Options
Amazing Maddux statistic
craig44
Posts: 10,524 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just saw an awesome Maddux stat. In his career he faced 20,421 batters. Only 310 ever made it to a 3-0 count. 177 of those were on intentional walks. Now that is efficient.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
2
Comments
One of the all time greatest masters of pitching, no question about it.
Who was better? Maddux or Martinez?
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 saw that "fact" recently on Twitter. According to Baseball-Reference, Maddux reached a 3-0 count 644 times. For comparison, I looked up Roger Clemens, and he reached a 3-0 count 707 times.
According to my understanding, you may have the two splits bbr lists backwards. They do show two splits. The first is the count. The second is what happened after the count. After the count for 3-0 does list 644 PA. However, that number also takes into account all scenarios that can happen after a 3-0 count. That would be 3-1 and 3-2. The first stat, which actually should be 312 PA refers to the amount of times maddux actually made it to only a 3-0 count.
I believe the 312 number to be accurate.
Crazy thing is once I looked, that Clemens was even better at 283 3-0 counts. Of course you have to wonder at the legitimacy of any Clemens numbers.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It helps when a pitch is 4 inches low and 4 inches inside/outside and it gets called a strike.
...and you think that Maddux was squeaky clean?
You think otherwise? Evidence to back your claim up? Or is it baseless garbage
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No, it's definitely not accurate. "After 3-0" means the count was 3-0 (exactly) at some point.
312 is the number of times that the PA ended with the 3-0 pitch.
EDIT: I just found this Tweet from Baseball-Reference...
@baseball_ref - 13 hours ago
@Kevin__DAmico Yes, "After 3-0" means the PA reached a 3-0 count at some point. The "3-0 Count" split is only PAs that ended at 3-0
To be fair you offer no real evidence when you cast aspersions. Case in point Gwynn. Zero evidence.
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......
Mark, in most cases of PED use there is no hard evidence. Before McGwire confessed, no evidence. There is also no hard evidence against Clemens. What we do have is circumstantial evidence in the form of a players career stats. For 100 years we pretty much knew how players aged and about how their statistics would look. And then during the 1990's all of that changed and players were improving in their 30's when history told us they should have been declining. That statistical evidence is a tool one can use. Not perfect, but pretty good. Do you not think Clemens used? If you do think so, why? There is no hard evidence there, only a body of work
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Exactly. If you chart Maddux's career - which I just did - you get something remarkably close to an inverted parabola, or an arch. He started slow, got better and better, and then went through a long, slow decline. His worst four seasons were his first two and last two. His next worst eight seasons were the four seasons after his first two and the four seasons prior to his last two. There is zero evidence that Maddux cheated.
If you do the same thing for Clemens, you get what looks like a heart rate monitor. His best four seasons came at 34, 42, 27 and 28. His worst four seasons came at 21, 39, 36 and 30. Had his career ended at 30 - no evidence of anything. At 32 - odd, but still no evidence. At 36, I'd say there was serious reason to question, but well short of proof. But what he did from 41-43 was unprecedented, and constitutes as much proof of cheating as statistics can provide. It's certainly not enough to convict him in a court of law, but that's beside the point since he's not in a court of law and we're not jurors. In the court of public opinion, he's a cheater, and the public stands on very firm ground.
Mark, what Dallas mentions here is how I have become a believer that gwynn most likely used PED as well. Look at the statistical evidence. He starts out with a normal career arc for a star player. Then at age 30-32 he begins a very normal decline phase. Then in 1993, at age 33-40, he has his best years when historically, he should have been in decline and then steep decline. Look at the numbers
Ave. Obp. Slg. Ops. Opsplus
1982-89. .332. .389. .437. .826. 132
1990-92. .314. .361. .421. .782. 117
1993-00. .356. .400. .500. .900. 140
None of that seems suspicious to you? It is a very unpopular position to take because gwynn was so beloved but the numbers normally don't lie. And I don't think they do here.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't know if Maddux was clean of PED's or not. That is what is so insidious of the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances.
The guy who is clean has to not only compete with stronger and more quickly healing athletes, but when he succeeds, must defend that they are free of banned or illegal products.
I spent a lot of time at the gym from the mid 1980's to mid 1990's. I had no interest in drugs, but four close friends and workout partners did. Odd part was, at the time I was unaware of their usage and only found out later (I guess they weren't such good friends after all).
Point is, they were normal people that had absolutely no monetary incentive the take PED's, yet did. Based of that experience, I suspect all professional athletes and indict none.
But steroids can be good. Without them Arnold Schwarzenegger would never have been a world bodybuilding champ, Conan the Barbarian, governor or had the opportunity to schtup his nanny.
If he had to do it all over again, he would likely again choose the drug route to success.
He hit the same number of HRs in just 1999 that he had in his entire career (1986-1998) up to that point.
VERY SUSPICIOUS!!!!!1!!one!!!!
Gwynn's case isn't as clear cut as it appears, but ultimately, yeah, he cheated. What looks like improvement beginning in his early 30's is really just a combination of holding steady - which is rare, but not unprecedented - and facing fewer left-handed pitchers. If you take away what Gwynn did at 37 and 38, I'd say that his career path was unusual, but relatively weak evidence for cheating. But, of course, we can't just "take away" those two years; two years in which Gwynn was almost certainly cheating. It's whether those were the only two years that is unclear.
Alright PM770, you got me!! Never thought to look up the power stats!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No one can be positive one way or the other minus a failed test or an admission. The next best thing however, is the statistical record. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good. You can be quite sure maddux was clean.
I have taken some heat about my opinion that gwynn cheated and I understand that as he was a well followed, beloved player. But, the stats don't lie and for gwynn they are damning.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It is very difficult to hear that one's favorite player cheated and I think that may be why I have taken some heat for this opinion. I know when I got interested in statistics many years ago, I was shocked and a bit heartbroken when I started digging into tonys stats and realised the truth. It is not fair though, to pick and choose. It is easy to hate on the bond's and arods, but not so easy when it comes to a player like gwynn
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"""No one can be positive one way or the other minus a failed test or an admission. The next best thing however, is the statistical record. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good. You can be quite sure maddux was clean."""
It is much easier to believe that a Bonds or Sosa is an offender over a Maddux, I give you that, but to clear anyone in an era when drugs were rampant is disingenuous. Actuary outlines the case for Maddux based of stats. All good, but it is possible that steroids were used for recovery at some point rather than strength enhancement.
I know I am cynical and that sure took some of the fun of watching Lance Armstrong put together a string of TdF wins, Sosa and McGwire racing to 70 home runs and Barry Bonds playing home run derby nearly every at bat. Nothing is magical and nothing is free.
Clearly not enough to damn him so I'm giving him a pass.
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......
Stats often tell the entire story as the interpreter can often slant them as they see fit. You know that.
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......
So for you, everyone who played in the PED era is guilty? Not only is it cynical, it is patently incorrect. There are very very few things that are 100% in life
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Stats often tell the entire story as the interpreter can often slant them as they see fit. You know that.
mark
I listed a very quick statistical study of gwynns career arc. Can you explain how I slanted those statistics? I shared five very common stats that illustrate gwynn didn't decline from age 33 on, he actually had the greatest part of his career during that period. How does that seem natural? What would be enough to damn him? A failed test? Video footage of him injecting?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
How about any collaborating evidence real or even anecdotal? So because a player ends his career at a high level automatically means he was cheating? No two humans are built the same. Sorry I think you need to practice what you preach and relax on the cynicism. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
FWIW is it necessary for you to get the very last word on everything? It only weakens your position and quite frankly it's why I just disengage from debates with you. Rabbit holes ain't my jam.
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......
Just a bit of a segway here...I remember watching the Braves on TBS when they really sucked, back in the late '80's. I enjoyed watching the Braves but it sure gave a boost to the team in the early '90's when they picked up Maddux. What a rotation, Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine! I don't know if there has been a rotation as talented since then? What a staff! It seems baseball was on a rocket pad back in the late '80's. At least it seemed to me. I think there was speculation that the baseball was somehow modified then to create more home runs...but maybe just a cover for rampant PED use? I never understood how Wade Boggs was able to hit 24 home runs in 1987, and not come close the rest of his career. Safe bet that any players stats could be picked apart...Even McGwire, his rookie year hitting 49 in 1987! Shoot! I remember watching many of the A's back in Huntsville, Ala., double A before they broke through. What an awesome time for baseball!
I remember reading something about Willie Mays drinking some kind of cocktail before each game to enhance performance...don't know if true...but...I do think MLB does turn the other way because home runs and complete game shut outs are revenue for MLB.
Sorry for rambling, but how the heck can David Ortiz have a phenomenal last season with Red Sox in 2016...38 HR, .315 BA, 127 RBI...at age 41???? A good case for PED's and MLB turning the other way....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Just some conspiratorial thoughts...sorry, carry on.
Pocketart, I agree with you 100% on Ortiz. That's coming from a 30 year sox fan.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Mark, I just love baseball and spirited debate. I apologize for rubbing you the wrong way.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
PocketArt nice post. 1987 Wade Boggs. Interesting. 1987 was quite a year but I've been told that stats don't lie something nefarious most be up.
Let's say Giselle somehow conviences Tom Brady to retire at his advanced age. He's about the same age as Gwynn when Tony retired. Let's say Brady played his last game in February. His last several seasons where amongst his best. 2016 may have been his best. Is he automatically guilty of PEDs based on that alone? I hope your answer is of course not. Or does he get painted with the same brush as Craig is doing with Gwynn. Same with Barry Sanders he went out on top. Maybe some athletes are just blessed with a gift. Is that so far fetched? Professional athletes are indeed gifted.
Brady, Gwynn and Sanders started their careers great and preformed at an extemely high level throughout their entirety. ( Noted that Brady's is still a WIP).I bet Gwynn could bat .290 from the grave. He was born to hit.
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......
Craig zero worries. I hold no quarrel with you . Just explaining why sometimes I duck out. You're a smart and good dude. A little over zealous but that's not all that bad. No apologies necessary. I offen play the role of devils advocate in life.
I did use PED's (HGH) at 40. Damn it was available over the counter. You could buy it at GNC in the mall.
Carry on
mark
Edited as I decided not to go down that path
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can't comment on Brady, or, even football because I don't follow it- however; Gwynn was quite the freak. Natural born hitter- yes. Without a doubt. His .394 BA in '94 is one of the more interesting what if's...so goes with many close milestones.
On that note, what kind of stats would Williams, or, Dimaggio have put up if they didn't go off to more noble pursuits during their prime? I suppose that was an absolute with sports back in the day...and perhaps what is lacking now? A selfless calling. That noble pursuit from back when, just doesn't have a similar clarion call that beckons with today's sport phenoms.
Sports seem to lack a certain spirit that was larger than life back then I suppose...perhaps PED's and Jets flying over stadiums are that poor attempt to recapture what was lost...heck, I'm lost with trying to see through much of this present day hype to the point where I don't bother to watch as I once had. Too much manufactured, and not enough 'natural.'
So, I think all sports are juiced in some way, players in another, to fit a mold that's palatable for the present day. The further I look back, the more I enjoy sports, especially baseball.
Rambling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The interesting thing is that most of the players that are caught these days fall into one of two camps. Those who are fighting for roster spots 24 &25 and those fighting to stay on the MLB 40 man roster at spots 36-40. Baseball livelihoods are at stake. Baseball or the everyman 50K grind in the real world. The baseball system promotes it. There is less cheating at the top of the roster as the money is already guaranteed. Very little incentive to cheat if you are all ready an all star and making more then you can spend. It's one of the reasons I have a hard time swallowing Ortiz using. Lack of motive unless his ego is bigger then his swing.
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......
Those stats don't mean a thing. A player good can start good get worse and get better again without cheating. I'm not saying Gwynn was or was not clean, but you can't use numbers to say yes or no.
As far as Maddux...why would you think he cheated!! He didn't over power anybody. Didn't have heat....just extremely great control. And by having that control he probably got a lot of close pitches go his way.
PEDs are all about being able to train harder and recover faster. Been there done that
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......
The cold hard facts don't always tell the whole story. Nagging injuries, mindset, and many other
factors can play a part in a players statistics.
What if a certain player hit .260 with 15 HR at age 34 then the next year
hit .325 with 35 HR. I'm sure many would be quick to say PED's was the reason,
but in fact it could have been a wrist injury that healed during the off season.
(many players don't want the oppostion to know about an injury that they're playing through)
Maybe he got a divorce from a nasty wife during the off season and he was in a better frame of mind.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
I think you've taken this point a bit too far. Stats do mean something, even if they don't mean everything. And if you mean "yes" or "no" with 100% certainty, then I agree, but if you are trying to make your best guess then stats most certainly can, and should, be used.
Stats provide overwhelming evidence that Bonds cheated; so much evidence that I don't think any reasonable person could reach any other conclusion even if they ignored the other mountains of evidence. Down significantly from that level, there are players like Gwynn; stats do provide evidence that he cheated, but it is nowhere near as conclusive as the evidence against Bonds. If I had a gun to me head and had to guess correctly whether Gwynn cheated I would say "yes", and if you ever find yourself in that situation I think you should, too. But while I'd bet the life of my first born on that question with respect to Bonds, I wouldn't bet more than $20 on Gwynn.
And statistical evidence works the other way, too. To say that there is no evidence that Maddux cheated, while true, doesn't go far enough. What the stats provide is pretty good evidence that Maddux did not cheat. I'd bet more than $20, although not my first born, that he did not.
How could anyone even think Maddux cheated! He wasn't a power picture, so it wasn't a strength issue. Is there a drug that can give you accuracy???? I think not.
You clearly don't understand the benefits of steroids.
"""And statistical evidence works the other way, too. To say that there is no evidence that Maddux cheated, while true, doesn't go far enough. What the stats provide is pretty good evidence that Maddux did not cheat. I'd bet more than $20, although not my first born, that he did not."""
Not so much a question of the size of the theoretical wager, Steve, but the odds. My guess would be 35-65% that Maddux was using steroids sometime during his career. It would take 2 to 1 to get my interest.
The court of public opinion is often quite an entertaining one, with various opinions out from the bleachers with little to no credibility, but Dallas has provided as astute an analysis as one could reasonably expect.
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.
Yes I do...and I don't see how it applies to Maddux and his type of game.
You could do a little research and educate yourself, but you probably won't.
Steroids can benefit any type of player, not just home run hitters and power pitchers. I have no opinion on weather Maddux used or not, but steroids could have helped him lengthen his career.
Much of the discussion here is how players have an unusual statistical arc at the latter part of their careers, not just how big their biceps got.
Don't forget the ones at the top of the food chain like ARod, Bonds, McGuire, etc. I'll bet they have/had some enormous egos! Rewards were some huge contracts! Nobody thinks they are going to get caught.
.....and if they do get caught huge contract is unaffected, short of the deduction for time suspended.
That's not unreasonable, but of course the best odds are on the proposition that we'll never know the answer.
But my point is that there is no evidence that Maddux specifically cheated, and some statistical evidence that he did not. Your not unreasonable willingness to bet otherwise is, presumably, based on the fact that he was great, and the era in which he played. If the odds are (I'm just making this number up) 50% that any given great player cheated, then the odds that Maddux cheated should, based on the statistical evidence, be lower than that; say 35%. If the odds are 80% that any given player was cheating, then Maddux's odds could be 65%. To bring it back around to Gwynn, if Maddux's odds are 35%-65%, then Gwynn's should be 65%-95%. Statistics certainly do not prove anything, but they do provide evidence that should not be ignored.
""" Your not unreasonable willingness to bet otherwise is, presumably, based on the fact that he was great, and the era in which he played."""
Not so much that Maddux was great but rather the era in which he played. Bonds expanding head (literally), physique and power numbers as well as his ornery persona were giveaways of his PED usage.
If Maddux did indeed use steroids during his career, it was more likely to help recover from an injury rather than to become stronger and faster. Taking a random group of MLB players from the 80's and 90's, steroid usage of 35% is probably optimistically low.
Where are you getting your numbers from coinstarteled? Where do you get 35% from? Is there any evidence at all for that? It sounds like simple conjecture. You list many "giveaways" for bonds, including his physique and stats. What about maddux's stats or physique lead you to believe he juiced? Was there a sharp upturn in his stats after his early 30's? I can make a statistical argument for maddux not using and for gwynn using. While not 100% conclusive, it can indicate whether or not one used. What in maddux statistical record point to juicing? Was there a failed test? A witness?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
First off, I have no hero in baseball. None. You are a fan of Greg Maddux and wish to defend his legacy. That is to be admired but may cloud your vision.
Please reread my last post. In amateur let alone professional sports in the 80's and nineties and at least into the 2000's steroids were a staple of the locker room. Good, otherwise respectable players were having teammates inject them in the butt.
I am giving Maddux the benefit of the doubt and with the career stat evidence presented on this thread that he was clean. That is where my 35-65% number came from. Ask me about the gym I belonged to on 8 mile in Detroit during the same era and I would give it 65-35% that any given regular was or had recently taken steroids (I was a distance runner and did not).
If you can sleep better with a probability of 25-75% on Maddux, you've got it. Below that you are already dreaming.
It is certainly your right to believe or not believe any player juiced. My question was where the 35% number came from. It seems clear now that you are extrapolating that number from the proliferation of steroids in the locker room. You really have no basis for that number, just a feeling. Why not 40%? 60%? 15%? You have nothing with which to base your 35%, it is simply conjecture. You are guessing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What is your guess, Craig? Is it zero percent as Maddux is a stand up guy and your hero?
Remember when Bonds took the HR title away from Aaron. Oh just wait said the cynics, soon a clean Alex Rodriguez will snatch back the title and Cooperstown will be pure once again.
That didn't work out so well.
I already told you, I don't think maddux juiced. So I guess that would be 0%. I have explained already how I came to that conclusion, through statistical evidence, the lack of ANY witnesses and no failed tests.
You still haven't described your methodology for arriving at 35%. I think that is because we both know that your number is simply a guess. Conjecture.
The arod scenario you reference is invalid as far as statistical evidence goes because he was mid career at the time and we could not see if there would be a natural decline. Statistical evidence is most useful after retirement as the entire career arc can be analyzed
And neither Maddux or any other athlete is my hero. How shallow would that be. A fan yes, but not a hero.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.