! A huge amount of wasted walks! Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him, "Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
You're right, Tenace should simply have hit 105 more homers that year instead of taking those walks. Wait, that's not what you're saying? Well if that's not what you're saying then maybe you should read skin's post. The fact that Tenace only scored 41 runs that weren't his own homers despite being on base 214 times tells you something blindingly obvious - his team stunk. And since his idiot manager had him hitting behind Winfield instead of hitting 2nd or 3rd, there was nobody behind him to drive him in with any consistency. So he got pitched around. In the 105 at bats where he walked he could have swung at those bad pitches and maybe he would have hit a few more homers, while making 100 or so more outs. The Padres would have won even fewer games, Tenace's value to the team would have crumbled, but he would have hit more HR and driven in more runs (he would have scored even fewer) but he'd have been playing his role as a power hitter so he'd be better overall. That's what you're saying, so forgive me for not agreeing.
Edit to add: I may be a bit too harsh on the Padres manager. He only had two major league hitters available to him - Tenace and Winfield - and obviously one of them had to hit behind the other. If he puts Tenace ahead of Winfield then Tenace surely scores a lot more runs, but then it's Winfield who gets pitched around and his run production goes down. Since Winfield was the better hitter of the two, I guess it makes sense to sacrifice Tenace so that the other team has to pitch to Winfield.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiIF we eliminate all the "ifs" the answer is "it depends". I think the issue here is combining the individual achievements with the fact that the players are playing a team game. Win shares attempts to show us how many wins a player is worth, but if player earns those wins when his team doesn't need them he's not as valuable. Example being Mickey Mantle in the 1960 WS, he batted .400 with an OPS of 1.345, but went hitless in two games the Yankees lost that were close. His hitting heroics were in the games that the Yankees didn't "need" him.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
You're making two significant mistakes.
1. It makes no difference to the team whether a player wins a game for them in the first half or second half of the season. A player who wins 15 games for a team is better/more valuable than a player who wins 12 even if the split is 11/4 vs 6/6. If you want to use consistency as some kind of tiebreaker, be my guest. But where there is no tie, consistency doesn't enter into the equation.
2. Jackson played in a much tougher hitter's park than Killebrew.
Killebrew and Jackson both had great years in 1969 and I won't argue with Killebrew's winning the MVP. I'd have voted for Jackson, mostly because he played the outfield well while Killebrew stunk up the place at third and was barely adequate at first, but Killebrew has his advantages, too.
I absolutely knew you would have voted for Jackson. He had a superb year!
Killebrew certainly didn't "stink up the place at third and first".
Jackson's park may have been tougher for MOST players, but he also had it easier being left handed facing more right handed pitchers and MOST parks have shorter distances to right field. I would also question how much park effect comes into play here for BOTH players, when either of these guys hit the ball NO PARK could contain their blasts.
Park effect certainly means less to sluggers that hit the ball further, than it does to other hitters.
Yes a win is a win, but Killebrew also was at his best that year against Oakland and late in the year when the two teams were fighting it out for the division. I would argue that wins during a pennant race and certainly "head to head" with your contending team are more important. Both facts have meaning to me and the MVP voters. Had Jackson been able to maintain anything like his first half production, and hit better against Minnesota, Oakland would have won the division and Jackson the MVP.
I am sure we will continue to disagree, which is ok, so I will say thanks for the debate and have a great day!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Dallas, I was just going to write in regard to Tenace in 1979. He batted 5th and 6th that year. Him scoring only 61 runs is an indictment on his manager and General manager...not on Tenace's ability as a hitter.
I am surprised Tenace even scored 61 runs that year with the collection of putrid batting behind him. I will spare the horror. Anyone can look it up if they wish.
Walks can have little value when coming before the pitcher batting, and Joc Pederson is a good example as his OB% was inflated last year because he got a lot of walks when batting eigth, and he was exposed when moved higher in the order. However, Gene Tenace is not that. That is also not the case with any middle of the order hitter...as outlined above in detail with Clemente and Mantle.
Really, anyone who doesn't understand that the play by play data tells us exactly what each value is in each situation, I can sort of understand, because it is easier to just use bias and feel better about oneself. The walk values are pretty concrete for EACH situation. Win Probability Added takes care of all that.
I used some laymen example above with Clemente and Mantle to illustrate their error in thinking walks are a bad thing for middle of the order hitters.
I will also use another one to highlight the value of walks. Tony Phillips and Ichiro.
Tony Phillips scored 1,300 runs in 9,110 career plate appearances. Ichiro Suzuki scored 1,348 runs in 10,101 career plate appearances.
Tony Phillips only hit .266, and Ichiro hit .314. Yet, PHILLIPS is the one who scored runs at a higher rate despite:
1. Being a much slower base runner. 2. Being dwarfed by Ichiro in stolen base prowess. Ichiro SB 498, CS 114. Phillips SB 177, CS 114. 3. Phillips having 1,824 career plate appearances batting in the 6th-9th slots.
Phillips did outhomer Ichiro 160 to 113. However, Ichiro closed a lot of that gap by out tripling Phillips 91 to 50.
So where does Phillips close the gap on Ichiro despite batting so much slower, and having much less speed, less stolen base ability, with lesser batters hitting behind him...and somehow be BETTER at scoring runs than Ichiro???
1,319 Base on Balls for Phillips 596 Base on Balls for Ichiro.
Originally posted by: Skin2 Dallas, I was just going to write in regard to Tenace in 1979. He batted 5th and 6th that year. Him scoring only 61 runs is an indictment on his manager and General manager...not on Tenace's ability as a hitter.
I am surprised Tenace even scored 61 runs that year with the collection of putrid batting behind him. I will spare the horror. Anyone can look it up if they wish.
Walks can have little value when coming before the pitcher batting, and Joc Pederson is a good example as his OB% was inflated last year because he got a lot of walks when batting eigth, and he was exposed when moved higher in the order. However, Gene Tenace is not that. That is also not the case with any middle of the order hitter...as outlined above in detail with Clemente and Mantle.
Gene Tenace was an excellent hitter, and had an excellent eye. No matter where he was used in the order he drew a walk somewhere between once every 5.25 PAs and 5.75 PAs. As I said, I'm not sure where a team as godawful as the 1979 Padres are supposed to put him in the order. They used him as protection for Winfield primarily, the same role he played on his other teams for other great hitters. It's awfully odd, though, for a player with such a great OBP and power not to be hitting second or third and maybe that's where he should have been used. One thing I know for certain, though: how good Gene Tenace was has absolutely nothing to do with where his managers chose to put him in the order, or who his teammates were. Same with any other player. He had the skills he had, same as any other player, and when those skills lined up with the right teammates and manager the result was more RBI and runs scored, and when they didn't the result was fewer RBI and runs scored. But Gene Tenace was always Gene Tenace, and Willie Wilson was always Willie Wilson, and so on and so on. If I was starting a baseball team and somehow I had to choose between a rookie Gene Tenace and a rookie Willie Wilson as my first player, I know I'd take Tenace in a heartbeat. Whether I could then provide him with teammates who could get on base for him to drive in, or who could drive him in the 200+ times every year he was on base, well that would be on me, not on him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Jackson's park may have been tougher for MOST players, but he also had it easier being left handed facing more right handed pitchers and MOST parks have shorter distances to right field. I would also question how much park effect comes into play here for BOTH players, when either of these guys hit the ball NO PARK could contain their blasts.
Park effect certainly means less to sluggers that hit the ball further, than it does to other hitters.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just looked this up and thought it was interesting.
While Oakland was statistically a very tough hitters park in 1969, Jackson actually did a little bit better at home than on the road. He should - if we were like an average player - have done much worse, but playing at home or on the road appears to have had very little effect on him that year.
What was more interesting to me is that Killebrew, playing in a park that was essentially neutral - did MUCH better at home than on the road. On the road, his BA dropped from .310 to .246, his HR and walks dropped way off, and his GIDP went way up.
More interesting still is that 1969 appears to have been a fluke in this respect for both of them. For his career, Jackson did a little bit worse in Oakland than elsewhere, and Killebrew did only a little bit better in Minnesota than elsewhere.
So I guess my conclusion is that there's no evidence that Reggie and Killebrew shouldn't get the same park adjustment for 1969 that everyone else gets. That they were able to outperform expectations in their home parks is a good thing; one more piece of evidence that they were having great years.
A similar and more dramatic discussion could be had with regard to Sandy Koufax. Koufax was indistinguishable - even in his brief prime - from any number of pitchers that you've probably never heard of when he was on the road. He was a good pitcher on the road, but certainly not great and nowhere close to a HOFer. But at home, he was a pitching god. Now his home park in LA was the toughest hitters park in the majors - probably in the history of the majors - but even when you account for that, Koufax was still outperforming at home by an enormous margin. If you dismiss what Koufax did at home - if you don't give him the same park adjustment that you give every other pitcher on the theory that parks don't matter as much to high strikeout pitchers - then you have to dismiss him from the HOF.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
A similar and more dramatic discussion could be had with regard to Sandy Koufax. Koufax was indistinguishable - even in his brief prime - from any number of pitchers that you've probably never heard of when he was on the road. He was a good pitcher on the road, but certainly not great and nowhere close to a HOFer. But at home, he was a pitching god. Now his home park in LA was the toughest hitters park in the majors - probably in the history of the majors - but even when you account for that, Koufax was still outperforming at home by an enormous margin. If you dismiss what Koufax did at home - if you don't give him the same park adjustment that you give every other pitcher on the theory that parks don't matter as much to high strikeout pitchers - then you have to dismiss him from the HOF.
Salient points, all. I always enjoy reading your analyses.
Isn't it amazing how cranked up some people can get on an internet chat board about baseball cards. Maybe I should be taking this stuff much more seriously....
Originally posted by: craig44 Isn't it amazing how cranked up some people can get on an internet chat board about baseball cards. Maybe I should be taking this stuff much more seriously....
You should! This is vital stuff my man!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: craig44 Walkers 1997 was a great season, but Coors would have had a big impact on it I would imagine.
409 TB! Great secondary average too! Oops that's a different thread. People will not take his numbers seriously (no matter how good) because of Coors Field.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
For example; if in year 5 player A produces a 10 and his team finishes a close 2nd place in it's division, I am going to say "player A was a big factor in not winning the division because he was expected to come up with a 40 (his average up to that point) a 30 like player B achieved might have been enough to win the division".
On the other hand in the years player A totals 40 and B 30, if Bs team finishes just behind the first place team A will be considered better.
P.S. you guys should relax a little bit.
I understand what you're saying, but you've thrown in a lot of "if"s. What about all the other possibilities for where their teams finish? What I'm asking is, presented with the opportunity to draft either Player A or Player B, and having no idea how anyone else on your team will do, or whether your team will compete for a postseason spot in any year, which player would you take? If we assume that Win Shares "works" - and that's pretty much the premise of the entire thread - then why would you draft the player that will win you fewer games? Sure, there's a chance that Player A's few down years will happen to match up with your only postseason tries, but it's more likely that several of his up years will put your team in contention or take you to a title when Player B's consistent seasons wouldn't have.
IF we eliminate all the "ifs" the answer is "it depends". I think the issue here is combining the individual achievements with the fact that the players are playing a team game. Win shares attempts to show us how many wins a player is worth, but if player earns those wins when his team doesn't need them he's not as valuable. Example being Mickey Mantle in the 1960 WS, he batted .400 with an OPS of 1.345, but went hitless in two games the Yankees lost that were close. His hitting heroics were in the games that the Yankees didn't "need" him.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979.
Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs!
A huge amount of wasted walks!
Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him,
"Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
Dallas-
You can't compare Willie Wilson to Ron Cey straight up like that,
they both had extremely different roles as hitters.
Wilson did his job in 1979 to perfection, scoring 113 runs and stealing 83 bases.
Cey had an okay year for the Dodgers that year, as his job was
driving in runs, and he didn't do very well at it.
Wilson was much more valuable in his role for the Royals that year
than Cey was with his team.
Here's what you need to do a study of.
How many times did a player you like, Ron Cey for instance, score after he walked.
Probably not a very high percentage, since if he had anyone decent hitting behind him
he wouldn't be walking so often in the first place. He was probably stranded at first the majority
of the time, making all those walks you so highly value completely meaningless.
A walk for Wilson was probably 3-4 times as valuable for the Royals as a walk for Cey was to the Dodgers.
The Royals had Brett, McRae, and Otis to drive him in. That's also why he didn't walk much.
Would you walk Willie Wilson when a .469 hitter with RISP was hitting behind him?
So his .315 avg. is much more important than you give it credit for, as every pitcher in the league
was told by his manager, 'hey, whatever you do don't walk this guy'.
Agree with this! A walk to a number 9,1 or 2 hitter is worth more than a walk to Killebrew or Reggie Jackson. 5,6,7 hitters usually are not big run producers so the manager says "hey, whatever you do, don't let this guy beat you".
This really made me laugh.
Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979.
Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs!
A huge amount of wasted walks!
Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him,
"Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
This is EXACTLY what I have been saying, you said it better.
Dallas-
You can't compare Willie Wilson to Ron Cey straight up like that,
they both had extremely different roles as hitters.
Wilson did his job in 1979 to perfection, scoring 113 runs and stealing 83 bases.
Cey had an okay year for the Dodgers that year, as his job was
driving in runs, and he didn't do very well at it.
Wilson was much more valuable in his role for the Royals that year
than Cey was with his team.
Here's what you need to do a study of.
How many times did a player you like, Ron Cey for instance, score after he walked.
Probably not a very high percentage, since if he had anyone decent hitting behind him
he wouldn't be walking so often in the first place. He was probably stranded at first the majority
of the time, making all those walks you so highly value completely meaningless.
A walk for Wilson was probably 3-4 times as valuable for the Royals as a walk for Cey was to the Dodgers.
The Royals had Brett, McRae, and Otis to drive him in. That's also why he didn't walk much.
Would you walk Willie Wilson when a .469 hitter with RISP was hitting behind him?
So his .315 avg. is much more important than you give it credit for, as every pitcher in the league
was told by his manager, 'hey, whatever you do don't walk this guy'.
And don't bring up Rickey with all his walks, with his crouch it was like pitching to a little leaguer.
Wilson was 6' 3", and much harder for him to draw a walk than Rickey.
I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. I'll note that central to your theory appears to be the idea that Willie Wilson was capable of doing something other than what he did (hit more extra base hits, take more walks, strike out less, whatever) but chose to hit an empty .300 because that was all his team needed him to do. Alternatively, you may be saying that had Wison done exactly the same thing on another team - because he was only capable of doing what he actually did for the Royals - then he would have been better or worse depending on how his teammates hit behind them. One of those must necessarily be true, so tell me which one it is that you're saying and I'll respond to that.
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.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
You're making two significant mistakes.
1. It makes no difference to the team whether a player wins a game for them in the first half or second half of the season. A player who wins 15 games for a team is better/more valuable than a player who wins 12 even if the split is 11/4 vs 6/6. If you want to use consistency as some kind of tiebreaker, be my guest. But where there is no tie, consistency doesn't enter into the equation.
2. Jackson played in a much tougher hitter's park than Killebrew.
Killebrew and Jackson both had great years in 1969 and I won't argue with Killebrew's winning the MVP. I'd have voted for Jackson, mostly because he played the outfield well while Killebrew stunk up the place at third and was barely adequate at first, but Killebrew has his advantages, too.
This really made me laugh.
Just looked it up, Gene Tenace scored 61 runs in 1979.
Wow, all those walks and an amazing 61 freaking runs!
A huge amount of wasted walks!
Now I realize just how useless a stat walks are to a power hitter, thanks to Dallas.
The manager probably had to start telling him,
"Hey, we have nothing but crap hitters in our lineup after you, quit your freaking walking and try to hit one out, its your only chance to score"
You're right, Tenace should simply have hit 105 more homers that year instead of taking those walks. Wait, that's not what you're saying? Well if that's not what you're saying then maybe you should read skin's post. The fact that Tenace only scored 41 runs that weren't his own homers despite being on base 214 times tells you something blindingly obvious - his team stunk. And since his idiot manager had him hitting behind Winfield instead of hitting 2nd or 3rd, there was nobody behind him to drive him in with any consistency. So he got pitched around. In the 105 at bats where he walked he could have swung at those bad pitches and maybe he would have hit a few more homers, while making 100 or so more outs. The Padres would have won even fewer games, Tenace's value to the team would have crumbled, but he would have hit more HR and driven in more runs (he would have scored even fewer) but he'd have been playing his role as a power hitter so he'd be better overall. That's what you're saying, so forgive me for not agreeing.
Edit to add: I may be a bit too harsh on the Padres manager. He only had two major league hitters available to him - Tenace and Winfield - and obviously one of them had to hit behind the other. If he puts Tenace ahead of Winfield then Tenace surely scores a lot more runs, but then it's Winfield who gets pitched around and his run production goes down. Since Winfield was the better hitter of the two, I guess it makes sense to sacrifice Tenace so that the other team has to pitch to Winfield.
On one hand, you simply can't deny the fact that numbers-wise two players who average the same are equal, but that doesn't mean their value to a team is equal. At least not to me. I would generally value the more consistent player with the same numbers over the player with a less consistent output, unless the less consistent player has a peak year when his team is succeeding. So I guess unless we are comparing two players and not hypotheticals.........it depends.
1969 season Killebrew/Jackson. Jackson's WAR was somehow much higher than Killebrew's yet their numbers were quite similar. Jackson had a MONSTER first half and poor 2nd half, Killebrew not only was more consistent, he destroyed Oakland that year and deserved the MVP! WAR disagrees. In this example WAR is WAY wrong!
You're making two significant mistakes.
1. It makes no difference to the team whether a player wins a game for them in the first half or second half of the season. A player who wins 15 games for a team is better/more valuable than a player who wins 12 even if the split is 11/4 vs 6/6. If you want to use consistency as some kind of tiebreaker, be my guest. But where there is no tie, consistency doesn't enter into the equation.
2. Jackson played in a much tougher hitter's park than Killebrew.
Killebrew and Jackson both had great years in 1969 and I won't argue with Killebrew's winning the MVP. I'd have voted for Jackson, mostly because he played the outfield well while Killebrew stunk up the place at third and was barely adequate at first, but Killebrew has his advantages, too.
I absolutely knew you would have voted for Jackson. He had a superb year!
Killebrew certainly didn't "stink up the place at third and first".
Jackson's park may have been tougher for MOST players, but he also had it easier being left handed facing more right handed pitchers and MOST parks have shorter distances to right field. I would also question how much park effect comes into play here for BOTH players, when either of these guys hit the ball NO PARK could contain their blasts.
Park effect certainly means less to sluggers that hit the ball further, than it does to other hitters.
Yes a win is a win, but Killebrew also was at his best that year against Oakland and late in the year when the two teams were fighting it out for the division. I would argue that wins during a pennant race and certainly "head to head" with your contending team are more important. Both facts have meaning to me and the MVP voters. Had Jackson been able to maintain anything like his first half production, and hit better against Minnesota, Oakland would have won the division and Jackson the MVP.
I am sure we will continue to disagree, which is ok, so I will say thanks for the debate and have a great day!
I was just going to write in regard to Tenace in 1979. He batted 5th and 6th that year. Him scoring only 61 runs is an indictment on his manager and General manager...not on Tenace's ability as a hitter.
I am surprised Tenace even scored 61 runs that year with the collection of putrid batting behind him. I will spare the horror. Anyone can look it up if they wish.
Walks can have little value when coming before the pitcher batting, and Joc Pederson is a good example as his OB% was inflated last year because he got a lot of walks when batting eigth, and he was exposed when moved higher in the order. However, Gene Tenace is not that. That is also not the case with any middle of the order hitter...as outlined above in detail with Clemente and Mantle.
I used some laymen example above with Clemente and Mantle to illustrate their error in thinking walks are a bad thing for middle of the order hitters.
I will also use another one to highlight the value of walks. Tony Phillips and Ichiro.
Tony Phillips scored 1,300 runs in 9,110 career plate appearances.
Ichiro Suzuki scored 1,348 runs in 10,101 career plate appearances.
Tony Phillips only hit .266, and Ichiro hit .314. Yet, PHILLIPS is the one who scored runs at a higher rate despite:
1. Being a much slower base runner.
2. Being dwarfed by Ichiro in stolen base prowess. Ichiro SB 498, CS 114. Phillips SB 177, CS 114.
3. Phillips having 1,824 career plate appearances batting in the 6th-9th slots.
Phillips did outhomer Ichiro 160 to 113. However, Ichiro closed a lot of that gap by out tripling Phillips 91 to 50.
So where does Phillips close the gap on Ichiro despite batting so much slower, and having much less speed, less stolen base ability, with lesser batters hitting behind him...and somehow be BETTER at scoring runs than Ichiro???
1,319 Base on Balls for Phillips
596 Base on Balls for Ichiro.
Phillips .374 OB%
Ichiro .356 ob%
Dallas,
I was just going to write in regard to Tenace in 1979. He batted 5th and 6th that year. Him scoring only 61 runs is an indictment on his manager and General manager...not on Tenace's ability as a hitter.
I am surprised Tenace even scored 61 runs that year with the collection of putrid batting behind him. I will spare the horror. Anyone can look it up if they wish.
Walks can have little value when coming before the pitcher batting, and Joc Pederson is a good example as his OB% was inflated last year because he got a lot of walks when batting eigth, and he was exposed when moved higher in the order. However, Gene Tenace is not that. That is also not the case with any middle of the order hitter...as outlined above in detail with Clemente and Mantle.
Gene Tenace was an excellent hitter, and had an excellent eye. No matter where he was used in the order he drew a walk somewhere between once every 5.25 PAs and 5.75 PAs. As I said, I'm not sure where a team as godawful as the 1979 Padres are supposed to put him in the order. They used him as protection for Winfield primarily, the same role he played on his other teams for other great hitters. It's awfully odd, though, for a player with such a great OBP and power not to be hitting second or third and maybe that's where he should have been used. One thing I know for certain, though: how good Gene Tenace was has absolutely nothing to do with where his managers chose to put him in the order, or who his teammates were. Same with any other player. He had the skills he had, same as any other player, and when those skills lined up with the right teammates and manager the result was more RBI and runs scored, and when they didn't the result was fewer RBI and runs scored. But Gene Tenace was always Gene Tenace, and Willie Wilson was always Willie Wilson, and so on and so on. If I was starting a baseball team and somehow I had to choose between a rookie Gene Tenace and a rookie Willie Wilson as my first player, I know I'd take Tenace in a heartbeat. Whether I could then provide him with teammates who could get on base for him to drive in, or who could drive him in the 200+ times every year he was on base, well that would be on me, not on him.
Park effect certainly means less to sluggers that hit the ball further, than it does to other hitters.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, I just looked this up and thought it was interesting.
While Oakland was statistically a very tough hitters park in 1969, Jackson actually did a little bit better at home than on the road. He should - if we were like an average player - have done much worse, but playing at home or on the road appears to have had very little effect on him that year.
What was more interesting to me is that Killebrew, playing in a park that was essentially neutral - did MUCH better at home than on the road. On the road, his BA dropped from .310 to .246, his HR and walks dropped way off, and his GIDP went way up.
More interesting still is that 1969 appears to have been a fluke in this respect for both of them. For his career, Jackson did a little bit worse in Oakland than elsewhere, and Killebrew did only a little bit better in Minnesota than elsewhere.
So I guess my conclusion is that there's no evidence that Reggie and Killebrew shouldn't get the same park adjustment for 1969 that everyone else gets. That they were able to outperform expectations in their home parks is a good thing; one more piece of evidence that they were having great years.
A similar and more dramatic discussion could be had with regard to Sandy Koufax. Koufax was indistinguishable - even in his brief prime - from any number of pitchers that you've probably never heard of when he was on the road. He was a good pitcher on the road, but certainly not great and nowhere close to a HOFer. But at home, he was a pitching god. Now his home park in LA was the toughest hitters park in the majors - probably in the history of the majors - but even when you account for that, Koufax was still outperforming at home by an enormous margin. If you dismiss what Koufax did at home - if you don't give him the same park adjustment that you give every other pitcher on the theory that parks don't matter as much to high strikeout pitchers - then you have to dismiss him from the HOF.
Salient points, all. I always enjoy reading your analyses.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Isn't it amazing how cranked up some people can get on an internet chat board about baseball cards. Maybe I should be taking this stuff much more seriously....
You should! This is vital stuff my man!
Walkers 1997 was a great season, but Coors would have had a big impact on it I would imagine.
409 TB! Great secondary average too! Oops that's a different thread. People will not take his numbers seriously (no matter how good) because of Coors Field.