@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Semi OT - which is in line with the thread? I sometimes feel like longevity has turned into a bad thing. The ability to play a sport at a high level into late thirties early forties used to be a testament to greatness and work ethic whereas the current connotation is more 'he's hanging on for stats.' In most cases, guys don't get the red carpet treatment - once you stink you go - no matter how good you once were. Only a handful of guys went out on their own terms ; for the rest, there just wasn't anyone willing to pay them to play baseball anymore - for whatever reason though usually a decline in performance is the ultimate one. I guess some of it is economic; when any guy today who could play that old reaches that age, he's already made enough money where the only thing keeping him playing is desire. Not the case in the old days...
The answer is "it depends". Nobody - nobody who wasn't cheating anyway - plays as well after 35 or so as they played before that age. Never happened, probably never will. But not being as good as you once were is not the same thing as "hanging on for stats", depending on how good you were in the first place. A few quick examples:
Carl Yastrzemski had an OPS+ of 139 through age 34, 116 from 35-39, and 108 at 40+. At no point was he merely "hanging on" because he remained a productive player, and a benefit to his team, right up to retirement. Longevity in his case was a good thing.
Ichitro had an OPS+ of 117 through age 36 (I shifted a little since he started so late), 87 through age 40, and 77 after that. He has been "hanging on for stats" for the past seven years, producing nothing that a player called up from the minors couldn't produce (at a fraction of the salary), and he has been hurting his teams by hanging on. Longevity in his case was a bad thing.
I am more than willing to cheer a truly great player who hangs on for one year too many, because you don't know if it's one year too many until you play that year. Willie Mays is a perfect example. He had on OPS+ of 131 at age 41 in his penultimate season, then crashed to 81 the next year. And then he retired. That's not hanging on, that's playing until you have no more to give. It's when players reach that point and keep coming back, year after year, that grinds my gears. When Mays ends a 21 year career on a bad note, you just remember the 20 years of greatness. At this point Ichiro has been bad almost as long as he was good, and that's now how I'll remember him.
Very good explanation of longevity as many fans tend to get confused on that issue. Using Yaz and Ichiro are great examples too.
For Banzi, I just wanted to add that you keep bringing up Mantle in his last couple years saying his walks have less value because he didn't run as well. Then wouldn't his walks in his first half of his career have MORE value than anyone else since he was the fastest runner in the league for several years?? Get the point? Doubtful you will understand.
Also, since Joe Morgan also ran extremely well, and Joe Morgan is also underrated by all these same posters because they don't understand the value of a walk, then wouldn't Morgan's walks make him MORE valuable since he ran so well??
As for Ichiro, you must also realize that not all singles are created equal. An infield single is not as valuable as an outfield single, as they don't advance baserunners to the same degree. Since Ichiro hits a good portion of weak infield singles, or shallow outfield singles with the left fielder playing shallow on him too....his singles are not as valuable as Votto's who has the outfield playing deep, and he hits them further, therefore advancing more runners. So all you guys saying we don't recognize stuff like this, we in fact do....but unless two players are dead locked in value, none of that matters, because there is NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING that isn't already measured by the great stats, that can close the vast gap between the hitting value of Ichiro vs a guy like Votto. Nothing.
Ichitro had an OPS+ of 117 through age 36 (I shifted a little since he started so late), 87 through age 40, and 77 after that. He has been "hanging on for stats" for the past seven years, producing nothing that a player called up from the minors couldn't produce (at a fraction of the salary), and he has been hurting his teams by hanging on. Longevity in his case was a bad thing.
I don't begrudge anyone playing baseball for as long as someone is willing to pay them. Ichiro is supposed to just say, hey, keep your $2 million this year, I don't want my career OPS+ to suffer any more than it has? He must be providing some value to the organization, or they would not continue to pay him. That value is probably in the form of increased ticket sales because of his name, or in some "intangible" that the organization values, like mentoring younger players, etc., or some combination of the above. Also, for various reasons, organizations don't generally call up minor leaguers as bench and role players, they pay veterans, so it is more fair to compare Ichiro's value at this point in his career to some other veteran fourth outfielder and what they make and produce.
@graygator said:
I don't begrudge anyone playing baseball for as long as someone is willing to pay them. Ichiro is supposed to just say, hey, keep your $2 million this year, I don't want my career OPS+ to suffer any more than it has? He must be providing some value to the organization, or they would not continue to pay him. That value is probably in the form of increased ticket sales because of his name, or in some "intangible" that the organization values, like mentoring younger players, etc., or some combination of the above. Also, for various reasons, organizations don't generally call up minor leaguers as bench and role players, they pay veterans, so it is more fair to compare Ichiro's value at this point in his career to some other veteran fourth outfielder and what they make and produce.
I absolutely agree, I would gladly go make a fool of myself playing major league baseball if they paid me 2 million to do it, and I'd come back year after year. My point is simply that Ichiro is making a fool of himself at this point, and while I don't begrudge him his right to do so for a big payday, I do take issue with fans who think he's adding any value to his career by doing so. Ichiro's career for purposes of determining how good he was, ended seven years ago. If he'd quit then, or shortly after, I'd ignore the drop off and appraise his career based on only his good years. But now that he's spent another career being bad, it doesn't make any sense to ignore it; Ichiro now has the career of a mediocre player. He was paid well to trash his legacy, and presumably he thinks it was worth it.
And I compared him to a minor league call up who could produce the same for less money. If I compared him to another bona fide major leaguer then it would be to someone who could produce more for the same money. Either way, Ichiro's harm to his team is substantial.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"I absolutely agree, I would gladly go make a fool of myself playing major league baseball if they paid me 2 million to do it, and I'd come back year after year. My point is simply that Ichiro is making a fool of himself at this point, and while I don't begrudge him his right to do so for a big payday, I do take issue with fans who think he's adding any value to his career by doing so. Ichiro's career for purposes of determining how good he was, ended seven years ago. If he'd quit then, or shortly after, I'd ignore the drop off and appraise his career based on only his good years. But now that he's spent another career being bad, it doesn't make any sense to ignore it; Ichiro now has the career of a mediocre player. He was paid well to trash his legacy, and presumably he thinks it was worth it."
That is your opinion formed from your analysis of his statistics and I don't question its validity. But it reinforces, to me, that stats alone don't really tell you everything. See, I think he has added value to his career. I think you could argue that whatever he lost statistically in terms of brilliance - which you have certainly helped to dull - he gained in HoF acceptance. With 3,000 hits, he will not be held out by sabermetricians who may have been able to do so otherwise (your case is obviously very sound against him, even if I disagree with some elements). I imagine he also takes great pride in therefore being in both the American and Japanese Hall of Fame, which I imagine is a short list and he could even be the first. I know nothing of Japan's Hall of Fame other than Saduhara Oh is in it. It's clear, in part, the motivation for continued playing was statistically driven - to get 3,000 hits. But I imagine he was also trying to win a championship; he went to the Yankees via trade (waive of 'no trade'?) and then signed with Florida, if memory serves, the year they loaded for bear and opened the new stadium in Miami. His was the albatross contract that couldn't be unloaded when Loria shamefully dismantled it all shortly thereafter. It's also worth mentioning that upon moving to the Yankees he was relegated to a part time player thereafter, pinch runner/hitter resulting in high numbers in games played but significantly tapering ABs. In most of those later years, he had excellent starts to the season, was thrust into larger role because of good performance AND injury and then could not hold up playing everyday. I also imagine, on some level, going out there at an advanced age and playing baseball has to be pretty good motivation knowing that you can still play pretty well with the 20somethings at the age of 40. Maybe he just loves baseball and wants to play forever - stats be damned. Unless we want to call 1 ring and Father Times clock statistics.
Lastly, I don't think the later years do anything (at all) to lessen the former years - for Ichiro, especially, but anyone else. They may have made a bank of career statistics go from looking attractive to unattractive but they did not make a great player a mediocre one. At least, that's not how it works for me, anyhow.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
That's very good, thanks! Not many HOF candidates take many at bats as pinch hitters because not very many resign themselves to a pinch hitting role rather than retire. I kind of admire a guy who was a superstar and now is happy being a bench guy long past when most players cannot even do that. I don't see it as trashing a legacy but instead as playing out his career in a role suited to his diminishing skills, which most superstars would not do because of their ego. It's not like he's trotting out for 162 games of a 76 OPS+, and it's not like he's the worst player in the league. He is paid to be the fourth or fifth outfielder on a bottom tier team, and he plays like it.
This may have been said earlier, but here's what I think is going on with Ichiro, who is kind of a special case: his fans and supporters and the general public don't care that he hung on as a crappy player long enough to get to 3000 hits because they think that had he not been from Japan he would have had 5-6 more years closer to his prime at the beginning of his career and reached that milestone without having to do anything in his twilight. Sort of a rough justice approach to get his counting stats where everyone thinks they would have ended up by 2010 or 2011 had he been able to start earlier. Had he done that with 5 seasons of 120 OPS+ instead of 8 or 9 crappy seasons the argument against him would have much less weight.
Ichiro reminds me of Biggio, who played way too long just to get 3,000 hits and a chance
for the HOF.
Its why I think a player like Will Clark should be in the HOF. He retired after a pretty
good last season, and could have played several more. Why should he be penalized for
retiring at age 36 instead of 40.
3000 hits has always been a simple milestone for lock territory for the HOF, but with the current appreciation for walks, is there a number of total times reaching base that we ought to consider a lock HOF milestone to replace 3000 hits? Or no because even that doesn't capture enough of the full picture?
Here's another point to ponder - if statistics produce such clear and conclusive data about hitting, why is there even a discussion over who was best? Seems to me that we've already established that there's a 'small sliver of guys in the discussion.' Shouldn't advanced metrics have already produced one pristine list agreed upon by all with no room for debate over the games best hitter?
While I'm at it, I also love when the 'unbiased sabremetrician' from Boston tells me that Ted Williams is, statistically of course, the greatest hitter of all time then, in the same breath, explains to me that we're going to include 'his career averages for the war years, which is probably unfair to him as many were peak seasons...'
Nice - so we're now allowed to use made up stats as part of our stats? And they lose no credibility? C'mon. I was born in a Wednesday but it wasn't yesterday.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Can't someone also concoct a statistic for any player worth of note in order to make them look better than they actually were?
Nope, because its validity will be easily refuted.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Here's another point to ponder - if statistics produce such clear and conclusive data about hitting, why is there even a discussion over who was best? Seems to me that we've already established that there's a 'small sliver of guys in the discussion.' Shouldn't advanced metrics have already produced one pristine list agreed upon by all with no room for debate over the games best hitter?
While I'm at it, I also love when the 'unbiased sabremetrician' from Boston tells me that Ted Williams is, statistically of course, the greatest hitter of all time then, in the same breath, explains to me that we're going to include 'his career averages for the war years, which is probably unfair to him as many were peak seasons...'
Nice - so we're now allowed to use made up stats as part of our stats? And they lose no credibility? C'mon. I was born in a Wednesday but it wasn't yesterday.
Nope, there are still elements to discuss, however, none of them include establishing the value of the walk you tried to do. Those decisions are already established. There are issues with adjusting for an era, and there are issues with longevity(some understand more than others).
There are still issues with defense, and there are still issues in regard to positional adjusment.
However, there are no issues in regard to the value of a walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, strikeout, stolen base, caught stealing, sacrifice bunt, sac fly, and of each of those with men on base.
Ted Williams has enough data to establish his place atop in history, without even bothering with the war years. However, if one is using traditional counting methods, then the war years do have a big impact. There are also some advanced measurements that if accounted for the war years, then those could be used too. It may move him anywhere up or down from first to third...so it really isn;t that big a deal.
@graygator said:
3000 hits has always been a simple milestone for lock territory for the HOF, but with the current appreciation for walks, is there a number of total times reaching base that we ought to consider a lock HOF milestone to replace 3000 hits? Or no because even that doesn't capture enough of the full picture?
No, there isn't, however, since everyone understands that a walk is the same value as a single with nobody on base, sometimes looking at a player with that perspective in mind can help understand their value better by equating it to what they are used to measuring players with, such as total hits.
For instance, Joe Morgan had 1,042 walks with nobody on base. We know that a walk is the same value as a single with nobody on base, so if you look at only those walks with nobody on base and view them as singles(as line drive singles, ground ball with eyes singles, bloop singles, and base on balls occuring with nobody on base are the exact same), you can BEGIN to view how good Morgan was.
If you viewed just 80% of Morgan's walks with nobody on base as singles, then Morgan's lifetime hit total would be 3,350 hits, and his lifetime batting average would be .331. For the traditional stat person, that should resonate more than the .271 average and 2,500 hits that is 'showing' his value that you are used to.
The 80% figured I used would bring his walk rate similar to that of someone like Bill Buckner who only walked 182 times with nobody on, but had 2,715 hits(more than Morgan).
3,350 hits and lifetime .331 average should resonate well with anyone...and that is the beginning of recognizing Morgan's value as a hitter.
Since singles and walks have the same value as each other with nobody on base, then both those are interchangable in terms of registering them as hits or walks...and the player people have often underrated begins to show his true value in terms of their traditional eyes.
@Brick said:
If a superior hitter is walked intentionally to set up a force at multiple bases or the pitcher would prefer to pitch to the next guy in the lineup, that is not as good as a single. That is unless the sabermetrics prove me wrong.
@Brick said:
If a superior hitter is walked intentionally to set up a force at multiple bases or the pitcher would prefer to pitch to the next guy in the lineup, that is not as good as a single. That is unless the sabermetrics prove me wrong.
Walks are not equally valuable depending on where you are in the batting order and what type of hitter and baserunner you are.
A walk to a slugger (Killebrew for example) really had little value during most of his career. Most of the time he was a slow runner and the guys hitting behind him had limited hitting abilities.
Same with Mantle the last couple of years he played. His walk totals massively overinflate his OPS+. The Yankees had no one hitting behind him and Mickey was practically a cripple by then, yet he could still hit home runs. Why not just put him on via a base on balls, he's not going anywhere.
Stats can tell us a LOT about a players value, but certainly not everything. Not yet anyway.
>
Funny too, becauuse you made a claim about Mantle not being able to go from first to third, or second to home, in his later years, and it was something you read in a book, and it was wrong and he in fact did have that ability.
>
What's funny is that it was a direct quote in a book written by........................................................wait for it..............................................Mickey Mantle.
I am sure he was wrong, because you say so.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Brick said:
If a superior hitter is walked intentionally to set up a force at multiple bases or the pitcher would prefer to pitch to the next guy in the lineup, that is not as good as a single. That is unless the sabermetrics prove me wrong.
@Brick said:
If a superior hitter is walked intentionally to set up a force at multiple bases or the pitcher would prefer to pitch to the next guy in the lineup, that is not as good as a single. That is unless the sabermetrics prove me wrong.
Walks are not equally valuable depending on where you are in the batting order and what type of hitter and baserunner you are.
A walk to a slugger (Killebrew for example) really had little value during most of his career. Most of the time he was a slow runner and the guys hitting behind him had limited hitting abilities.
Same with Mantle the last couple of years he played. His walk totals massively overinflate his OPS+. The Yankees had no one hitting behind him and Mickey was practically a cripple by then, yet he could still hit home runs. Why not just put him on via a base on balls, he's not going anywhere.
Stats can tell us a LOT about a players value, but certainly not everything. Not yet anyway.
>
Funny too, becauuse you made a claim about Mantle not being able to go from first to third, or second to home, in his later years, and it was something you read in a book, and it was wrong and he in fact did have that ability.
>
What's funny is that it was a direct quote in a book written by........................................................wait for it..............................................Mickey Mantle.
I am sure he was wrong, because you say so.
No, because he was actually able to do what you said he couldn't, which was go an extra base. He may not have been as good at it as when he was younger, but he still did what you said he wasn't able to do. Players themselves have inaccurate memories and perceptions too, or use hyperbole, which goes to show to not exactly take their word for it. None of that negates the values of the walks he was getting, which you claimed didn't have value because his runs scored totals werent that high that season(because of the putridness behind him in the lineup). Mantles last two seasons he had OPS+ of 149 and 147. That was one of your attempts to negate that measure, and rather look at his .237 batting average and not understand that league offense was suppressed that season. Win probability has his value regadrless.
Now again, do the same thing for Joe Morgan above. In 1968 Mantle had 68 walks with nobody on base. If you look at 50 of those as singles, which is the same value as a walk with nobody on base, then Mantle's average would be .315, when the league average was .232,
And the whole point of that was that a reduced baserunning efficiency, his OPS+ was more like 140ish instead of 147....not down to Ichiro levels.
Skin's got the rest handled, but someone attacked my man Biggio so I have to respond to that.
At his peak (top-5 consecutive) Biggio's OPS+ was 136; Ichiro's 125. Biggio was also playing second base, and winning a Gold Glove, in that span. At his peak, Biggio was measurably better than Ichiro at his peak.
At the end of Biggio's 18 year productive career he had an OPS+ 0f 115; at the end of Ichiro's 10 year productive career his OPS+ was 117. Biggio had a much more productive career than Ichiro.
Biggio did hang around to get 3,000 hits; as I said, I give any player a pass for his first bad year, so Biggio "hung around" for ONE year after that. Ichiro had his bad year, and then hung around for SIX more years. And last year was particularly pointless since he got to 3,000 the year before that. In the ledger for negative hanging around points, Ichiro blows Biggio away.
Biggio was also hanging around on the only team he had ever played for. He was an institution in Houston, and as beloved as Brooks in Baltimore or Brock in St. Louis. There would have been a fan uprising if the Astros had pushed Biggio out. Ichiro was hanging around on whatever random team was willing to have him, in cities that would neither have noticed nor cared had they not signed him in the first place.
Better peak, longer productive career, many fewer years wasted hanging around, and hanging around for very good reasons. Biggio does not make a good analogy for Ichiro.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Biggios' first bad year was at age 36, OPS + of 88, followed by 96, 105, 104, 84, and 71.
That is the stat you and skin seem to focus on the most.
Analyze his stats from age 22-35, compared to age 36-41. Or wouldn't that suit your argument.
Batting avg, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+.
Quite a precipice drop off, more so than the standard elite athlete, IMO.
The first half of Biggio's career was unquestionably at a HOF level, first ballot, even.
Second half, not so much. He was average, even at times below average over his last 6-8 years. His peak was mighty impressive.
Speaking of Pettite, who was mentioned earlier as pitching to the score, here are the stats by score:
Game tied
BA .264 OPS .707 OPS+ 96
1-run differential
BA .264 OPS .713 OPS+ 98
2-run differential
BA .266 OPS .715 OPS+ 98
3-run differential
BA .267 OPS .717 OPS+ 98
4-run differential
BA .268 OPS .718 OPS+ 99
4+-run differential
BA .284 OPS .760 OPS+ 110
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
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.
@Darin said:
Biggios' first bad year was at age 36, OPS + of 88, followed by 96, 105, 104, 84, and 71.
That is the stat you and skin seem to focus on the most.
He did have a bad year at 36, but it was largely due to injury and he knew he wasn't done. And he wasn't; as you just documented, he came back for three more years with an OPS+ of 102. Then, his two end of career years came.
And sure, Biggio's OPS numbers aren't as impressive as most HOFers, but that's because most HOFers are outfielders and first basemen. Ichiro will have, when he makes the HOF, the worst OPS+ of any outfielder in the HOF. There aren't any other players in the HOF who were catcher/2nd basemen, so Biggio will be 1st in that group, but even if you pick one position or the other, he looks just fine in either peer group. Ichiro will stand out like a turd in the punchbowl of HOF outfielders.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@grote15 said:
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
Yes, but games that were 4+ include the games that Pettitte was losing by 4+ - the games where he was at his absolute worst. So any pitcher would be expected to have a higher opponent's OPS in the 4+ games, and it doesn't provide any evidence of "pitching to the game". It's not evidence of Santa Claus, either, as long as we're talking about things that don't exist.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@grote15 said:
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
Yes, but games that were 4+ include the games that Pettitte was losing by 4+ - the games where he was at his absolute worst. So any pitcher would be expected to have a higher opponent's OPS in the 4+ games, and it doesn't provide any evidence of "pitching to the game". It's not evidence of Santa Claus, either, as long as we're talking about things that don't exist.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Seems to me athletes in all sports play according to the score. Football teams go into a prevent defense willing to give up short passes just to keep their opponent in front of them and the clock running. Basketball teams with a lead at the end of the game stop being aggressive and instead work on the clock. Golfers with a lead on Sunday suddenly stop going for birdies but rather hit the fairway, then center of the green and two putt for par and move on to the next hole. A pitcher with a four or five run lead who nibbles at the corners and walks the leadoff hitter then nibbles with the next hitter to go to a 2-0 count will get a visit from the pitching coach who will instruct him to throw the ball over the plate or be replaced by someone who will.
@grote15 said:
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
Yes, but games that were 4+ include the games that Pettitte was losing by 4+ - the games where he was at his absolute worst. So any pitcher would be expected to have a higher opponent's OPS in the 4+ games, and it doesn't provide any evidence of "pitching to the game". It's not evidence of Santa Claus, either, as long as we're talking about things that don't exist.
Of course. I never stated otherwise or suggested that it was only in games he was winning by 4+ runs. The statistical breakdown does not make that distinction. I suppose if someone had enough time or the inclination to do so, they could attempt to isolate those stats to see what that difference is.
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.
FWIW Playing as a teen whever one of our weaker batters when up the plate we would all shout , " a walk is as good as hit". As in please don't swing and hope for a walk. There was no such chant when a better hitter went the plate.
m
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......
@Brick said:
Seems to me athletes in all sports play according to the score. Football teams go into a prevent defense willing to give up short passes just to keep their opponent in front of them and the clock running. Basketball teams with a lead at the end of the game stop being aggressive and instead work on the clock. Golfers with a lead on Sunday suddenly stop going for birdies but rather hit the fairway, then center of the green and two putt for par and move on to the next hole. A pitcher with a four or five run lead who nibbles at the corners and walks the leadoff hitter then nibbles with the next hitter to go to a 2-0 count will get a visit from the pitching coach who will instruct him to throw the ball over the plate or be replaced by someone who will.
First, you can throw out any game with a clock because that's apples and oranges. Golf is similar to games with clocks in that if a golfer has a large lead the only possible way to lose is for that golfer to screw up badly; i.e., no other golfer can make up 4 strokes on him in one hole without his help. Baseball is the only sport without a clock and with no theoretical limit on how much the score can change.
And yes, walking a batter when you have a big lead is going to piss off the manager, because walks are good for the other team. It is analogous to the golfer with the lead hitting a ball into the water; it's a self-inflicted wound. That said, even with a big lead, you will still see intentional walks or "unintentional" intentional walks in certain situations, and they're more or less the same situations where you'd see them in a tie game. The only thing that really changes with a big lead is psychology; walks SEEM much worse in those situations, but they're self-inflicted wins in tie games, too. No pitcher, ever, has gotten a big lead and then said to himself "now is the time when I will pitch less well and give up more runs that I would otherwise".
FWIW Playing as a teen whever one of our weaker batters when up the plate we would all shout , " a walk is as good as hit". As in please don't swing and hope for a walk. There was no such chant when a better hitter went the plate.
Well sure, in little league or high school. For some kids a walk was WAY better than their average at bat, and for other kids it was WAY worse than their average at bat. In major league baseball there has never been a hitter whose expected result from an at bat was better than a walk - else the rational thing to do would be to walk them each and every time they came to the plate. Pitchers pitched to Babe Ruth because they expected to allow fewer runs that way than by walking him, and they were correct.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Pitching to the score doesn't exist in the sense that it affects the ERA in any meaningful way, regardless of any psychological perceptions. Pitching to the score is typically assigned to pitchers who have a high ERA, but get a lot of wins...because they pitch on a team with a good offense.
Jack Morris pitched 1,224 innings when the game was tied. His ERA in those innings was 3.97
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
Morris's career ERA is 3.90. As you can see, in the innings that required the MOST intense concentration, his ERA was 3.97 and 4.18...and those were the innings he pitched most often in his career. So, his career 3.90 ERA is not lying. He did not pitch to the score.
His ERA in the most extreme blowout games where he would relax was 3.92 and 4.14.
His ERA while pitching with a one run lead was 4.18, and this is the area where if pitching to the score existed(holding onto a one run lead), he would not have a a very poor 4.18 ERA. He would be shutting things down.
His ERA+ of 105 is telling the truth. He was definitely a work horse and would be a nice addition to any staff...but that doesn't make him a hall of famer, or a better pitcher than Dave Stieb(who is not a Hall of Famer), nor better than Orel Hershiser.
I've never met a pitcher ever, EVER, that likes to give up runs in ANY situation.
Finally, in regard to Jack Morris, if he 'knew how to win', and 'pitched to the score', then tell me why this occurred:
In games where Jack Morris received zero to two runs of run support from his teammates, here are his results:
17 Wins and 109 losses. ERA of 3.98. For a guy that 'knows how to win' he must have forgotten when he wasn't getting run support. Where was Jack stepping up when his teammates needed him???
Andy Pettite was 17 Wins AND 89 losses and ERA of 4.24 when he got zero to two runs of run support.
Among average to better than average MLB pitchers, run support is usually the biggest factor in determining wins and losses on their record, and then the pitcher's ability and ability to pitch many innings to follow.
@Justacommeman said:
FWIW Playing as a teen whever one of our weaker batters when up the plate we would all shout , " a walk is as good as hit". As in please don't swing and hope for a walk. There was no such chant when a better hitter went the plate.
m
ABSOLUTELY! This is true at EVERY LEVEL of competition.
Assuming a close contest, you NEVER walk the pitcher (assuming he is a weak hitter) or number 9 hitter with the bases empty, same goes for the leadoff guy, especially if he has no power. You are much more likely to walk the number 4 hitter in many situations and almost always with men on base and first base "open". This applies from Little League to slow pitch co-ed softball to the Major Leagues.
If it doesn't make sense to you that you want the bases empty when the "heart" of the order is coming to the plate, we can only wonder why.
Can't understand why the stat guys don't understand this. Walks have different value during the course of a contest. You may be able to get an average "value" for a base on balls, but this does not prove that walking a pitcher has the same value as walking the best hitter on the team.
The main reason stats are flawed is because they are averages, and as such tend to make all situations equal.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Skin2 said:
Pitching to the score doesn't exist in the sense that it affects the ERA in any meaningful way, regardless of any psychological perceptions. Pitching to the score is typically assigned to pitchers who have a high ERA, but get a lot of wins...because they pitch on a team with a good offense.
Jack Morris pitched 1,224 innings when the game was tied. His ERA in those innings was 3.97
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
Morris's career ERA is 3.90. As you can see, in the innings that required the MOST intense concentration, his ERA was 3.97 and 4.18...and those were the innings he pitched most often in his career. So, his career 3.90 ERA is not lying. He did not pitch to the score.
His ERA in the most extreme blowout games where he would relax was 3.92 and 4.14.
His ERA while pitching with a one run lead was 4.18, and this is the area where if pitching to the score existed(holding onto a one run lead), he would not have a a very poor 4.18 ERA. He would be shutting things down.
His ERA+ of 105 is telling the truth. He was definitely a work horse and would be a nice addition to any staff...but that doesn't make him a hall of famer, or a better pitcher than Dave Stieb(who is not a Hall of Famer), nor better than Orel Hershiser.
I've never met a pitcher ever, EVER, that likes to give up runs in ANY situation.
Good call on Stieb who was great and not many know who he is.
Your (terrific) statistics on Jack Morris only prove the outcome of the situations not his effort. Jack is a color commentator for the Twins games and while I have never heard him say he pitched to the score, he does seem to say that you pitch to the situation. I know he gets angry when a pitcher with a big lead walks guys.
What would be more informative to me would be his walks issued in the same situations as mentioned above.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Justacommeman said:
FWIW Playing as a teen whever one of our weaker batters when up the plate we would all shout , " a walk is as good as hit". As in please don't swing and hope for a walk. There was no such chant when a better hitter went the plate.
m
ABSOLUTELY! This is true at EVERY LEVEL of competition.
Assuming a close contest, you NEVER walk the pitcher (assuming he is a weak hitter) or number 9 hitter with the bases empty, same goes for the leadoff guy, especially if he has no power. You are much more likely to walk the number 4 hitter in many situations and almost always with men on base and first base "open". This applies from Little League to slow pitch co-ed softball to the Major Leagues.
If it doesn't make sense to you that you want the bases empty when the "heart" of the order is coming to the plate, we can only wonder why.
Can't understand why the stat guys don't understand this. Walks have different value during the course of a contest. You may be able to get an average "value" for a base on balls, but this does not prove that walking a pitcher has the same value as walking the best hitter on the team.
The main reason stats are flawed is because they are averages, and as such tend to make all situations equal.
All that can be measured in win probability, so it is moot. Also, since all the talks are about the value of the better players, it doesn't matter either until we start discussing hte value of the eight place hitters.
However, I agree with your point in certain cases such as Joc Pederson. When he was batting eight for the Dodgers his OB% was inflated a little, and I knew that wouldn't sustain when he moved to a different spot, so you are correct in certain cases. So I say good job pointing that out, and I agree.
But it matters non in HOF talks....Unless Pederson is in the discussion.
@grote15 said:
The first half of Biggio's career was unquestionably at a HOF level, first ballot, even.
Second half, not so much. He was average, even at times below average over his last 6-8 years. His peak was mighty impressive.
Speaking of Pettite, who was mentioned earlier as pitching to the score, here are the stats by score:
Game tied
BA .264 OPS .707 OPS+ 96
1-run differential
BA .264 OPS .713 OPS+ 98
2-run differential
BA .266 OPS .715 OPS+ 98
3-run differential
BA .267 OPS .717 OPS+ 98
4-run differential
BA .268 OPS .718 OPS+ 99
4+-run differential
BA .284 OPS .760 OPS+ 110
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
Looks like he relaxed as long as a grand slam couldn't beat him!?!?!? Numbers almost identical other than 4+ differential.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Also, if there is a small thing unaccounted for in a comparison, such as stuff like how many times Willie McCovey sat vs Koufax and other lefthanders, if I were comparing him to Eddie Murray or someone where it may make a difference. If I were comparing McCovey to Ichiro's hitting ability, then I would not bother with it because there is no little thing that can close such large gaps.
Jack Morris Win Probability Added is 14.4. So this include any and all of the stuff you guys presume or believe in.
If Morris were giving up home runs in blowouts, then it wouldn't affect his win probability much at all, because giving up a run in the ninth inning of a seven run lead does not really change the win probability...so all the stuff you are arguing about is already taken into account, if it even did exist...and it doesn't because we see that he doesn't pitch to the score, otherwise his record wouldn't be 17 and 109 in low run support games...it would be somewhere around .500 or better if he pitched to the score. His ERA wouldn't be 4.18 in innings where his team had a one run lead if he pitched better when it counted. The real reason why his record was good despite having a mediocre ERA is because his team scored a lot of runs for him. Common sense.
Jack Morris strikeout to walk ratio in late and close games was 1.99
Jack Morris strikeout to walk ratio in games with a margin of greater than four runs was 1.95
@Darin said:
Ichiro reminds me of Biggio, who played way too long just to get 3,000 hits and a chance
for the HOF.
Its why I think a player like Will Clark should be in the HOF. He retired after a pretty
good last season, and could have played several more. Why should he be penalized for
retiring at age 36 instead of 40.
That is the tricky part with longevity. In some cases, some guys do make the decision even though they have more in them, while others retire early because they are no longer good enough and nobody wants to hire them.
An easy way is to simply look at their 10 or 12 year peak. Guys like Ichiro don't even have a dominant peak.
Skin, I think you just set a new record for most consecutive posts in a thread, 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.
@grote15 said:
Skin, I think you just set a new record for most consecutive posts in a thread, LOL..
Seven in a row. I have a lot more, but took a break.
I'm still waiting for banzi to claim somehow that Morgan's walks weren't of the value we say, since Morgan ran extremely well, and he had good hitters behind him(both of which refute banzi's rationale for saying walks don't have that value).
I also find it funny that he is defending Ichiro, and since Ichiro did run well and hit at the top of the order, getting more walks would be of great value.
I already explained that before with Mantle and Mays and the hitters behind them. So even for middle of the order hitters, the walks have the value as shown.
The most ironic thing about all this is that Win Probablity Added is tailor made for the traditional fans seeking all these questions they are proposing. It answers them, and quite well. It is actually a traditional stat in that sense.
I was going to show Mantle's 'inability' to run efficiently on the bases his last two years, and show that value too in laymen's terms. It isn't as big a deal as was made out to be, and certainly doesn't make much of a dent in his OPS+ those years.
PS. Mantle's Win Probability added his last two seasons were 4.4 and 3.9...as good as Ichiro's best seasons. So despite having gimpy legs and not being able to advance on the bases to the same efficiency he once had, he still had great value(even though many fans could not recognize it through the use of RBI, batting average, or hit totals).
Mantle is also a great longevity topic because his career was cut short a little too, and his last two seasons were of high value when he chose to leave the game. It is too bad he didn't stick around for when the offense in baseball started to explode more the following few years.
For the base on balls value, it is usually a matter of common sense on their value compared to that of a single. I explained some of that already. Some people pointed out that walks are not as good as a hit in certain situations, and I fully agree. Here is the reality of them based on the millions of play by play results:
Here is the run expectancy following each of the events(base on balls, or single), in some of the base/out situations. I use both extremes.
Base empty zero outs .39 Single, .40 walk
Base empty one outs .27 single, .28 walk
Base empty two outs .13 single, .13 walk
Man on 1st zero out .68 single, .59 walk
Man on 1st one out .47 single, .42 walk
Man on 1st two out .26 single, .23 walk
Those are exactly as one's common sense would suggest. Bases empty is as obvious as anything in existence, and the man on first results are obvious too since the majority of singles only advance the baserunner one base in that situation, so a walk and single are still close in value there. Also, it is obvious that each event's value goes down as the outs compile since it is getting closer to the end of the inning with each out.
Here are the situations where the single and walk vary most greatly in value:
Man on third zero out .52 single, .38 walk
Man on third one out .56 single, .24 walk, and .21 intentional walk
Man on third two outs .88 single, .14 walk, and .07 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd zero out .85 single, .53 walk, .26 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd one out .92 single, .23 walk, .14 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd two out 1.46 single, .22 walk, .14 intentional walk..........OUT MADE -.63
Notice a few things, the first being that those situations of 2nd/3rd simply don't occur as often as the situations of bases empty or men on first base, so therefore the majority of instances the walk and single are of near identical value. Second, notice the intentional walk being of less value than the non-intentional walk, and that is a reflection as some people have pointed out, that an intentional walk is given when the following batter represents a better chance at an out...often times it being the pitcher coming to bat. While there is a difference, it isn't very large.
Third, and probably most important, notice the OUT MADE of negative .63, because even though a single is of vastly greater importance than a walk in that key situation of 2nd/3rd and two outs, the free swingers in their attempt to get those guys in also end up making a lot of key outs in that situation costing their teams good opportunities at scoring runs, compared to the batter with the better eye who does not make as many outs, giving the following batter a chance to still produce runs(sometimes of which they do and sometimes don't, but the play by play shows how many times), and also adding another baserunner to have a chance to score. So there is a give and take there....and chasing balls out of the zone are more likely to end up as outs.
The studs usually get intentionally walked anyway in those key spots, and as you see, THEY ARE NOT GETTING MUCH CREDIT FOR THOSE INTENTIONAL WALKS.....SO YOU CAN STOP THE BELLY ACHING COMPLAINING THAT THEY ARE!
Also, the free swingers like Ichiro are already getting great credit for their singles with 2nd/3rd two outs, so people can stop moaning that hits are better, because they ARE better in those spots, its just that they don't happen as often, and making outs in those spots are equally as damaging, and those can't be forgotten either!
It really isn't that complicated. Simply plug the events in and you get a darn strong idea where they stand....as I did with Joe Morgan above with his walks with nobody on base. There may be rare cases where some players have putrid players hitting behind them, making their walks a little less value than those figures, and some have studs, making them more valuable. In that case, first thing one has to do is show that is the case, not just assume. Second thing they must do is realize that in those cases, it doesn't change the ability of the player as in that case it become more a reflection of the GM or manager as opposed to the player himself.
In the end, Ichiro is more similar to players like Tony Phillips, as opposed to an elite hitter.
PS to the above, in regard to the intentional walks and the elite hitters not even getting much value for them in the good measurements. It is my contention that those elite hitters who are pitched around in those situations are not getting their proper due because they are not getting the opportunity to hit in those high leverage situations. For instance, Cal Ripken ALWAYS got to hit in those situations when Eddie Murray was batting behind him, and since Ripken was a better than average hitter, his results would be better than average and would add more value to his sabermetric line in those very high leverage situations.....while Eddie Murray would either not face those situation as much because either Ripken would end the inning, or he would get the hit and take away the high leverage situation for Murray....or Murray would get walked if the high leverage situation got transfered to him either by an out from Ripken(or Ripken creating the high leverage situation)...and it is in this vein where some lineup protection could have an impact on sabermetric value.....and some elite sluggers are not getting their due compared to the Joe Morgan or Rickey Henderson types.
skin - far be it from me to question any stat that shows Jack Morris was a hack, but I have a question about WPA for pitchers. It seems to me that pitchers on really good teams would be at a disadvantage in WPA. To use an extreme example, say you're on the road so your team hits first and scores five runs, and five more over the rest of the game - even if you throw a no-hitter, you're going to get very little credit under WPA. Obviously, there are lots of things that will even out over the course of the season, but it just seems like there has to be at least some bias working against pitchers on good teams since things like my example are going to happen more frequently for those pitchers than for pitchers on worse teams. I think the stat is probably very useful for 90% of pitchers, and still 90% useful for the remaining 10%, but the actuary in me is always looking for bias in any statistic.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Miggy Cabrera is my favorite pick, Pujols and Scherzer follows
Very good explanation of longevity as many fans tend to get confused on that issue. Using Yaz and Ichiro are great examples too.
For Banzi, I just wanted to add that you keep bringing up Mantle in his last couple years saying his walks have less value because he didn't run as well. Then wouldn't his walks in his first half of his career have MORE value than anyone else since he was the fastest runner in the league for several years?? Get the point? Doubtful you will understand.
Also, since Joe Morgan also ran extremely well, and Joe Morgan is also underrated by all these same posters because they don't understand the value of a walk, then wouldn't Morgan's walks make him MORE valuable since he ran so well??
As for Ichiro, you must also realize that not all singles are created equal. An infield single is not as valuable as an outfield single, as they don't advance baserunners to the same degree. Since Ichiro hits a good portion of weak infield singles, or shallow outfield singles with the left fielder playing shallow on him too....his singles are not as valuable as Votto's who has the outfield playing deep, and he hits them further, therefore advancing more runners. So all you guys saying we don't recognize stuff like this, we in fact do....but unless two players are dead locked in value, none of that matters, because there is NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING that isn't already measured by the great stats, that can close the vast gap between the hitting value of Ichiro vs a guy like Votto. Nothing.
Whats up Perk.
I don't begrudge anyone playing baseball for as long as someone is willing to pay them. Ichiro is supposed to just say, hey, keep your $2 million this year, I don't want my career OPS+ to suffer any more than it has? He must be providing some value to the organization, or they would not continue to pay him. That value is probably in the form of increased ticket sales because of his name, or in some "intangible" that the organization values, like mentoring younger players, etc., or some combination of the above. Also, for various reasons, organizations don't generally call up minor leaguers as bench and role players, they pay veterans, so it is more fair to compare Ichiro's value at this point in his career to some other veteran fourth outfielder and what they make and produce.
Does OPS+ account for the added difficulty of taking many of your at bats as a pinch hitter against relievers?
Ichiro, Pujols, Cabrera
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
I absolutely agree, I would gladly go make a fool of myself playing major league baseball if they paid me 2 million to do it, and I'd come back year after year. My point is simply that Ichiro is making a fool of himself at this point, and while I don't begrudge him his right to do so for a big payday, I do take issue with fans who think he's adding any value to his career by doing so. Ichiro's career for purposes of determining how good he was, ended seven years ago. If he'd quit then, or shortly after, I'd ignore the drop off and appraise his career based on only his good years. But now that he's spent another career being bad, it doesn't make any sense to ignore it; Ichiro now has the career of a mediocre player. He was paid well to trash his legacy, and presumably he thinks it was worth it.
And I compared him to a minor league call up who could produce the same for less money. If I compared him to another bona fide major leaguer then it would be to someone who could produce more for the same money. Either way, Ichiro's harm to his team is substantial.
Tell me how many Hall of Fame candidate players(or even starting players) are taking "Many at bats as a pinch hitter against relievers"?
Ichiro has 241 lifetime at bats as a pinch hitter, with almost all of them coming in the last four years. His OPS in those 241 at bats is .645.
His OPS in his last four seasons in all of his at bats .644.
If you want to do the math for that and include pinch hitting factors in his OPS+ and watch his OPS+ move from 107 to 107.01...knock your self out
This is like skeet shooting, just pull and shoot...and watch these premises fall from the sky.
@dallasactuary - You are a very good writer.
As for this:
"I absolutely agree, I would gladly go make a fool of myself playing major league baseball if they paid me 2 million to do it, and I'd come back year after year. My point is simply that Ichiro is making a fool of himself at this point, and while I don't begrudge him his right to do so for a big payday, I do take issue with fans who think he's adding any value to his career by doing so. Ichiro's career for purposes of determining how good he was, ended seven years ago. If he'd quit then, or shortly after, I'd ignore the drop off and appraise his career based on only his good years. But now that he's spent another career being bad, it doesn't make any sense to ignore it; Ichiro now has the career of a mediocre player. He was paid well to trash his legacy, and presumably he thinks it was worth it."
That is your opinion formed from your analysis of his statistics and I don't question its validity. But it reinforces, to me, that stats alone don't really tell you everything. See, I think he has added value to his career. I think you could argue that whatever he lost statistically in terms of brilliance - which you have certainly helped to dull - he gained in HoF acceptance. With 3,000 hits, he will not be held out by sabermetricians who may have been able to do so otherwise (your case is obviously very sound against him, even if I disagree with some elements). I imagine he also takes great pride in therefore being in both the American and Japanese Hall of Fame, which I imagine is a short list and he could even be the first. I know nothing of Japan's Hall of Fame other than Saduhara Oh is in it. It's clear, in part, the motivation for continued playing was statistically driven - to get 3,000 hits. But I imagine he was also trying to win a championship; he went to the Yankees via trade (waive of 'no trade'?) and then signed with Florida, if memory serves, the year they loaded for bear and opened the new stadium in Miami. His was the albatross contract that couldn't be unloaded when Loria shamefully dismantled it all shortly thereafter. It's also worth mentioning that upon moving to the Yankees he was relegated to a part time player thereafter, pinch runner/hitter resulting in high numbers in games played but significantly tapering ABs. In most of those later years, he had excellent starts to the season, was thrust into larger role because of good performance AND injury and then could not hold up playing everyday. I also imagine, on some level, going out there at an advanced age and playing baseball has to be pretty good motivation knowing that you can still play pretty well with the 20somethings at the age of 40. Maybe he just loves baseball and wants to play forever - stats be damned. Unless we want to call 1 ring and Father Times clock statistics.
Lastly, I don't think the later years do anything (at all) to lessen the former years - for Ichiro, especially, but anyone else. They may have made a bank of career statistics go from looking attractive to unattractive but they did not make a great player a mediocre one. At least, that's not how it works for me, anyhow.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
His brilliance was never that high to begin with.
One can concoct a story similar to that for any player worth of note in order to make them look better than they actually were.
That's very good, thanks! Not many HOF candidates take many at bats as pinch hitters because not very many resign themselves to a pinch hitting role rather than retire. I kind of admire a guy who was a superstar and now is happy being a bench guy long past when most players cannot even do that. I don't see it as trashing a legacy but instead as playing out his career in a role suited to his diminishing skills, which most superstars would not do because of their ego. It's not like he's trotting out for 162 games of a 76 OPS+, and it's not like he's the worst player in the league. He is paid to be the fourth or fifth outfielder on a bottom tier team, and he plays like it.
This may have been said earlier, but here's what I think is going on with Ichiro, who is kind of a special case: his fans and supporters and the general public don't care that he hung on as a crappy player long enough to get to 3000 hits because they think that had he not been from Japan he would have had 5-6 more years closer to his prime at the beginning of his career and reached that milestone without having to do anything in his twilight. Sort of a rough justice approach to get his counting stats where everyone thinks they would have ended up by 2010 or 2011 had he been able to start earlier. Had he done that with 5 seasons of 120 OPS+ instead of 8 or 9 crappy seasons the argument against him would have much less weight.
Ichiro reminds me of Biggio, who played way too long just to get 3,000 hits and a chance
for the HOF.
Its why I think a player like Will Clark should be in the HOF. He retired after a pretty
good last season, and could have played several more. Why should he be penalized for
retiring at age 36 instead of 40.
Can't someone also concoct a statistic for any player worth of note in order to make them look better than they actually were?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
3000 hits has always been a simple milestone for lock territory for the HOF, but with the current appreciation for walks, is there a number of total times reaching base that we ought to consider a lock HOF milestone to replace 3000 hits? Or no because even that doesn't capture enough of the full picture?
Here's another point to ponder - if statistics produce such clear and conclusive data about hitting, why is there even a discussion over who was best? Seems to me that we've already established that there's a 'small sliver of guys in the discussion.' Shouldn't advanced metrics have already produced one pristine list agreed upon by all with no room for debate over the games best hitter?
While I'm at it, I also love when the 'unbiased sabremetrician' from Boston tells me that Ted Williams is, statistically of course, the greatest hitter of all time then, in the same breath, explains to me that we're going to include 'his career averages for the war years, which is probably unfair to him as many were peak seasons...'
Nice - so we're now allowed to use made up stats as part of our stats? And they lose no credibility? C'mon. I was born in a Wednesday but it wasn't yesterday.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Nope, because its validity will be easily refuted.
Nope, there are still elements to discuss, however, none of them include establishing the value of the walk you tried to do. Those decisions are already established. There are issues with adjusting for an era, and there are issues with longevity(some understand more than others).
There are still issues with defense, and there are still issues in regard to positional adjusment.
However, there are no issues in regard to the value of a walk, single, double, triple, home run, out made, strikeout, stolen base, caught stealing, sacrifice bunt, sac fly, and of each of those with men on base.
Ted Williams has enough data to establish his place atop in history, without even bothering with the war years. However, if one is using traditional counting methods, then the war years do have a big impact. There are also some advanced measurements that if accounted for the war years, then those could be used too. It may move him anywhere up or down from first to third...so it really isn;t that big a deal.
No, there isn't, however, since everyone understands that a walk is the same value as a single with nobody on base, sometimes looking at a player with that perspective in mind can help understand their value better by equating it to what they are used to measuring players with, such as total hits.
For instance, Joe Morgan had 1,042 walks with nobody on base. We know that a walk is the same value as a single with nobody on base, so if you look at only those walks with nobody on base and view them as singles(as line drive singles, ground ball with eyes singles, bloop singles, and base on balls occuring with nobody on base are the exact same), you can BEGIN to view how good Morgan was.
If you viewed just 80% of Morgan's walks with nobody on base as singles, then Morgan's lifetime hit total would be 3,350 hits, and his lifetime batting average would be .331. For the traditional stat person, that should resonate more than the .271 average and 2,500 hits that is 'showing' his value that you are used to.
The 80% figured I used would bring his walk rate similar to that of someone like Bill Buckner who only walked 182 times with nobody on, but had 2,715 hits(more than Morgan).
3,350 hits and lifetime .331 average should resonate well with anyone...and that is the beginning of recognizing Morgan's value as a hitter.
Since singles and walks have the same value as each other with nobody on base, then both those are interchangable in terms of registering them as hits or walks...and the player people have often underrated begins to show his true value in terms of their traditional eyes.
>
>
What's funny is that it was a direct quote in a book written by........................................................wait for it..............................................Mickey Mantle.
I am sure he was wrong, because you say so.
No, because he was actually able to do what you said he couldn't, which was go an extra base. He may not have been as good at it as when he was younger, but he still did what you said he wasn't able to do. Players themselves have inaccurate memories and perceptions too, or use hyperbole, which goes to show to not exactly take their word for it. None of that negates the values of the walks he was getting, which you claimed didn't have value because his runs scored totals werent that high that season(because of the putridness behind him in the lineup). Mantles last two seasons he had OPS+ of 149 and 147. That was one of your attempts to negate that measure, and rather look at his .237 batting average and not understand that league offense was suppressed that season. Win probability has his value regadrless.
Now again, do the same thing for Joe Morgan above. In 1968 Mantle had 68 walks with nobody on base. If you look at 50 of those as singles, which is the same value as a walk with nobody on base, then Mantle's average would be .315, when the league average was .232,
And the whole point of that was that a reduced baserunning efficiency, his OPS+ was more like 140ish instead of 147....not down to Ichiro levels.
Skin's got the rest handled, but someone attacked my man Biggio so I have to respond to that.
Better peak, longer productive career, many fewer years wasted hanging around, and hanging around for very good reasons. Biggio does not make a good analogy for Ichiro.
Biggios' first bad year was at age 36, OPS + of 88, followed by 96, 105, 104, 84, and 71.
That is the stat you and skin seem to focus on the most.
Analyze his stats from age 22-35, compared to age 36-41. Or wouldn't that suit your argument.
Batting avg, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+.
Quite a precipice drop off, more so than the standard elite athlete, IMO.
The first half of Biggio's career was unquestionably at a HOF level, first ballot, even.
Second half, not so much. He was average, even at times below average over his last 6-8 years. His peak was mighty impressive.
Speaking of Pettite, who was mentioned earlier as pitching to the score, here are the stats by score:
Game tied
BA .264 OPS .707 OPS+ 96
1-run differential
BA .264 OPS .713 OPS+ 98
2-run differential
BA .266 OPS .715 OPS+ 98
3-run differential
BA .267 OPS .717 OPS+ 98
4-run differential
BA .268 OPS .718 OPS+ 99
4+-run differential
BA .284 OPS .760 OPS+ 110
His performance was very consistent in cases were games were tied up to a 4-run differential with hitters faring better in games with more lopsided scores.
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.
He did have a bad year at 36, but it was largely due to injury and he knew he wasn't done. And he wasn't; as you just documented, he came back for three more years with an OPS+ of 102. Then, his two end of career years came.
And sure, Biggio's OPS numbers aren't as impressive as most HOFers, but that's because most HOFers are outfielders and first basemen. Ichiro will have, when he makes the HOF, the worst OPS+ of any outfielder in the HOF. There aren't any other players in the HOF who were catcher/2nd basemen, so Biggio will be 1st in that group, but even if you pick one position or the other, he looks just fine in either peer group. Ichiro will stand out like a turd in the punchbowl of HOF outfielders.
Yes, but games that were 4+ include the games that Pettitte was losing by 4+ - the games where he was at his absolute worst. So any pitcher would be expected to have a higher opponent's OPS in the 4+ games, and it doesn't provide any evidence of "pitching to the game". It's not evidence of Santa Claus, either, as long as we're talking about things that don't exist.
Yes, but games that were 4+ include the games that Pettitte was losing by 4+ - the games where he was at his absolute worst. So any pitcher would be expected to have a higher opponent's OPS in the 4+ games, and it doesn't provide any evidence of "pitching to the game". It's not evidence of Santa Claus, either, as long as we're talking about things that don't exist.
Seems to me athletes in all sports play according to the score. Football teams go into a prevent defense willing to give up short passes just to keep their opponent in front of them and the clock running. Basketball teams with a lead at the end of the game stop being aggressive and instead work on the clock. Golfers with a lead on Sunday suddenly stop going for birdies but rather hit the fairway, then center of the green and two putt for par and move on to the next hole. A pitcher with a four or five run lead who nibbles at the corners and walks the leadoff hitter then nibbles with the next hitter to go to a 2-0 count will get a visit from the pitching coach who will instruct him to throw the ball over the plate or be replaced by someone who will.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Of course. I never stated otherwise or suggested that it was only in games he was winning by 4+ runs. The statistical breakdown does not make that distinction. I suppose if someone had enough time or the inclination to do so, they could attempt to isolate those stats to see what that difference is.
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.
FWIW Playing as a teen whever one of our weaker batters when up the plate we would all shout , " a walk is as good as hit". As in please don't swing and hope for a walk. There was no such chant when a better hitter went the plate.
m
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......
First, you can throw out any game with a clock because that's apples and oranges. Golf is similar to games with clocks in that if a golfer has a large lead the only possible way to lose is for that golfer to screw up badly; i.e., no other golfer can make up 4 strokes on him in one hole without his help. Baseball is the only sport without a clock and with no theoretical limit on how much the score can change.
And yes, walking a batter when you have a big lead is going to piss off the manager, because walks are good for the other team. It is analogous to the golfer with the lead hitting a ball into the water; it's a self-inflicted wound. That said, even with a big lead, you will still see intentional walks or "unintentional" intentional walks in certain situations, and they're more or less the same situations where you'd see them in a tie game. The only thing that really changes with a big lead is psychology; walks SEEM much worse in those situations, but they're self-inflicted wins in tie games, too. No pitcher, ever, has gotten a big lead and then said to himself "now is the time when I will pitch less well and give up more runs that I would otherwise".
Well sure, in little league or high school. For some kids a walk was WAY better than their average at bat, and for other kids it was WAY worse than their average at bat. In major league baseball there has never been a hitter whose expected result from an at bat was better than a walk - else the rational thing to do would be to walk them each and every time they came to the plate. Pitchers pitched to Babe Ruth because they expected to allow fewer runs that way than by walking him, and they were correct.
Pitching to the score doesn't exist in the sense that it affects the ERA in any meaningful way, regardless of any psychological perceptions. Pitching to the score is typically assigned to pitchers who have a high ERA, but get a lot of wins...because they pitch on a team with a good offense.
Jack Morris pitched 1,224 innings when the game was tied. His ERA in those innings was 3.97
Jack Morris pitched 549 innings when he had a one run lead. His ERA in those innings was 4.18
Jack Morris pitched 396 innings when he was down by one. His ERA in those innings was 4.68
Jack Morris pitched 82 innings when they were up by more than 7 runs. His ERA in those innings was 4.14
Jack Morris pitched 43 innings when they were up by 7 runs. .............His ERA in those innings was 3.92
Morris's career ERA is 3.90. As you can see, in the innings that required the MOST intense concentration, his ERA was 3.97 and 4.18...and those were the innings he pitched most often in his career. So, his career 3.90 ERA is not lying. He did not pitch to the score.
His ERA in the most extreme blowout games where he would relax was 3.92 and 4.14.
His ERA while pitching with a one run lead was 4.18, and this is the area where if pitching to the score existed(holding onto a one run lead), he would not have a a very poor 4.18 ERA. He would be shutting things down.
His ERA+ of 105 is telling the truth. He was definitely a work horse and would be a nice addition to any staff...but that doesn't make him a hall of famer, or a better pitcher than Dave Stieb(who is not a Hall of Famer), nor better than Orel Hershiser.
I've never met a pitcher ever, EVER, that likes to give up runs in ANY situation.
Finally, in regard to Jack Morris, if he 'knew how to win', and 'pitched to the score', then tell me why this occurred:
In games where Jack Morris received zero to two runs of run support from his teammates, here are his results:
17 Wins and 109 losses. ERA of 3.98. For a guy that 'knows how to win' he must have forgotten when he wasn't getting run support. Where was Jack stepping up when his teammates needed him???
Andy Pettite was 17 Wins AND 89 losses and ERA of 4.24 when he got zero to two runs of run support.
Among average to better than average MLB pitchers, run support is usually the biggest factor in determining wins and losses on their record, and then the pitcher's ability and ability to pitch many innings to follow.
ABSOLUTELY! This is true at EVERY LEVEL of competition.
Assuming a close contest, you NEVER walk the pitcher (assuming he is a weak hitter) or number 9 hitter with the bases empty, same goes for the leadoff guy, especially if he has no power. You are much more likely to walk the number 4 hitter in many situations and almost always with men on base and first base "open". This applies from Little League to slow pitch co-ed softball to the Major Leagues.
If it doesn't make sense to you that you want the bases empty when the "heart" of the order is coming to the plate, we can only wonder why.
Can't understand why the stat guys don't understand this. Walks have different value during the course of a contest. You may be able to get an average "value" for a base on balls, but this does not prove that walking a pitcher has the same value as walking the best hitter on the team.
The main reason stats are flawed is because they are averages, and as such tend to make all situations equal.
Good call on Stieb who was great and not many know who he is.
Your (terrific) statistics on Jack Morris only prove the outcome of the situations not his effort. Jack is a color commentator for the Twins games and while I have never heard him say he pitched to the score, he does seem to say that you pitch to the situation. I know he gets angry when a pitcher with a big lead walks guys.
What would be more informative to me would be his walks issued in the same situations as mentioned above.
All that can be measured in win probability, so it is moot. Also, since all the talks are about the value of the better players, it doesn't matter either until we start discussing hte value of the eight place hitters.
However, I agree with your point in certain cases such as Joc Pederson. When he was batting eight for the Dodgers his OB% was inflated a little, and I knew that wouldn't sustain when he moved to a different spot, so you are correct in certain cases. So I say good job pointing that out, and I agree.
But it matters non in HOF talks....Unless Pederson is in the discussion.
Looks like he relaxed as long as a grand slam couldn't beat him!?!?!? Numbers almost identical other than 4+ differential.
Banzi, those numbers include the games where pettite got it handed to him, as Dallas already pointed out.
Here are Pettitte's perfromance in:
Low leverage innings .716 OPS
Medium leverage innings .722 OPS
High leverage innings .735
He is actually performing better when the game in low leverage innings.
Also, in regard to Win Probability Added, it already accounts for the baserunning stuff you were talking about with Mickey Mantle
Also, if there is a small thing unaccounted for in a comparison, such as stuff like how many times Willie McCovey sat vs Koufax and other lefthanders, if I were comparing him to Eddie Murray or someone where it may make a difference. If I were comparing McCovey to Ichiro's hitting ability, then I would not bother with it because there is no little thing that can close such large gaps.
Jack Morris Win Probability Added is 14.4. So this include any and all of the stuff you guys presume or believe in.
If Morris were giving up home runs in blowouts, then it wouldn't affect his win probability much at all, because giving up a run in the ninth inning of a seven run lead does not really change the win probability...so all the stuff you are arguing about is already taken into account, if it even did exist...and it doesn't because we see that he doesn't pitch to the score, otherwise his record wouldn't be 17 and 109 in low run support games...it would be somewhere around .500 or better if he pitched to the score. His ERA wouldn't be 4.18 in innings where his team had a one run lead if he pitched better when it counted. The real reason why his record was good despite having a mediocre ERA is because his team scored a lot of runs for him. Common sense.
Then the stats back it up.
Andy Pettite Win Probability Added is 24.2.
For context:
Dave Stieb was 22.
Mike Mussina was 40.6
Greg Maddux 59
Schilling 35
Guidry 23
BTW,
Jack Morris strikeout to walk ratio in late and close games was 1.99
Jack Morris strikeout to walk ratio in games with a margin of greater than four runs was 1.95
That is the tricky part with longevity. In some cases, some guys do make the decision even though they have more in them, while others retire early because they are no longer good enough and nobody wants to hire them.
An easy way is to simply look at their 10 or 12 year peak. Guys like Ichiro don't even have a dominant peak.
Skin, I think you just set a new record for most consecutive posts in a thread, 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.
Seven in a row. I have a lot more, but took a break.
I'm still waiting for banzi to claim somehow that Morgan's walks weren't of the value we say, since Morgan ran extremely well, and he had good hitters behind him(both of which refute banzi's rationale for saying walks don't have that value).
I also find it funny that he is defending Ichiro, and since Ichiro did run well and hit at the top of the order, getting more walks would be of great value.
I already explained that before with Mantle and Mays and the hitters behind them. So even for middle of the order hitters, the walks have the value as shown.
The most ironic thing about all this is that Win Probablity Added is tailor made for the traditional fans seeking all these questions they are proposing. It answers them, and quite well. It is actually a traditional stat in that sense.
I was going to show Mantle's 'inability' to run efficiently on the bases his last two years, and show that value too in laymen's terms. It isn't as big a deal as was made out to be, and certainly doesn't make much of a dent in his OPS+ those years.
PS. Mantle's Win Probability added his last two seasons were 4.4 and 3.9...as good as Ichiro's best seasons. So despite having gimpy legs and not being able to advance on the bases to the same efficiency he once had, he still had great value(even though many fans could not recognize it through the use of RBI, batting average, or hit totals).
Mantle is also a great longevity topic because his career was cut short a little too, and his last two seasons were of high value when he chose to leave the game. It is too bad he didn't stick around for when the offense in baseball started to explode more the following few years.
For the base on balls value, it is usually a matter of common sense on their value compared to that of a single. I explained some of that already. Some people pointed out that walks are not as good as a hit in certain situations, and I fully agree. Here is the reality of them based on the millions of play by play results:
Here is the run expectancy following each of the events(base on balls, or single), in some of the base/out situations. I use both extremes.
Base empty zero outs .39 Single, .40 walk
Base empty one outs .27 single, .28 walk
Base empty two outs .13 single, .13 walk
Man on 1st zero out .68 single, .59 walk
Man on 1st one out .47 single, .42 walk
Man on 1st two out .26 single, .23 walk
Those are exactly as one's common sense would suggest. Bases empty is as obvious as anything in existence, and the man on first results are obvious too since the majority of singles only advance the baserunner one base in that situation, so a walk and single are still close in value there. Also, it is obvious that each event's value goes down as the outs compile since it is getting closer to the end of the inning with each out.
Here are the situations where the single and walk vary most greatly in value:
Man on third zero out .52 single, .38 walk
Man on third one out .56 single, .24 walk, and .21 intentional walk
Man on third two outs .88 single, .14 walk, and .07 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd zero out .85 single, .53 walk, .26 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd one out .92 single, .23 walk, .14 intentional walk
Man on 2nd/3rd two out 1.46 single, .22 walk, .14 intentional walk..........OUT MADE -.63
Notice a few things, the first being that those situations of 2nd/3rd simply don't occur as often as the situations of bases empty or men on first base, so therefore the majority of instances the walk and single are of near identical value. Second, notice the intentional walk being of less value than the non-intentional walk, and that is a reflection as some people have pointed out, that an intentional walk is given when the following batter represents a better chance at an out...often times it being the pitcher coming to bat. While there is a difference, it isn't very large.
Third, and probably most important, notice the OUT MADE of negative .63, because even though a single is of vastly greater importance than a walk in that key situation of 2nd/3rd and two outs, the free swingers in their attempt to get those guys in also end up making a lot of key outs in that situation costing their teams good opportunities at scoring runs, compared to the batter with the better eye who does not make as many outs, giving the following batter a chance to still produce runs(sometimes of which they do and sometimes don't, but the play by play shows how many times), and also adding another baserunner to have a chance to score. So there is a give and take there....and chasing balls out of the zone are more likely to end up as outs.
The studs usually get intentionally walked anyway in those key spots, and as you see, THEY ARE NOT GETTING MUCH CREDIT FOR THOSE INTENTIONAL WALKS.....SO YOU CAN STOP THE BELLY ACHING COMPLAINING THAT THEY ARE!
Also, the free swingers like Ichiro are already getting great credit for their singles with 2nd/3rd two outs, so people can stop moaning that hits are better, because they ARE better in those spots, its just that they don't happen as often, and making outs in those spots are equally as damaging, and those can't be forgotten either!
It really isn't that complicated. Simply plug the events in and you get a darn strong idea where they stand....as I did with Joe Morgan above with his walks with nobody on base. There may be rare cases where some players have putrid players hitting behind them, making their walks a little less value than those figures, and some have studs, making them more valuable. In that case, first thing one has to do is show that is the case, not just assume. Second thing they must do is realize that in those cases, it doesn't change the ability of the player as in that case it become more a reflection of the GM or manager as opposed to the player himself.
In the end, Ichiro is more similar to players like Tony Phillips, as opposed to an elite hitter.
PS to the above, in regard to the intentional walks and the elite hitters not even getting much value for them in the good measurements. It is my contention that those elite hitters who are pitched around in those situations are not getting their proper due because they are not getting the opportunity to hit in those high leverage situations. For instance, Cal Ripken ALWAYS got to hit in those situations when Eddie Murray was batting behind him, and since Ripken was a better than average hitter, his results would be better than average and would add more value to his sabermetric line in those very high leverage situations.....while Eddie Murray would either not face those situation as much because either Ripken would end the inning, or he would get the hit and take away the high leverage situation for Murray....or Murray would get walked if the high leverage situation got transfered to him either by an out from Ripken(or Ripken creating the high leverage situation)...and it is in this vein where some lineup protection could have an impact on sabermetric value.....and some elite sluggers are not getting their due compared to the Joe Morgan or Rickey Henderson types.
Outstanding read fellas, really I do appreciate it so much more than reading sports articles. Skin always a pleasure my friend
skin - far be it from me to question any stat that shows Jack Morris was a hack, but I have a question about WPA for pitchers. It seems to me that pitchers on really good teams would be at a disadvantage in WPA. To use an extreme example, say you're on the road so your team hits first and scores five runs, and five more over the rest of the game - even if you throw a no-hitter, you're going to get very little credit under WPA. Obviously, there are lots of things that will even out over the course of the season, but it just seems like there has to be at least some bias working against pitchers on good teams since things like my example are going to happen more frequently for those pitchers than for pitchers on worse teams. I think the stat is probably very useful for 90% of pitchers, and still 90% useful for the remaining 10%, but the actuary in me is always looking for bias in any statistic.