Originally posted by: Darin 3rd averages- Brett .489, 15th all time. Schmidt .175 1345th all time.
Basically for those who have never heard of 3rd averages, it separates those who can actually hit the ball and reach base safely from those who are overrated because they draw a lot of walks. It rewards the elite hitters, the high contact hitters, and punishes the strikeout kings such as Schmidt, who stranded more runners than anyone else in the history of the game.
Schmidt if one of the most overrated players of all time. Brett wasn't even a power hitter and finished with more RBI's than Schmidt.
I have no idea if you're joking or not, although I hope you are for your sake. But I have to know - did you just make up "3rd averages"? I've never heard of it, and baseball-reference has never heard of it, and, what are the odds?, even Google has never heard of it. But if it does exist then I have to know what it is before I can make fun of it. So I'd appreciate a link or a formula, as well as the list where you got Brett's and Schmidt's rankings.
Never mind, I read your post again and I know you're just joking. I still don't get the joke, but I've eliminated all the other possibilities and joke is all that's left.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas- I would like to know one thing. Why are walks so important to you but strikeouts are not? Schmidt struck out 975 more times than Brett did in their careers. That's two full seasons worth of strikeouts. How many runners did he leave on base in his 1883 strikeouts.
And here's a stat to show just how valuable making contact is: Brett had 5044 total bases to Schmidts' 4404. Or to put it another way, 160 more home runs than Schmidt.LOL.
And yes, the 3rd averages are a joke, just like your secondary averages stats. If something doesn't fit to your way of thinking, you just provide data that does fit, ignoring important stuff like strikeouts.
Joe Banzai- I would agree with your top 6 list, just not in that order. But of those 6 I would definitely say Schmidt is the most overrated. Chipper was much better than Schmidt. Some might have Pie Traynor fairly high on the list.
Originally posted by: DarinAnd yes, the 3rd averages are a joke, just like your secondary averages stats. If something doesn't fit to your way of thinking, you just provide data that does fit, ignoring important stuff like strikeouts.
Yeah, I figured that out. Any stat that shows Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt had to be a joke. But secondary average sure isn't. Just as looking at OBP or SA in isolation will mean you are missing half the picture, so, too, with batting average and secondary average. The difference is that while OBP and SA each measure roughly half of a hitter's worth, batting average measures less than half, and secondary average measures more than half. Secondary average captures the extra bases that BA misses, but it also captures walks and SB. Of BA, OBP, SA and secondary average, secondary average is probably the single best measure. But since we're never confined to a single measure, it would be almost as foolish to rely solely on secondary average as it would be to rely solely on batting average.
What really gave away that you were joking, though, was how you said Brett had "more" RBI than Schmidt. I mean, sure, he did but he had exactly 1 more and it took him three full seasons worth of plate appearances to get that 1 RBI. Looked at another way, Brett had about 1,500 more runners to drive in than Schmidt did (counting themselves), and he drove in one of them.
But now I see you've topped yourself in the joke department by bringing Pie Traynor into the discussion. Pie Traynor defines better than any other player - possible exception of Gene Tenace - the line between those who understand what makes a hitter great and those who do not. Traynor was among the top 25 third basemen as a hitter, maybe, but nowhere near the top 10.
Now Chipper Jones does deserve to be in the discussion. If you include fielding then Schmidt is still clearly the greatest third baseman of all time, but looking only at hitting Jones is close enough for a serious look. He doesn't have the superhuman single seasons that Schmidt has, so if you value peak higher than average then Schmidt will still win, but his career averages are similar.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Help me out with secondary average - it seems like a pretty decent stat to use in companion with others. However, the calculation involves dividing by AB and not PA, is that correct? If that's true, that would seem to give way too much weight to BBs since those don't get counted as an AB.
Originally posted by: Tabe Help me out with secondary average - it seems like a pretty decent stat to use in companion with others. However, the calculation involves dividing by AB and not PA, is that correct? If that's true, that would seem to give way too much weight to BBs since those don't get counted as an AB.
Looks to me that secondary average is a great stat for a guy like Killebrew, lots of walks and home runs, bad for Ichiro. I think you can get a similar value by adding OB% and SLG% a stat Ted Williams liked, its called production (PRO).
We are already giving too much value to walks. Actually the value is probably correct it's just distributed incorrectly.
I would like to see a number that would take a batters runs scored, minus home runs, and compare his walks and hits that were not home runs to that. This might better show how often his walk actually ended up becoming a run. By subtracting home runs you would be eliminating the times the batter drove himself in.
Harmon Killebrew walked 106 times in 1962 and scored 85 runs, but he also hit 48 home runs, so he actually only scored 37 times when he didn't drive himself in. He also had 86 hits that weren't home runs. He scored about 19% of the times he got on base. The same year, Lenny Green had 154 hits that weren't home runs along with 88 walks (nice job Lenny) and was driven in 83 times by other players, about 34% of the time. In this example a walk to Green was 15% more likely to result in a run scored than a walk to Harmon. Both players had pretty similar walk and run scored numbers.
So unless I have missed something, a walk was much more valuable when Lenny Green got one than when Harmon did.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Tabe Help me out with secondary average - it seems like a pretty decent stat to use in companion with others. However, the calculation involves dividing by AB and not PA, is that correct? If that's true, that would seem to give way too much weight to BBs since those don't get counted as an AB.
It would still be a meaningful stat with PA as the denominator, but using AB makes it more directly comparable to BA.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
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.
To be fair, strikeouts, stranding runners, moving runners, etc., do all count for something. Win Probability Added uses all the play by play data of each event to show the value of each hitter. It also includes the proper value for hitting a double with the bases loaded, as opposed to a double with two out and nobody on. It includes the proper value of drawing a walk with the bases loaded and nobody out, or drawing a walk with a man on second and two outs. Basically, it is everything that the old school fan always guessed on and wished they knew exactly back in the day, and yet it is here right in front of you courtesy of the millions of play by play data. There is no need to guess about the value of any event.
To be fair, Win Probability Added closes the gap considerably when looking at Brett and Schmidt.
For their careers in Win Probabily Added:
Brett.....52.4 wins added with his bat Schmidt 55.5 wins added with his bat
Top five seasons: Brett.............6.2, 6.1, 5.5, 5.1, 4.1 Schmidt.........5.9, 5.9, 5.8, 5.1, 4.7
Schmidt would beat him by .4 for their top five seasons.
So basically, Schmidt has the slightest of slight edge both in career and peak vs Brett.
Of course, this is offense only. Add defense, and Schmidt is superior.
So nobody gets confused and to add on to the post above explaining in fairly easy to ready laymen terms about the value of a base on balls from a middle of the order hitter, here is the value of Clemente and Mantle via Win Probability Added:
Those are with Mantle having missed more time due to injury's. When Mantle was on the field, and in his prime, he was the best player ever. I did that breakdown vs. Ruth in another thread taking into account all the factors such as Ruth playing with a weak population to compete against, no minorities, and a league filled with deadball style slap hitters. Also taking into account the scouting factors such as Mantle's running speed(which dwarfed Clemente's by the way), Mantle's team's having the philosophy of not letting Mantle steal more when he could have easily, Mantles ability to handle centerfield(and showing how sometimes the defensive metrics are wrong with that).
I don't really have a problem with walks being a huge positive, just that Dallas doesn't even view a strikeout as the least bit negative. How many times in Schmidts' 1883 K's would a hitter like Brett have moved a runner, even if making an out by putting the ball in play, where maybe the next hitter would have driven in that runner? How many more strikeouts would Schmidt have accumulated if he had as many plate appearances as Brett? 2200? Still not a negative. 2500? That's five full seasons of K's.
skin, thank you. I posted before I saw your latest post. I think its fine if people think Schmidt was a better hitter than Brett, but I certainly don't think its by a wide margin as Dallas has said. Yes, Schmidt was better on defense, but Brett did work hard to improve and actually won a gold glove in 85.
Strikeouts hurt more than batted outs, but on average, it is a very small disadvantage. Here is a sample of the play by play run values from the late 90's:
Base/Out State.............1B.....BB.....Out.....K Two outs nobody on----.13----.13----N.12----N.12. The N stands for Negative.
Not surprising, with two outs and nobody on base, a single and a walk are of the exact same value, and a batted out and strikeout are of the exact same value. Actually, any of those with the bases empty has the exact same value. Since basically half of a batter's plate appearances come with the bases empty, about HALF of a player's career singles/Walks, and Batted outs/K's are of the same value as each other.
So when someone says walks are overvalued, or strikeouts are worse than batted outs, you start to see(based on the above) that they need to look a little deeper to see exactly how much each is valued.
Base/Out State...............1B......BB......Out.....K Man on 2B nobody out----.72----.48----N.36----N.51 Man on 3B with one out--.56-----.24---N.25----N.63 Bases loaded nobody out-1.11---.90----N.63----N.72
Things change with each situation as well all know. What we had not known is exactly how much each changes, and thanks to the millions of play by play data, we now know. This info is for every base/out situation. I just highlighted the extreme ones that everyone has in their minds. As you can see, absolutely the values are different in these situations....but one tends to forget that about HALF of the plate appearances where nobody is on base(where there is no difference), or when there are two outs where there is no difference in a k or batted out. Also, many of the other situations are of varying degrees of smaller differences.
Win Probability Added incldues all of them. It adds all of them up. It is pretty darn black and white. Fans typically like to 'exclude' events that hurt their cases, or they assume incorrect values of events based on their reasoning or guesses. The play by play is not biases, hence, is more accurate.
So next time someone says, "Walks are overrated," you should have a good idea exactly their value compared to a single, which is about 2/3 of the value on average.
Next time someone says, "His strikeouts kill us," you should count all the situations and see that batted outs are typically just as damaging, and that on average for every 100 strikeouts(compared to batted outs) it costs only about a negative extra TWO RUNS. It isn't as much as people think. Sure, a thousand extra strikeouts does add up, but never nearly to the degree that fans think.
Luckily the play by play tells exactly how many times each player did what in each situation, so we can really just put those arguments to bed.
Originally posted by: Darin skin, thank you. I posted before I saw your latest post. I think its fine if people think Schmidt was a better hitter than Brett, but I certainly don't think its by a wide margin as Dallas has said. Yes, Schmidt was better on defense, but Brett did work hard to improve and actually won a gold glove in 85.
Actually, I never said what I thought the margin was between the two as hitters. But I can live with what skin posted: at their peaks they were similar but Schmidt was better (narrow margin), and in three more seasons Brett was still less valuable for his career than Schmidt was (moderate margin). There is no argument to be had on the point - Schmidt was clearly a better hitter than Brett. Then, when you look at the other half of the game, the margin between Schmidt and Brett gets significantly more substantial (wide margin).
So there, now I've said it - as hitter's there is a moderate but clear margin between them, and as total players there is a wide margin between them.
And yes, Brett did in fact win the Gold Glove in 1985. As you note, he had worked hard to improve and by 1985 he had finally achieved the distinction of being average so he was rewarded with a Gold Glove since they couldn't hand out "E"s for effort. Gary Gaetti was the best third basemen in the league, though, and what should have been the first of five Gold Gloves for Gaetti sits on Brett's mantle instead.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: Skin2So next time someone says, "Walks are overrated," you should have a good idea exactly their value compared to a single, which is about 2/3 of the value on average.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiWalks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
Absolutely correct. They are extremely valuable - more than the 2/3 of a single average - when issued to the first three hitters in the order; players like Schmidt, Mantle and Joe Morgan. These players are MUCH better than their batting averages alone might indicate. And players that hit at the top of the order who don't take walks - players like Bill Buckner, Ichiro and Clemente - are hurting their teams and are not as good - often not nearly as good - as their batting averages might indicate.
And whatever you think of secondary average on its own terms, it can be used in one very valuable way. If you're not a stat geek like me or skin, and you form your opinions of how good a player was by looking at nothing but standard back of the baseball card stats, then please take a look at secondary average. Without exception, if you compare a player's secondary average to his batting average, then if SA>BA you will have underrated that player, and if BA>SA you will have overrated that player. And the magnitude of the difference between BA and SA will give you some idea of how far off you are in your evaluation. Based on secondary average alone, Gene Tenace is the 32nd greatest hitter in history; based on batting average he's probably #3,200. Tenace is not the 32nd greatest hitter in history - but he is much closer to 32 than to 3,200. The stats on the back of a baseball card won't even get in you the same ballpark of a player's true ability in too many cases; don't rely on them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: Skin2So next time someone says, "Walks are overrated," you should have a good idea exactly their value compared to a single, which is about 2/3 of the value on average.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
JoeBanzi, do you know the difference in value between a walk to the leadoff man, compared to a walk to a number three hitter??
You are correct, that on average, there is a difference...but the difference is so small, that it really isn't a bother to bring it up into discussions very often.
As outlined above with the Clemente and Mantle scenario(which if one read, and had any common sense), they would have moved away the topic of overvaluing walks. Clemente's walk(or lack thereof) batting in front of Stargell, or Mantle's amazing amount of walks batting in front of Berra(and Company), do have the exact value as given in OPS+ or Win Probability Added. So when you make your comments in regard to these players, you are off base and wrong(not surprisingly).
The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher.
However, most of our discussions are in regard to the likes of Mantle, Clemente, etc., where you chime in and make claims that are either not true, or of any significance.
The play by play data and the Win Probability Added answers all your questions already, so there is no point for you to even bother to make erroneous guesses on the value of each.
PS: Ironically, it seems the people who share the same invalid view as you about walks being overrated based on batting order position...then in the next sentence make some glorious claim of how great a hitter Ichiro is...despite his lack of walks.
Originally posted by: Skin2So next time someone says, "Walks are overrated," you should have a good idea exactly their value compared to a single, which is about 2/3 of the value on average.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
JoeBanzi, do you know the difference in value between a walk to the leadoff man, compared to a walk to a number three hitter??
You are correct, that on average, there is a difference...but the difference is so small, that it really isn't a bother to bring it up into discussions very often.
The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher.
Not much difference between a walk to the leadoff man and #3. I said the walk value dropped more with the #4 guy (especially if #5 batter was not very good).
I guess that your understanding baseball is simply so PERFECT, no-one here should EVER bother to try to raise any question pertaining to the new numbers. They are PERFECT as well and will NEVER be improved on and/or replaced.
I will simply ask you from now on how to think and blindly follow your genius. Please accept my apology for my foolishness. I really don't know how you put up with people who don't agree with you completely.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
The comparison between Clemente and Mantle really isn't fair to begin with. Mantle with his amazing power is naturally going to walk more. Add to that Stargell hitting behind Clemente, so you can't really pitch around Clemente.
And if Gene Tenace had been hitting in front of Mickey Mantle his whole career, Dallas wouldn't be talking about what a great hitter he is. He would have drawn about 10 BB per year hitting in front of Mickey. He drew a ton of walks because he had crap hitters surrounding him his whole career, and pitchers could pitch around Tenace to get to those guys. Doesn't mean Tenace was a great hitter, however. Just a good OBP guy.
So its all relative, depending on where you're hitting in the order and what kind of players are surrounding you. Can't really compare Clemente to Mantle or any other power hitter, as power hitters are always going to walk more.
Not sure if it was mentioned already, but Tommy Davis' 1962 season was a pretty good one. 120 runs, 230 hits, 153 rbi's, .346 avg and over 550 slugging.
going back to Schmidt, if you include defense, there is just no way chipper is better than Schmidt.
Correct. The same with Clemente vs Mantle. I'll take Clemente all day because of his defensive skills.
Good thing you're not a GM.
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.
Mantle with one leg was a superior player to Clemente with two legs. Not even close
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mantle with one leg was a superior player to Clemente with two legs. Not even close
mark
No way. Clemente was a better overall player. And he didn't have any drug problems.
I guess Mantle and co. could've used an extra leg in 1960 lol.
You practicing for April Fools Day? You certainly got it down to a science across all sports
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mantle was a far superior player. Even with the leg injury, his speed was well above average. He was well out in front of clemente offensively. Mantle was a transcendent offensive force, unlike clemente who was very good offensively, but not above his peers. Defensively, clemente was a world beater, but not so much as to over come the micks hitting.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleNah, a good GM will choose the great 5 tool player. Mantle destroyed his knee at a young age.
It's ironic, I think, that an argument in favor of Clemente would mention what happened to Mantle's knee "at a young age". Because "at a young age" Mantle was phenomenal, while Clemente was simply bad. No, I don't mean that he wasn't quite as great as he became later, I mean that he was bad.
Compare Mantle's first six seasons to Clemente's:
BA: .308 to .288 HR: 173 to 42 GIDP: 21 to 87 SB/CS: 53/16 to 22/25 Errors: 39 to 52 OBP: .412 to .320 SLG: .560 to .407 OPS+: 166 to 95 WPA: 29.4 to 1.7
Based on what each of them accomplished "at a young age" Clemente was behind Mantle by so much that there was no way he was ever going to catch him. Based on WPA, Mantle's career total at age 27 was about the same as Clemente's for his entire career.
I'll stop now. I like Roberto Clemente, and he was a great player. But it's humiliating to compare him to a player like Mantle who was so much better than he was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
One of the more entertaining aspects of sports talk is listening to such foolishness, lol...
BTW, did OSU even make the BCS championship this past year? No, they didn't even crack the top 4? Case closed, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Originally posted by: grote15 One of the more entertaining aspects of sports talk is listening to such foolishness, lol...
BTW, did OSU even make the BCS championship this past year? No, they didn't even crack the top 4? Case closed, lol..
Thanks for showing your ignorance. The committee made the wrong choice by putting in Oklahoma over the Buckeyes. The computers had the Buckeyes at #4 after the conference championship games and they finished in the top 4 in the final polls, and #3 in the computers. Had they given the chance they would've destroyed Alabama or Clemson.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The committee made the correct choice. Ohio State is on the outside looking in. Not good enough to crack even the top 4. The sports world is littered with "if this" or "had this happened." Maybe next year. Case closed.
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.
Clemente did get off to a slow start in his career, but his last 13 seasons, from 1960 to 1972 were pretty great. I know he hit .329 his last 13 years. I would kind of like to know his OBP, SLG, and other pertinent stats the last 13 years, just to show how much he did improve. Pretty impressive that after his first 2419 at bats, he was hitting .282 but finished with a career avg. of .317 a gain of 35 points. I'm guessing probably not many players started slow like that but raised their avg. that much.
Dallas, how about it? Would you do an analysis of Clemente's last 13 seasons? And I'm not saying he was better than Mantle I would just like to know some of those numbers.
Originally posted by: Darin Clemente did get off to a slow start in his career, but his last 13 seasons, from 1960 to 1972 were pretty great.
Wait a second, it's coming to me. That's right, it was way back in my very last post that I said "Clemente was a great player". The sole purpose of my last post was that it amused me that you had mentioned something about Mantle happening "at a young age". That's all.
Clemente's last 13 seasons were great - his OPS+ improved from his dismal first-six of 95 all the way to 146. 146 is outstanding. Of course Mantle improved his OPS+ from a first six of 166 to a last-12 of 175, so the hole that Clemente dug at a young age just kept getting deeper every year, but it got deeper at a much slower rate.
I'll say this by way of any further analysis. Clemente was a great player, and a great human being, and he absolutely deserves his place in the HOF. Some of his peers in terms of ability are Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew. If you want to have a debate about who was better between Clemente and any of those other great HOF-caliber players then go for it - a reasonable debate could be had with each of them. But Mickey Mantle's ability peers are Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays - an entirely different class of players. (Skin will take the position that Mantle's best comparison is Babe Ruth; I personally won't go that far, but I respect his argument.) Mantle was better than Clemente and there simply is no reasonable argument to the contrary.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: grote15 The committee made the correct choice. Ohio State is on the outside looking in. Not good enough to crack even the top 4. The sports world is littered with "if this" or "had this happened." Maybe next year. Case closed.
Oklahoma was not a better team than Ohio State. They got hammered by Clemson. Ohio State destroyed both Michigan and Notre Dame. Committee did not pick the 4 best teams. They were wrong.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: Darin Clemente did get off to a slow start in his career, but his last 13 seasons, from 1960 to 1972 were pretty great.
Wait a second, it's coming to me. That's right, it was way back in my very last post that I said "Clemente was a great player". The sole purpose of my last post was that it amused me that you had mentioned something about Mantle happening "at a young age". That's all.
Clemente's last 13 seasons were great - his OPS+ improved from his dismal first-six of 95 all the way to 146. 146 is outstanding. Of course Mantle improved his OPS+ from a first six of 166 to a last-12 of 175, so the hole that Clemente dug at a young age just kept getting deeper every year, but it got deeper at a much slower rate.
I'll say this by way of any further analysis. Clemente was a great player, and a great human being, and he absolutely deserves his place in the HOF. Some of his peers in terms of ability are Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew. If you want to have a debate about who was better between Clemente and any of those other great HOF-caliber players then go for it - a reasonable debate could be had with each of them. But Mickey Mantle's ability peers are Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays - an entirely different class of players. (Skin will take the position that Mantle's best comparison is Babe Ruth; I personally won't go that far, but I respect his argument.) Mantle was better than Clemente and there simply is no reasonable argument to the contrary.
I have seen many top 50 or 100 lists where Mantle and Clemente are not very far apart. So to say Mantle was that far ahead I don't buy at all. Mantle is quite overrated by Yankees fans just the same as a 1971 topps Thurman Munson baseball card. All the times Mantle played in the post season where the games count the most, never prevailed as a hero. The guy just couldn't hit for ***** in the playoffs. Sure he hit some home runs but the guy was a choker when it counted. A 257 batting average for someone who is professed to be so great is quite embarrassing. In 8 post seasons, Mantle batted 250 or lower. He hit 200 or lower during 5 of those post seasons.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Moving garnettstyle delusional college comments to the delusional 2015 college thread where it belongs in case someone what's to respond there
His delusional baseball comments will remain intact in this thread for posterity. Homers get so emotional. Somewhere deep in a bunker on the Ohio- Pennslyvania border garnettstyle stews. 17-14.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: Justacommeman Moving garnettstyle delusional college comments to the delusional 2015 college thread where it belongs in case someone what's to respond there
His delusional baseball comments will remain intact in this thread for posterity. Homers get so emotional. Somewhere deep in a bunker on the Ohio- Pennslyvania border garnettstyle stews. 17-14.
mark
17-14 is a lot better than 42-13 lol.
Of course as a ohio state hater you always bring up their one loss, but never bring up Alabama's one loss.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Moving this over to where all of Garnett,s ramblings can be viewed with a click
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: garnettstyleI have seen many top 50 or 100 lists where Mantle and Clemente are not very far apart. So to say Mantle was that far ahead I don't buy at all. Mantle is quite overrated by Yankees fans just the same as a 1971 topps Thurman Munson baseball card. All the times Mantle played in the post season where the games count the most, never prevailed as a hero. The guy just couldn't hit for ***** in the playoffs. Sure he hit some home runs but the guy was a choker when it counted. A 257 batting average for someone who is professed to be so great is quite embarrassing. In 8 post seasons, Mantle batted 250 or lower. He hit 200 or lower during 5 of those post seasons.
The rest of you, please forgive me, but I want to see just how much garnettstyle is willing to embarrass himself before he figures out that he's embarrassing himself.
You've made two arguments here:
1. That people you don't know have published lists that show Clemente close to Mantle. I understand why you would appeal to the knowledge of others rather than state your own case, I really do, but it's not a helpful argument here. I'd be happy to explain to the people who made those lists how they screwed up, but they'd need to be here to explain how they made their list before I can tell what mistake they made.
2. That in the postseason Clemente had a higher batting average than Mantle. You've cited the most meaningless statistic in common use - batting average - so that's also not a very helpful argument. I also don't find postseason stats very helpful either - Clemente came up to bat over 10,000 times in his career, and the additional 100 times he batted in the postseason don't add much, especially since he hit almost exactly the same in those additional 1% appearances. But since you brought it up, Mantle was a better postseason hitter than Clemente, too; he beat Clemente by 20 points in OBP and 86 points in SLG. If Mantle's .908 OPS defines a "choker" in the WS, then what is the term for someone with an OPS of .803?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas, you've said some pretty stupid things. Batting average is very important. If it wasn't, they wouldn't make a big deal out of hitting streaks and 400 seasons. I remember in 1980 when it seemed George Brett was in the news almost every day. And that was before most people had cable. I also disagree about what players do in post season. People usually remember who the winners are and MVP's(heroes) were in the playoffs. People remember those things. Clemente was a World Series hero. Mantle never was because he struck out too many times.
In the 1962 World Series, Mantle batted 120. I suppose you're going to make some excuse and say how going 3 for 25 was meaningless...lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Dallas is right that ba is way over rated and that ops is a Much better indication of offensive success. The goal of baseball is to score runs. To do that you need to get on base and once people are on base, to drive them in. Ob% shows how often a batter gets on base. The most efficient way to drive in a run is to hit the ball hard, thus, slugging % is important. When you add the two you get a much more full indication of the overall effectiveness of a players hitting than simply the average the player gets on base via a hit. I don't care if a player gets on with a hit, walk etc as long as he gets on base. That is what is valuable.
Originally posted by: garnettstyle Dallas, you've said some pretty stupid things. Batting average is very important. If it wasn't, they wouldn't make a big deal out of hitting streaks and 400 seasons. I remember in 1980 when it seemed George Brett was in the news almost every day. And that was before most people had cable. I also disagree about what players do in post season. People usually remember who the winners are and MVP's(heroes) were in the playoffs. People remember those things. Clemente was a World Series hero. Mantle never was because he struck out too many times.
In the 1962 World Series, Mantle batted 120. I suppose you're going to make some excuse and say how going 3 for 25 was meaningless...lol
No batting average is not "very important". Juan Pierre hit .327 in 2001 and had an OPS+ of 89 - he was 11% worse than the average hitter (who hit .261). How could that be? First, because Pierre's batting average was empty - he accumulated only 54 extra bases in 617 at bats (that's pathetic). Second, because he walked once every 17 times he came up (that's bad). And third, because hitting in Colorado in 2001 was easy - the team average excluding pitchers was .299. And there you have what you need to determine who the great hitters were: (1) how often did they get on base, (2) when they did get on base how far around the bases did they get, and (3) what was the context in which they were hitting.
When you look at batting average you get some of (1) and none of (2) or (3). When you look at batting average, you are wasting your time. Look at OBP and SLG and adjust for ballpark/era and you get everything you need; looking at batting average adds nothing and more often that not (as with Clemente/Mantle) actually makes your evaluation worse than it would have been had you ignored it.
As for what "they" make a big deal out of, or what "people" remember, please don't confuse that with something that matters. WS heroics certainly make a player more famous, and surely help a player get in the HOF with some voters, but they don't make a player a better hitter. Lou Brock and Bill Mazeroski were WS heroes, but as hitters they were what they were regardless what one extra HR or 4 extra singles in a handful of games may have accomplished.
And why on Earth do you keep saying that Mantle was "never" a WS hero? Are you lying intentionally, or do you really have no idea?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
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.
garnett does have a point in calling out Dallas for always posting how 'meaningless' batting avg. is. There might be a player that just finished spring training right now with a .340 avg. and because of it he gets to start the year with the major league club instead of being sent to double or triple A. For instance the guy that just beat out Pablo Sandoval at third base for the Red Sox.Ask that guy if his .340 avg. is meaningless.(or whatever his avg. is)
Its just silly to keep posting that batting average is meaningless.
Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre, how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Comments
3rd averages- Brett .489, 15th all time. Schmidt .175 1345th all time.
Basically for those who have never heard of 3rd averages, it separates those
who can actually hit the ball and reach base safely from those who are overrated because
they draw a lot of walks. It rewards the elite hitters, the high contact hitters,
and punishes the strikeout kings such as Schmidt, who stranded more runners than anyone
else in the history of the game.
Schmidt if one of the most overrated players of all time.
Brett wasn't even a power hitter and finished with more RBI's than Schmidt.
I have no idea if you're joking or not, although I hope you are for your sake. But I have to know - did you just make up "3rd averages"? I've never heard of it, and baseball-reference has never heard of it, and, what are the odds?, even Google has never heard of it. But if it does exist then I have to know what it is before I can make fun of it. So I'd appreciate a link or a formula, as well as the list where you got Brett's and Schmidt's rankings.
Never mind, I read your post again and I know you're just joking. I still don't get the joke, but I've eliminated all the other possibilities and joke is all that's left.
Why are walks so important to you but strikeouts are not?
Schmidt struck out 975 more times than Brett did in their careers.
That's two full seasons worth of strikeouts.
How many runners did he leave on base in his 1883 strikeouts.
And here's a stat to show just how valuable making contact is:
Brett had 5044 total bases to Schmidts' 4404.
Or to put it another way, 160 more home runs than Schmidt.LOL.
And yes, the 3rd averages are a joke, just like your secondary averages stats.
If something doesn't fit to your way of thinking, you just provide data that
does fit, ignoring important stuff like strikeouts.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
But of those 6 I would definitely say Schmidt is the most overrated.
Chipper was much better than Schmidt.
Some might have Pie Traynor fairly high on the list.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Yeah, I figured that out. Any stat that shows Brett was a better hitter than Schmidt had to be a joke. But secondary average sure isn't. Just as looking at OBP or SA in isolation will mean you are missing half the picture, so, too, with batting average and secondary average. The difference is that while OBP and SA each measure roughly half of a hitter's worth, batting average measures less than half, and secondary average measures more than half. Secondary average captures the extra bases that BA misses, but it also captures walks and SB. Of BA, OBP, SA and secondary average, secondary average is probably the single best measure. But since we're never confined to a single measure, it would be almost as foolish to rely solely on secondary average as it would be to rely solely on batting average.
What really gave away that you were joking, though, was how you said Brett had "more" RBI than Schmidt. I mean, sure, he did but he had exactly 1 more and it took him three full seasons worth of plate appearances to get that 1 RBI. Looked at another way, Brett had about 1,500 more runners to drive in than Schmidt did (counting themselves), and he drove in one of them.
But now I see you've topped yourself in the joke department by bringing Pie Traynor into the discussion. Pie Traynor defines better than any other player - possible exception of Gene Tenace - the line between those who understand what makes a hitter great and those who do not. Traynor was among the top 25 third basemen as a hitter, maybe, but nowhere near the top 10.
Now Chipper Jones does deserve to be in the discussion. If you include fielding then Schmidt is still clearly the greatest third baseman of all time, but looking only at hitting Jones is close enough for a serious look. He doesn't have the superhuman single seasons that Schmidt has, so if you value peak higher than average then Schmidt will still win, but his career averages are similar.
Help me out with secondary average - it seems like a pretty decent stat to use in companion with others. However, the calculation involves dividing by AB and not PA, is that correct? If that's true, that would seem to give way too much weight to BBs since those don't get counted as an AB.
Looks to me that secondary average is a great stat for a guy like Killebrew, lots of walks and home runs, bad for Ichiro. I think you can get a similar value by adding OB% and SLG% a stat Ted Williams liked, its called production (PRO).
We are already giving too much value to walks. Actually the value is probably correct it's just distributed incorrectly.
I would like to see a number that would take a batters runs scored, minus home runs, and compare his walks and hits that were not home runs to that. This might better show how often his walk actually ended up becoming a run. By subtracting home runs you would be eliminating the times the batter drove himself in.
Harmon Killebrew walked 106 times in 1962 and scored 85 runs, but he also hit 48 home runs, so he actually only scored 37 times when he didn't drive himself in. He also had 86 hits that weren't home runs. He scored about 19% of the times he got on base. The same year, Lenny Green had 154 hits that weren't home runs along with 88 walks (nice job Lenny) and was driven in 83 times by other players, about 34% of the time. In this example a walk to Green was 15% more likely to result in a run scored than a walk to Harmon. Both players had pretty similar walk and run scored numbers.
So unless I have missed something, a walk was much more valuable when Lenny Green got one than when Harmon did.
Help me out with secondary average - it seems like a pretty decent stat to use in companion with others. However, the calculation involves dividing by AB and not PA, is that correct? If that's true, that would seem to give way too much weight to BBs since those don't get counted as an AB.
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.
To be fair, Win Probability Added closes the gap considerably when looking at Brett and Schmidt.
For their careers in Win Probabily Added:
Brett.....52.4 wins added with his bat
Schmidt 55.5 wins added with his bat
Top five seasons:
Brett.............6.2, 6.1, 5.5, 5.1, 4.1
Schmidt.........5.9, 5.9, 5.8, 5.1, 4.7
Schmidt would beat him by .4 for their top five seasons.
So basically, Schmidt has the slightest of slight edge both in career and peak vs Brett.
Of course, this is offense only. Add defense, and Schmidt is superior.
So nobody gets confused and to add on to the post above explaining in fairly easy to ready laymen terms about the value of a base on balls from a middle of the order hitter, here is the value of Clemente and Mantle via Win Probability Added:
Mantle 93.4
Clemente 48.6
Peak:
Mantle......9.3, 9.0, 8.4, 8.0, 6.5
Clemente..8.2, 5.7, 5.4, 5.3, 4.5
Those are with Mantle having missed more time due to injury's. When Mantle was on the field, and in his prime, he was the best player ever. I did that breakdown vs. Ruth in another thread taking into account all the factors such as Ruth playing with a weak population to compete against, no minorities, and a league filled with deadball style slap hitters. Also taking into account the scouting factors such as Mantle's running speed(which dwarfed Clemente's by the way), Mantle's team's having the philosophy of not letting Mantle steal more when he could have easily, Mantles ability to handle centerfield(and showing how sometimes the defensive metrics are wrong with that).
just that Dallas doesn't even view a strikeout as the least bit negative.
How many times in Schmidts' 1883 K's would a hitter like Brett have moved
a runner, even if making an out by putting the ball in play, where maybe the next hitter would have
driven in that runner?
How many more strikeouts would Schmidt have accumulated if he had as many plate appearances as Brett?
2200? Still not a negative. 2500? That's five full seasons of K's.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I posted before I saw your latest post.
I think its fine if people think Schmidt was a better hitter than Brett,
but I certainly don't think its by a wide margin as Dallas has said.
Yes, Schmidt was better on defense, but Brett did work hard to improve
and actually won a gold glove in 85.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Base/Out State.............1B.....BB.....Out.....K
Two outs nobody on----.13----.13----N.12----N.12. The N stands for Negative.
Not surprising, with two outs and nobody on base, a single and a walk are of the exact same value, and a batted out and strikeout are of the exact same value. Actually, any of those with the bases empty has the exact same value. Since basically half of a batter's plate appearances come with the bases empty, about HALF of a player's career singles/Walks, and Batted outs/K's are of the same value as each other.
So when someone says walks are overvalued, or strikeouts are worse than batted outs, you start to see(based on the above) that they need to look a little deeper to see exactly how much each is valued.
Base/Out State...............1B......BB......Out.....K
Man on 2B nobody out----.72----.48----N.36----N.51
Man on 3B with one out--.56-----.24---N.25----N.63
Bases loaded nobody out-1.11---.90----N.63----N.72
Things change with each situation as well all know. What we had not known is exactly how much each changes, and thanks to the millions of play by play data, we now know. This info is for every base/out situation. I just highlighted the extreme ones that everyone has in their minds. As you can see, absolutely the values are different in these situations....but one tends to forget that about HALF of the plate appearances where nobody is on base(where there is no difference), or when there are two outs where there is no difference in a k or batted out. Also, many of the other situations are of varying degrees of smaller differences.
Win Probability Added incldues all of them. It adds all of them up. It is pretty darn black and white. Fans typically like to 'exclude' events that hurt their cases, or they assume incorrect values of events based on their reasoning or guesses. The play by play is not biases, hence, is more accurate.
So next time someone says, "Walks are overrated," you should have a good idea exactly their value compared to a single, which is about 2/3 of the value on average.
Next time someone says, "His strikeouts kill us," you should count all the situations and see that batted outs are typically just as damaging, and that on average for every 100 strikeouts(compared to batted outs) it costs only about a negative extra TWO RUNS. It isn't as much as people think. Sure, a thousand extra strikeouts does add up, but never nearly to the degree that fans think.
Luckily the play by play tells exactly how many times each player did what in each situation, so we can really just put those arguments to bed.
skin, thank you.
I posted before I saw your latest post.
I think its fine if people think Schmidt was a better hitter than Brett,
but I certainly don't think its by a wide margin as Dallas has said.
Yes, Schmidt was better on defense, but Brett did work hard to improve
and actually won a gold glove in 85.
Actually, I never said what I thought the margin was between the two as hitters. But I can live with what skin posted: at their peaks they were similar but Schmidt was better (narrow margin), and in three more seasons Brett was still less valuable for his career than Schmidt was (moderate margin). There is no argument to be had on the point - Schmidt was clearly a better hitter than Brett. Then, when you look at the other half of the game, the margin between Schmidt and Brett gets significantly more substantial (wide margin).
So there, now I've said it - as hitter's there is a moderate but clear margin between them, and as total players there is a wide margin between them.
And yes, Brett did in fact win the Gold Glove in 1985. As you note, he had worked hard to improve and by 1985 he had finally achieved the distinction of being average so he was rewarded with a Gold Glove since they couldn't hand out "E"s for effort. Gary Gaetti was the best third basemen in the league, though, and what should have been the first of five Gold Gloves for Gaetti sits on Brett's mantle instead.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
Absolutely correct. They are extremely valuable - more than the 2/3 of a single average - when issued to the first three hitters in the order; players like Schmidt, Mantle and Joe Morgan. These players are MUCH better than their batting averages alone might indicate. And players that hit at the top of the order who don't take walks - players like Bill Buckner, Ichiro and Clemente - are hurting their teams and are not as good - often not nearly as good - as their batting averages might indicate.
And whatever you think of secondary average on its own terms, it can be used in one very valuable way. If you're not a stat geek like me or skin, and you form your opinions of how good a player was by looking at nothing but standard back of the baseball card stats, then please take a look at secondary average. Without exception, if you compare a player's secondary average to his batting average, then if SA>BA you will have underrated that player, and if BA>SA you will have overrated that player. And the magnitude of the difference between BA and SA will give you some idea of how far off you are in your evaluation. Based on secondary average alone, Gene Tenace is the 32nd greatest hitter in history; based on batting average he's probably #3,200. Tenace is not the 32nd greatest hitter in history - but he is much closer to 32 than to 3,200. The stats on the back of a baseball card won't even get in you the same ballpark of a player's true ability in too many cases; don't rely on them.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
JoeBanzi, do you know the difference in value between a walk to the leadoff man, compared to a walk to a number three hitter??
You are correct, that on average, there is a difference...but the difference is so small, that it really isn't a bother to bring it up into discussions very often.
As outlined above with the Clemente and Mantle scenario(which if one read, and had any common sense), they would have moved away the topic of overvaluing walks. Clemente's walk(or lack thereof) batting in front of Stargell, or Mantle's amazing amount of walks batting in front of Berra(and Company), do have the exact value as given in OPS+ or Win Probability Added. So when you make your comments in regard to these players, you are off base and wrong(not surprisingly).
The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher.
However, most of our discussions are in regard to the likes of Mantle, Clemente, etc., where you chime in and make claims that are either not true, or of any significance.
The play by play data and the Win Probability Added answers all your questions already, so there is no point for you to even bother to make erroneous guesses on the value of each.
PS: Ironically, it seems the people who share the same invalid view as you about walks being overrated based on batting order position...then in the next sentence make some glorious claim of how great a hitter Ichiro is...despite his lack of walks.
Walks are NOT overrated, they are also not the exact same value to each hitter in a batting order.
JoeBanzi, do you know the difference in value between a walk to the leadoff man, compared to a walk to a number three hitter??
You are correct, that on average, there is a difference...but the difference is so small, that it really isn't a bother to bring it up into discussions very often.
The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher.
Not much difference between a walk to the leadoff man and #3. I said the walk value dropped more with the #4 guy (especially if #5 batter was not very good).
I guess that your understanding baseball is simply so PERFECT, no-one here should EVER bother to try to raise any question pertaining to the new numbers. They are PERFECT as well and will NEVER be improved on and/or replaced.
I will simply ask you from now on how to think and blindly follow your genius. Please accept my apology for my foolishness. I really don't know how you put up with people who don't agree with you completely.
Mantle with his amazing power is naturally going to walk more.
Add to that Stargell hitting behind Clemente, so you can't really pitch around Clemente.
And if Gene Tenace had been hitting in front of Mickey Mantle his whole career,
Dallas wouldn't be talking about what a great hitter he is.
He would have drawn about 10 BB per year hitting in front of Mickey.
He drew a ton of walks because he had crap hitters surrounding him his whole career, and pitchers
could pitch around Tenace to get to those guys. Doesn't mean Tenace was a great hitter, however.
Just a good OBP guy.
So its all relative, depending on where you're hitting in the order and what kind of players are surrounding you.
Can't really compare Clemente to Mantle or any other power hitter, as power hitters are always going to walk more.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
going back to Schmidt, if you include defense, there is just no way chipper is better than Schmidt.
Correct. The same with Clemente vs Mantle. I'll take Clemente all day because of his defensive skills.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
going back to Schmidt, if you include defense, there is just no way chipper is better than Schmidt.
Correct. The same with Clemente vs Mantle. I'll take Clemente all day because of his defensive skills.
Good thing you're not a GM.
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.
going back to Schmidt, if you include defense, there is just no way chipper is better than Schmidt.
Correct. The same with Clemente vs Mantle. I'll take Clemente all day because of his defensive skills.
Good thing you're not a GM.
Nah, a good GM will choose the great 5 tool player. Mantle destroyed his knee at a young age.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mantle with one leg was a superior player to Clemente with two legs. Not even close
mark
No way. Clemente was a better overall player. And he didn't have any drug problems.
I guess Mantle and co. could've used an extra leg in 1960 lol.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Mantle with one leg was a superior player to Clemente with two legs. Not even close
mark
No way. Clemente was a better overall player. And he didn't have any drug problems.
I guess Mantle and co. could've used an extra leg in 1960 lol.
You practicing for April Fools Day? You certainly got it down to a science across all sports
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mantle with one leg was a superior player to Clemente with two legs. Not even close
mark
No way. Clemente was a better overall player. And he didn't have any drug problems.
I guess Mantle and co. could've used an extra leg in 1960 lol.
You practicing for April Fools Day? You certainly got it down to a science across all sports
mark
42-13
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
It's ironic, I think, that an argument in favor of Clemente would mention what happened to Mantle's knee "at a young age". Because "at a young age" Mantle was phenomenal, while Clemente was simply bad. No, I don't mean that he wasn't quite as great as he became later, I mean that he was bad.
Compare Mantle's first six seasons to Clemente's:
BA: .308 to .288
HR: 173 to 42
GIDP: 21 to 87
SB/CS: 53/16 to 22/25
Errors: 39 to 52
OBP: .412 to .320
SLG: .560 to .407
OPS+: 166 to 95
WPA: 29.4 to 1.7
Based on what each of them accomplished "at a young age" Clemente was behind Mantle by so much that there was no way he was ever going to catch him. Based on WPA, Mantle's career total at age 27 was about the same as Clemente's for his entire career.
I'll stop now. I like Roberto Clemente, and he was a great player. But it's humiliating to compare him to a player like Mantle who was so much better than he was.
Clemente Mantle
Career batting average 317 - 298
Post season batting average - 318 - 257
World series MVP - 1 - 0
Batting titles - 4 - 1
Gold gloves - 12 - 1
Triples - 166 - 72
The only 2 things Mantle was better was hitting the long ball and drinking booze.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
BTW, did OSU even make the BCS championship this past year? No, they didn't even crack the top 4? Case closed, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
One of the more entertaining aspects of sports talk is listening to such foolishness, lol...
BTW, did OSU even make the BCS championship this past year? No, they didn't even crack the top 4? Case closed, lol..
Thanks for showing your ignorance. The committee made the wrong choice by putting in Oklahoma over the Buckeyes. The computers had the Buckeyes at #4 after the conference championship games and they finished in the top 4 in the final polls, and #3 in the computers. Had they given the chance they would've destroyed Alabama or Clemson.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
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 know he hit .329 his last 13 years.
I would kind of like to know his OBP, SLG, and other pertinent stats the last 13 years,
just to show how much he did improve.
Pretty impressive that after his first 2419 at bats, he was hitting .282 but finished with a career avg. of .317
a gain of 35 points. I'm guessing probably not many players started slow like that but raised their avg. that much.
Dallas, how about it?
Would you do an analysis of Clemente's last 13 seasons?
And I'm not saying he was better than Mantle I would just like to know some of those numbers.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Clemente did get off to a slow start in his career, but his last 13 seasons, from 1960 to 1972 were pretty great.
Wait a second, it's coming to me. That's right, it was way back in my very last post that I said "Clemente was a great player". The sole purpose of my last post was that it amused me that you had mentioned something about Mantle happening "at a young age". That's all.
Clemente's last 13 seasons were great - his OPS+ improved from his dismal first-six of 95 all the way to 146. 146 is outstanding. Of course Mantle improved his OPS+ from a first six of 166 to a last-12 of 175, so the hole that Clemente dug at a young age just kept getting deeper every year, but it got deeper at a much slower rate.
I'll say this by way of any further analysis. Clemente was a great player, and a great human being, and he absolutely deserves his place in the HOF. Some of his peers in terms of ability are Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew. If you want to have a debate about who was better between Clemente and any of those other great HOF-caliber players then go for it - a reasonable debate could be had with each of them. But Mickey Mantle's ability peers are Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays - an entirely different class of players. (Skin will take the position that Mantle's best comparison is Babe Ruth; I personally won't go that far, but I respect his argument.) Mantle was better than Clemente and there simply is no reasonable argument to the contrary.
I believe it was garnettstyle that said that.
Thanks for the analysis.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
The committee made the correct choice. Ohio State is on the outside looking in. Not good enough to crack even the top 4. The sports world is littered with "if this" or "had this happened." Maybe next year. Case closed.
Oklahoma was not a better team than Ohio State. They got hammered by Clemson. Ohio State destroyed both Michigan and Notre Dame. Committee did not pick the 4 best teams. They were wrong.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Clemente did get off to a slow start in his career, but his last 13 seasons, from 1960 to 1972 were pretty great.
Wait a second, it's coming to me. That's right, it was way back in my very last post that I said "Clemente was a great player". The sole purpose of my last post was that it amused me that you had mentioned something about Mantle happening "at a young age". That's all.
Clemente's last 13 seasons were great - his OPS+ improved from his dismal first-six of 95 all the way to 146. 146 is outstanding. Of course Mantle improved his OPS+ from a first six of 166 to a last-12 of 175, so the hole that Clemente dug at a young age just kept getting deeper every year, but it got deeper at a much slower rate.
I'll say this by way of any further analysis. Clemente was a great player, and a great human being, and he absolutely deserves his place in the HOF. Some of his peers in terms of ability are Ernie Banks, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray, Willie Stargell, Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew. If you want to have a debate about who was better between Clemente and any of those other great HOF-caliber players then go for it - a reasonable debate could be had with each of them. But Mickey Mantle's ability peers are Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays - an entirely different class of players. (Skin will take the position that Mantle's best comparison is Babe Ruth; I personally won't go that far, but I respect his argument.) Mantle was better than Clemente and there simply is no reasonable argument to the contrary.
I have seen many top 50 or 100 lists where Mantle and Clemente are not very far apart. So to say Mantle was that far ahead I don't buy at all. Mantle is quite overrated by Yankees fans just the same as a 1971 topps Thurman Munson baseball card. All the times Mantle played in the post season where the games count the most, never prevailed as a hero. The guy just couldn't hit for ***** in the playoffs. Sure he hit some home runs but the guy was a choker when it counted. A 257 batting average for someone who is professed to be so great is quite embarrassing. In 8 post seasons, Mantle batted 250 or lower. He hit 200 or lower during 5 of those post seasons.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
His delusional baseball comments will remain intact in this thread for posterity. Homers get so emotional. Somewhere deep in a bunker on the Ohio- Pennslyvania border garnettstyle stews. 17-14.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Moving garnettstyle delusional college comments to the delusional 2015 college thread where it belongs in case someone what's to respond there
His delusional baseball comments will remain intact in this thread for posterity. Homers get so emotional. Somewhere deep in a bunker on the Ohio- Pennslyvania border garnettstyle stews. 17-14.
mark
17-14 is a lot better than 42-13 lol.
Of course as a ohio state hater you always bring up their one loss, but never bring up Alabama's one loss.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The rest of you, please forgive me, but I want to see just how much garnettstyle is willing to embarrass himself before he figures out that he's embarrassing himself.
You've made two arguments here:
1. That people you don't know have published lists that show Clemente close to Mantle. I understand why you would appeal to the knowledge of others rather than state your own case, I really do, but it's not a helpful argument here. I'd be happy to explain to the people who made those lists how they screwed up, but they'd need to be here to explain how they made their list before I can tell what mistake they made.
2. That in the postseason Clemente had a higher batting average than Mantle. You've cited the most meaningless statistic in common use - batting average - so that's also not a very helpful argument. I also don't find postseason stats very helpful either - Clemente came up to bat over 10,000 times in his career, and the additional 100 times he batted in the postseason don't add much, especially since he hit almost exactly the same in those additional 1% appearances. But since you brought it up, Mantle was a better postseason hitter than Clemente, too; he beat Clemente by 20 points in OBP and 86 points in SLG. If Mantle's .908 OPS defines a "choker" in the WS, then what is the term for someone with an OPS of .803?
In the 1962 World Series, Mantle batted 120. I suppose you're going to make some excuse and say how going 3 for 25 was meaningless...lol
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Dallas, you've said some pretty stupid things. Batting average is very important. If it wasn't, they wouldn't make a big deal out of hitting streaks and 400 seasons. I remember in 1980 when it seemed George Brett was in the news almost every day. And that was before most people had cable. I also disagree about what players do in post season. People usually remember who the winners are and MVP's(heroes) were in the playoffs. People remember those things. Clemente was a World Series hero. Mantle never was because he struck out too many times.
In the 1962 World Series, Mantle batted 120. I suppose you're going to make some excuse and say how going 3 for 25 was meaningless...lol
No batting average is not "very important". Juan Pierre hit .327 in 2001 and had an OPS+ of 89 - he was 11% worse than the average hitter (who hit .261). How could that be? First, because Pierre's batting average was empty - he accumulated only 54 extra bases in 617 at bats (that's pathetic). Second, because he walked once every 17 times he came up (that's bad). And third, because hitting in Colorado in 2001 was easy - the team average excluding pitchers was .299. And there you have what you need to determine who the great hitters were: (1) how often did they get on base, (2) when they did get on base how far around the bases did they get, and (3) what was the context in which they were hitting.
When you look at batting average you get some of (1) and none of (2) or (3). When you look at batting average, you are wasting your time. Look at OBP and SLG and adjust for ballpark/era and you get everything you need; looking at batting average adds nothing and more often that not (as with Clemente/Mantle) actually makes your evaluation worse than it would have been had you ignored it.
As for what "they" make a big deal out of, or what "people" remember, please don't confuse that with something that matters. WS heroics certainly make a player more famous, and surely help a player get in the HOF with some voters, but they don't make a player a better hitter. Lou Brock and Bill Mazeroski were WS heroes, but as hitters they were what they were regardless what one extra HR or 4 extra singles in a handful of games may have accomplished.
And why on Earth do you keep saying that Mantle was "never" a WS hero? Are you lying intentionally, or do you really have no idea?
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.
There might be a player that just finished spring training right now with a .340 avg. and because of it
he gets to start the year with the major league club instead of being sent to double or triple A. For instance
the guy that just beat out Pablo Sandoval at third base for the Red Sox.Ask that guy
if his .340 avg. is meaningless.(or whatever his avg. is)
Its just silly to keep posting that batting average is meaningless.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Stupid list…. Mistlin