I'm not faulting him for not being good enough to play as an old man like most Hall of Famers, I'm just stating that he 'saved' his percentages by doing so.
He was never nearly Koufaxian. Just because his pitching staff induced more ground balls to him than some of his league counterparts, doesn't make him that much better.
You keep stating that HE turned all these double plays, but nowhere in that statement are you giving any credit to the pitcher. Like I stated earlier, a pitcher who can induce MLB hitters to hit ground balls to second base is a far greater commodity than the person who can pick up that ground ball and throw it to first. Yet, you give all the credit to Mazeroski.
If Dave Cash as his replacement was better than Mazeroski, than Mazeroski isn't the greatest fielder of all time. 31 is not an old man. His last few years he didn't play because he couldn't hit, not because he couldn't field. By that time, he was atrocious as a hitter.
And yes, most double plays are of the routine variety too.
You are acting as if Mazeroski was a cripple from 1969-1972. I think the injury is more of an excuse for a complete drop off in hitting. If the man was good enough to play, then I don't think the injury is a good excuse.
If the injury was such a factor, thus zapping any range etc...then how do you answer the following....
From 1969 to 1972 Mazeroski averaged .360 assists per inning.
From 1956 to 1968 Mazeroski averaged .365 assists per inning.
Over the course of a full season that equates to the following...
From 1969 to 1972 that equates to 525 assists for a full season.
From 1956 to 1968 that equates to 532 assists for a full season.
If he was a cripple as you suggest, then how was he able to be nimble enough to move around to get basically the same rate of assists during those post injury years?
It is more likely that his gaudy fielding totals from previous years are part being a great fielder, and part being in a situation that gave him more chances than most, thus inflating what his true defensive value is.
Since we already know that he was nimble enough from 1969 to 1972 to conclude that he didn't have a marked dropped in fielding ability, and since we know that his replacements played at an EQUAL level to him during the same situations throughout his career, then Yes, I would say he did benefit from his environment.
Here is More:
From 1969-1972 Dave Cash average .092 DP per inning. He was a primary replacement for Maz those years.
For Mazeroski's career he averaged...093 DP per inning.
Oh, and in Cash's three years in Montreal he averaged .060 DP per inning. My how circumstances can change a man. He was 29-31 years old.
The thing that is impossible to tell on fielding is how many chances a guy gets. The closest way to figuring that out is comparing him to other players who play on the same team. Cash, given the same circumstances as Maz, outplayed Maz. Maz was plenty healthy enough knowing that his assist rate was par with the rest of his career.
Maz's subs all played as well, under the same circumstances. I may be crazy, but that is not the best thing to add to a resume of what is being called the best second baseman ever....or the best DEFENSIVE player ever(that ship has to have sailed by now).
Dallas, your entire argument is based on his raw totals of how many balls were hit to him, and by saying he was 'universally' seen as the best second basemen ever. Yet, his replacements fielded just as well, and when he retired, he got zero support initially for Hall of Fame, which is odd, because a guy that is as universally viewed as the best ever, would get support by the people who are watching him.
For their careers:
Mazeroski .364 assists per inning. .0111 errors per inning
Sandberg .369 assists per inning. .0063 errors per inning
Those numbers per 1,400 inngs:
Mazeroski 509 assists, and 16 errors per year
Sandberg 516 assists, and 8 errors per year.
So Sandberg not only had better hands, but more range. And errors made are actually the most valid of the fielding statistics as they isolate the fielders ability more. Sandberg also passes the eye test as he caught everything and was the most sure handed fielder in MLB history, and got to more balls than guys like Mazeroski.
Putouts and double plays turned highly involve the skill of your teammates, so when you isolate their defense to the things most in their control(their hands and range), Sandberg easily trumps Mazeroski. Hands being the aspect most isolated to the fielders ability!
Plus we already know that Maz's replacements turned double plays at the same rate, so unless you want to make Dave Cash the best ever, Maz's double play totals are moot. We also already know that Maz was as nimble in the field at the end of his career as he was in the beginning/middle, as evidence by his assists per inning at the end of his career(which showed no physical ailments affecting him)
PS, Mazeroski was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001 probably as a favor by his friends,and after Sandberg already shown to be the better fielder, with better hands, and more range. And unlike Maz, Sandberg actually had some hitting seasons where his OPS+ was better than 100. Maz had zero hitting seasons where he was even able to get to league average.
Based on all that, Maz had no grounds to make the Hall of Fame, Sandberg was the better fielder, by showing he had far superior hands than Maz and more range.
skin - all valid points, and I'm not implying that I can prove that my counterpoints are right and yours are wrong. I'll repeat/add the following and at that point I will officially have shot every arrow in my quiver:
You say I'm not giving credit to "the pitcher". This point is practically conclusive if Pittsburgh used the same pitcher every inning from 1957 to 1972 but obviously they didn't. What I'm seeing is that as pitchers came and went, what remained constant was Mazeroski's presence on the DP leaders.
You note that Mazeroski's replacements performed as well or nearly as well as Mazeroski. But you have omitted, because there is no way around it, all of Mazeroski's best seasons when he had no replacements. You are comparing how many DPs his replacements turned in their seasons to how many DPs Mazeroski turned in different seasons. Different seasons, different pitchers, different shortstops, different everything. You are making the same sort of assumptions (i.e., "same circumstances") that allow you to compare these apples and oranges that you point out elsewhere are invalid in comparing Mazeroski to shortstops on other teams.
You note that it is impossible to tell how many chances a fielder gets. This is true, but it doesn't mean it can't be estimated. One man who did was Bill James, who spent as much time devising a formula to estimate how many DPs any team is expected to get as I've spent on CU in my life. Is it the right formula? I don't know, I barely understand it; it took him four pages to just lay it out. But he's confident that it's as accurate as he can get it, and all of the results he gets from it are consistent with what other people (sportswriters, GG voters, etc.) said they saw at the time. And it shows Mazeroski getting way more than the expected number of DPs year in and year out. That's a mighty big coincidence for a player who was described at the time he played as the best DP pivot man in history. Or James got it right.
Ultimately, I don't know who the best fielding second baseman was, and I certainly can't know that it was Mazeroski who I never saw play. What I do know is that everyone whose job it is to identify the best fielding second baseman has done more research on the subject than I am capable of doing and concluded that it was Bill Mazeroski. I know that he won Gold Gloves year after year, and that when I check the available stats those Gold Gloves don't appear to be "wrong", as they so often do.
Based on all of the evidence available to me, Bill Mazeroski was the best fielding second baseman of all time, excluding everyone who played fewer than 10 seasons in the major leagues. You are saying that I can't know that and you're absolutely correct. Thought of another way, if we imagine that there is an oracle somewhere who knows for certain who is the best fielding second baseman of all time and will pay us if we can guess correctly, I'm saying that I would pick Mazeroski and you are saying that you would pick "someone else". In other words, that the odds that it's Mazeroski are less than 50%. That's fair, and I almost agree with it. What I'm saying is, "someone else" isn't a bet that's allowed by the oracle - you have to pick someone. I'm picking Mazeroski. Wouldn't you? Even if the odds that it's Mazeroski are only 10%, who has a higher chance than that?
There, I have exhausted what I can write about Bill Mazeroski. I am still happy he is in the HOF, even as I have a greater understanding for why you aren't. If the oracle ever lets us know, and it tells us that the answer is "Tommy Helms", then I owe you a beer. If it tells us that the answer is "Dave Cash", now that would really be ironic.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Interesting analysis in a number of respects and also an illustration of how statistics can be couched to support one's assertion.
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.
Dallas, yes, you aren't giving the pitcher credit. They are responsible for 80% of the defense, so Mazeroski's defensive contributions aren't as high as you and some sabermatricians believe they are.
I know as much about the game as Bill James, and my insight into it is as strong or better than his, so dropping his name does nothing for your defense....and all his studies have done nothing to solve the problem of fielding measurements. Nothing. Yet you still take them as gospel.
Mazeroski's replacements during his prime were included. Had his replacements been there during Mazeroski's absolute best season when Mazeroski had 600 balls hit to him, they would most likely field 580 of them as well, unless they were missing a hand. Somehow you are believing that they would only field 400 like some league counterparts 'only were able to get to'.
Sandberg had better hands than Mazerokis, and he had better range. The only thing you lay your hat on is the double play, which is highly dependent on the pitcher and the other fielders.
How does Ryne Sandberg go from turning 126 double plays in 1984, 102 in 1985, and then only 66 in 1991?? That isn't a skill that is lost. It isn't like batting where someone can actively find your weakness and exploit it. Sandberg was just as good a fielder in 1991 as he was in 1985, yet his double plays are remarkably lower.
You keep saying everyone said Mazeroski was the best. There are people in Chicago who said Nellie Fox was the best. Hall of Fame voters obviously didn't think too highly of Mazeroski or they would have given him more support, so that goes straight against your argument that he was viewed as the best. However, while Sandberg was playing, I heard best fielder ever countless times. Countless.
Sandberg had better hands(made less errors), had more range....so how does that make Mazeroski better than him?????
Of all the defensive measurements, errors made are actually the most valid because they come closest to isolating the skill to the fielder and eliminating the most variables.
FINALLY, everyone's defensive measurement is using the same raw totals that highly influence their measurement. None of them truly take into account the inherent flaws in fielding measurements, and some of the other flaws I have pointed out, so they are all blinded by the same faulty results, so to say "everyone comes to the same conclusion," means nothing.
So a guy like Sandberg who only makes eight errors per season compared to Mazeroki's 15, also gets to more balls per season than Mazeroski(516 to 509), and shows he can turn double 126 double plays in a season when given the opportunties....is an inferior fielder than Mazeroski because Mazeroski turned more double plays per season because he simply had more double play opportunities?
Hogwash. The guy with the better hands wins as he has proven he has the same or better range AND proven he can turn elite double plays like most second basemen in MLB when given the opportunites and skilled teammates to do so.
looking at all the statistics I think it's safe to say that on average a lot of the players we remember as being standouts were only modestly better than their replacements.
@Skin2 said:
Dallas, yes, you aren't giving the pitcher credit. They are responsible for 80% of the defense, so Mazeroski's defensive contributions aren't as high as you and some sabermatricians believe they are.
I know as much about the game as Bill James, and my insight into it is as strong or better than his, so dropping his name does nothing for your defense....and all his studies have done nothing to solve the problem of fielding measurements. Nothing. Yet you still take them as gospel.
I think you misunderstood my point. Disentangling the pitcher's contributions from the other fielders is complicated stuff, and historically nobody really tried. Bill James tried. You say that James did "nothing" to solve the problem, which is just as incorrect as my saying (which I didn't) that there is no problem. I am sure that you do know as much about baseball as Bill James, but I am also sure that Bill James has done far more research into how to solve this particular problem than you have. I don't take his work as gospel (I did say as much) but I acknowledge that he tried, and that he probably got closer to solving it than anyone else. You are dismissing everything he did, without even knowing what it is that he did.
Mazeroski's replacements during his prime were included. Had his replacements been there during Mazeroski's absolute best season when Mazeroski had 600 balls hit to him, they would most likely field 580 of them as well, unless they were missing a hand. Somehow you are believing that they would only field 400 like some league counterparts 'only were able to get to'.
Here you're just supposing so I can't really respond. I agree that if we assume that Mazeroski's replacements were just as good as he was then we will reach the conclusion that they were just as good as he was. But that's not helpful. And I am not at all believing that the gap in plays made is even close to the 580/400 ballpark. It's a positive number every year, and I'd think it tops out in the low double digits.
Sandberg had better hands than Mazerokis, and he had better range. The only thing you lay your hat on is the double play, which is highly dependent on the pitcher and the other fielders.
Here you're just begging the question. How do you know that Sandberg had better hands and better range? If you've got the formula for that then we can stop all this supposing if you'd just share it. The whole point of this lengthy back and forth is that there is no formula, and we can't know for sure who had better range, Sandberg included.
You keep saying everyone said Mazeroski was the best. There are people in Chicago who said Nellie Fox was the best. Hall of Fame voters obviously didn't think too highly of Mazeroski or they would have given him more support, so that goes straight against your argument that he was viewed as the best. However, while Sandberg was playing, I heard best fielder ever countless times. Countless.
No, I keep saying that I think Mazeroski was the best, not that he was the best. And no doubt that there have been dozens of second basemen who have been described as "best ever" by their own fans and sportswriters. You and I agree that this doesn't mean much of anything. How HOF voters viewed Mazeroski in the 70's doesn't enter into my argument; I don't think I could have been clearer over the past decade or so that I think HOF voters are absolute morons, although they seem to be getting a little smarter in the past few years. Aside from that, it could well be that they considered Mazeroski to be the best but, like you, didn't think that was enough to merit HOF induction. The people I'm talking about are the ones in recent years who have dug down into the statistics (James, Palmer, and on and on) and have all reached the conclusion that Mazeroski was the best. You say that means "nothing" and that's your right. I think it means "something", and I'm way more comfortable saying that than saying it means nothing at all.
I think much of what's left of our disagreement (which honestly isn't as large as you're making it out to be) could be resolved if you'd say who you think was the best defensive second baseman and why. From what you've written here, I'm thinking you would look at fielding percentage and call it a day, but there has to be more to it than that, doesn't there? Even with errors, there is so much context that we have to try to decipher that I don't see how counting errors is at all different than counting assists.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Skin2 said:
I know as much about the game as Bill James, and my insight into it is as strong or better than his, so dropping his name does nothing for your defense....and all his studies have done nothing to solve the problem of fielding measurements. Nothing. Yet you still take them as gospel.
If I remember correctly, you also claim to know more about hitting than Ted Williams.
No reason to ever debate you. You either know more about baseball than anyone on the planet or you are a complete blowhard.
Perhaps you could write a book, get it published and have the masses realize your superior knowledge. Until then, I will side with Mr. James and Mr. Williams, who did just that.
I know this because I am smarter than Einstein! I also have better hair.
Freud, Da Vinci and Franklin were also dullards compared to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If Mazeroski was a lame hitter and his replacements could field as good as or nearly as good as him why wasn't he benched? Why didn't the Pirates pinch hit for him in the 60 World Series?
You don't think managers of a professional baseball team could possibly know as much as someone who posts on a message board, do you?
In one of my baseball books a pitcher was traded to Baltimore when they had Aparicio. One day when he first arrived, a ball is hit hard up the middle, right over 2nd base. The pitcher later writes he has never seen a ball hit like that fielded, Aparicio fielded it and threw out the runner. Later the pitcher asked Boog Powel about it and Boog replied "not a big deal, that's a play he makes all the time". In the stat line it's just an assist, but a professional ballplayer was amazed by it. That's why some of these guys have the reputation as being great.
WAs Sandberg better than Mazeroski? Maybe, they were both great, GOAT arguments are pointless.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I know Sandberg is in the HOF, but IMO he may be underrated.
He was such a great all around player. Did everything well, was a very good
basestealer. Great offense and defense. He was so smooth he made the game look easy.
@Darin said:
I know Sandberg is in the HOF, but IMO he may be underrated.
He was such a great all around player. Did everything well, was a very good
basestealer. Great offense and defense. He was so smooth he made the game look easy.
I loved Sandberg. Too bad he played for the Cubs during their underachieving years. He deserved a ring!
@Skin2 said:
I know as much about the game as Bill James, and my insight into it is as strong or better than his, so dropping his name does nothing for your defense....and all his studies have done nothing to solve the problem of fielding measurements. Nothing. Yet you still take them as gospel.
If I remember correctly, you also claim to know more about hitting than Ted Williams.
No reason to ever debate you. You either know more about baseball than anyone on the planet or you are a complete blowhard.
Perhaps you could write a book, get it published and have the masses realize your superior knowledge. Until then, I will side with Mr. James and Mr. Williams, who did just that.
I know this because I am smarter than Einstein! I also have better hair.
Freud, Da Vinci and Franklin were also dullards compared to me.
Banzi, i've seen your ridiculous points when you debate, so I don't think Einstein is a good comparison for you. Maybe PeeWee Herman.
Yes, I know more than Bill James. No, I never said I know more about hitting than Ted Williams. Ted was ahead of his time in talking about hitting mechanics and what is really at work, as opposed to some major league players who actually are great hitters, but can't explain or show what they are doing with their mechanics that help make them great.
Nobody offered anything to show that Mazeroski was a better fielder than Sandberg. Sandberg got to more balls and made less errors. Kind of hard to beat that combo. The sheer number of plays made by Mazeroski are more a product of simply getting more opportunities to field them.
The replacements fielded as well as Mazeroski.
League wide defensive replacements during Ozzie's run, fielded as well as the starters.
Pitchers comprise the majority of the fielding value, and the majority of fielding plays are of the routine variety that 99% of the MLB fielders field at the same rate.
The same cannot be side for league wide offensive replacements:
1985 AL hitting for starters vs reserves(no pitcher batting being used):
@Skin2 said:
Nobody offered anything to show that Mazeroski was a better fielder than Sandberg. Sandberg got to more balls and made less errors. Kind of hard to beat that combo. The sheer number of plays made by Mazeroski are more a product of simply getting more opportunities to field them.
The replacements fielded as well as Mazeroski.
League wide defensive replacements during Ozzie's run, fielded as well as the starters.
Pitchers comprise the majority of the fielding value, and the majority of fielding plays are of the routine variety that 99% of the MLB fielders field at the same rate.
The same cannot be side for league wide offensive replacements:
1985 AL hitting for starters vs reserves(no pitcher batting being used):
Why are they not as interchangeable as the defensive shortstops? Remember above that the reserve shortstops fielded as good as the starters.
@dallasactuary
Nobody ever answered this. Defense has always been easily replaced by someone on the bench. Offense, not easily replaced.
The pitcher is the commodity, not the fielder...as long as the fielder can show the ability to field the routine play(which replacement level players HAVE shown to come right in and not miss a beat), then the difference in defense is minimal.
I further contend that if you took every starting Centerfielder in Division 1 College baseball right now today, and simply placed them into a Major League outfield day one of next year, that the defensive difference would be absolutely minimal compared to a league average MLB fielder.
If you took that same player and put him in the lineup for 650 plate appearances in the season, the difference would be astronomical compared to a league average hitter.
The pitcher is the commodity.
The hitter is the commodity.
The defense just has to show the ability to field the routine ball, and the pitcher and luck will determine the majority of which fielders will get the most chances(and therefore 'look' leaps and bounds better than average). Fielding the routine ball is certainly a skill that most humans cannot do. However, most baseball players at D1 can. Heck, might even say I can pluck the starting Centerfielder from every varsity high school team in Florida right now, and then throw them in LF for a major league team right now, and they would hold their own just fine. I could not remotely say the same about their hitting being thrust into a lineup for 600 plate appearances vs Major League pitchers.
Further, we have also seen 12 year old kids chasing down fly balls during the home run derby and catching them off of the most elite power hitters in the world. 12 year old kids! Those balls are hit just as hard as game action balls and they are catching them! Lets see those 12 year old face game action MLB pitchers and we all know what happens. Defense easy to replace. Hitting NOT easy to replace
Defense is far easier to replace. Defensive numbers are a mirage.
PS:
Nobody ever answered why Ryne Sandberg can be so good at turning double plays in a couple seasons(as good as Mazeroski), but then somehow his double play numbers just fall off the face of the earth??? It is because the opportunities disappeared, not because he couldn't turn them. The defensive measurements completely fail in trying to measure that. Winshares cannot capture that either. WAR we both know is a joke for defensive measurements.
Please don't confuse this with me saying defense is meaningless. It is not. However, the defensive kings of fielding stats are often put on par with the players who achieved the same value via offense, and their value is simply not the same, despite what those stats say. Hitting is the commodity. Pitching is the commodity of the defense..
Commodity:
noun
a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
"commodities such as copper and coffee"
a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.
"water is a precious commodity"
I think it is fairly easy to see how that would translate into what I am talking about. Obviously players/people aren't coffee or copper.
Being able to throw a 98 MPH fastball and not getting it hit hard from a guy who can hit a 440 foot home run is "useful, precious, and valuable". Being able to hit a 440 foot home run off that 98 MPH fastball is "useful, precious, and valuable"
Being a batter and being able to produce a MLB league average OPS over full time at bats is an extremely valuable and precious commodity.
Being able to pitch to those batters and limit hard contact enough so you are able to throw 185 innings is a very precious commodity.
Camping under a routine fly ball(the most common outfield out)...not so much.
Getting a MLB hitter to fly out is the commodity. Catching that fly ball is a dime a dozen.
I can go on....but really, is it that hard to see?
Yes. Exactly. Your argument is that hitting is not interchangeable, at least above some minimum level, but defense is.
If you buy a ton of coffee and later sell a ton of coffee because it is a commodity, no one cares if you sell the same beans you bought. If you hire a hitter, your argument cares greatly which one you get, but a fielder not so much.
I strongly disagree with you, but am withholding comment on the merits until I can read "Win Shares" as requested.
In any event, catching routine flies is valuable. As you suggest, no one who can't do that would be asked to play outfield at any level.
Surely you're not suggesting that clean water or time is as irreplaceable as a 185 inning ML pitcher.
Comments
I'm not faulting him for not being good enough to play as an old man like most Hall of Famers, I'm just stating that he 'saved' his percentages by doing so.
He was never nearly Koufaxian. Just because his pitching staff induced more ground balls to him than some of his league counterparts, doesn't make him that much better.
You keep stating that HE turned all these double plays, but nowhere in that statement are you giving any credit to the pitcher. Like I stated earlier, a pitcher who can induce MLB hitters to hit ground balls to second base is a far greater commodity than the person who can pick up that ground ball and throw it to first. Yet, you give all the credit to Mazeroski.
If Dave Cash as his replacement was better than Mazeroski, than Mazeroski isn't the greatest fielder of all time. 31 is not an old man. His last few years he didn't play because he couldn't hit, not because he couldn't field. By that time, he was atrocious as a hitter.
And yes, most double plays are of the routine variety too.
You are acting as if Mazeroski was a cripple from 1969-1972. I think the injury is more of an excuse for a complete drop off in hitting. If the man was good enough to play, then I don't think the injury is a good excuse.
If the injury was such a factor, thus zapping any range etc...then how do you answer the following....
From 1969 to 1972 Mazeroski averaged .360 assists per inning.
From 1956 to 1968 Mazeroski averaged .365 assists per inning.
Over the course of a full season that equates to the following...
From 1969 to 1972 that equates to 525 assists for a full season.
From 1956 to 1968 that equates to 532 assists for a full season.
If he was a cripple as you suggest, then how was he able to be nimble enough to move around to get basically the same rate of assists during those post injury years?
It is more likely that his gaudy fielding totals from previous years are part being a great fielder, and part being in a situation that gave him more chances than most, thus inflating what his true defensive value is.
Since we already know that he was nimble enough from 1969 to 1972 to conclude that he didn't have a marked dropped in fielding ability, and since we know that his replacements played at an EQUAL level to him during the same situations throughout his career, then Yes, I would say he did benefit from his environment.
Here is More:
From 1969-1972 Dave Cash average .092 DP per inning. He was a primary replacement for Maz those years.
For Mazeroski's career he averaged...093 DP per inning.
Oh, and in Cash's three years in Montreal he averaged .060 DP per inning. My how circumstances can change a man. He was 29-31 years old.
The thing that is impossible to tell on fielding is how many chances a guy gets. The closest way to figuring that out is comparing him to other players who play on the same team. Cash, given the same circumstances as Maz, outplayed Maz. Maz was plenty healthy enough knowing that his assist rate was par with the rest of his career.
Maz's subs all played as well, under the same circumstances. I may be crazy, but that is not the best thing to add to a resume of what is being called the best second baseman ever....or the best DEFENSIVE player ever(that ship has to have sailed by now).
Dallas, your entire argument is based on his raw totals of how many balls were hit to him, and by saying he was 'universally' seen as the best second basemen ever. Yet, his replacements fielded just as well, and when he retired, he got zero support initially for Hall of Fame, which is odd, because a guy that is as universally viewed as the best ever, would get support by the people who are watching him.
For their careers:
Mazeroski .364 assists per inning. .0111 errors per inning
Sandberg .369 assists per inning. .0063 errors per inning
Those numbers per 1,400 inngs:
Mazeroski 509 assists, and 16 errors per year
Sandberg 516 assists, and 8 errors per year.
So Sandberg not only had better hands, but more range. And errors made are actually the most valid of the fielding statistics as they isolate the fielders ability more. Sandberg also passes the eye test as he caught everything and was the most sure handed fielder in MLB history, and got to more balls than guys like Mazeroski.
Putouts and double plays turned highly involve the skill of your teammates, so when you isolate their defense to the things most in their control(their hands and range), Sandberg easily trumps Mazeroski. Hands being the aspect most isolated to the fielders ability!
Plus we already know that Maz's replacements turned double plays at the same rate, so unless you want to make Dave Cash the best ever, Maz's double play totals are moot. We also already know that Maz was as nimble in the field at the end of his career as he was in the beginning/middle, as evidence by his assists per inning at the end of his career(which showed no physical ailments affecting him)
PS, Mazeroski was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001 probably as a favor by his friends,and after Sandberg already shown to be the better fielder, with better hands, and more range. And unlike Maz, Sandberg actually had some hitting seasons where his OPS+ was better than 100. Maz had zero hitting seasons where he was even able to get to league average.
Based on all that, Maz had no grounds to make the Hall of Fame, Sandberg was the better fielder, by showing he had far superior hands than Maz and more range.
skin - all valid points, and I'm not implying that I can prove that my counterpoints are right and yours are wrong. I'll repeat/add the following and at that point I will officially have shot every arrow in my quiver:
You say I'm not giving credit to "the pitcher". This point is practically conclusive if Pittsburgh used the same pitcher every inning from 1957 to 1972 but obviously they didn't. What I'm seeing is that as pitchers came and went, what remained constant was Mazeroski's presence on the DP leaders.
You note that Mazeroski's replacements performed as well or nearly as well as Mazeroski. But you have omitted, because there is no way around it, all of Mazeroski's best seasons when he had no replacements. You are comparing how many DPs his replacements turned in their seasons to how many DPs Mazeroski turned in different seasons. Different seasons, different pitchers, different shortstops, different everything. You are making the same sort of assumptions (i.e., "same circumstances") that allow you to compare these apples and oranges that you point out elsewhere are invalid in comparing Mazeroski to shortstops on other teams.
You note that it is impossible to tell how many chances a fielder gets. This is true, but it doesn't mean it can't be estimated. One man who did was Bill James, who spent as much time devising a formula to estimate how many DPs any team is expected to get as I've spent on CU in my life. Is it the right formula? I don't know, I barely understand it; it took him four pages to just lay it out. But he's confident that it's as accurate as he can get it, and all of the results he gets from it are consistent with what other people (sportswriters, GG voters, etc.) said they saw at the time. And it shows Mazeroski getting way more than the expected number of DPs year in and year out. That's a mighty big coincidence for a player who was described at the time he played as the best DP pivot man in history. Or James got it right.
Ultimately, I don't know who the best fielding second baseman was, and I certainly can't know that it was Mazeroski who I never saw play. What I do know is that everyone whose job it is to identify the best fielding second baseman has done more research on the subject than I am capable of doing and concluded that it was Bill Mazeroski. I know that he won Gold Gloves year after year, and that when I check the available stats those Gold Gloves don't appear to be "wrong", as they so often do.
Based on all of the evidence available to me, Bill Mazeroski was the best fielding second baseman of all time, excluding everyone who played fewer than 10 seasons in the major leagues. You are saying that I can't know that and you're absolutely correct. Thought of another way, if we imagine that there is an oracle somewhere who knows for certain who is the best fielding second baseman of all time and will pay us if we can guess correctly, I'm saying that I would pick Mazeroski and you are saying that you would pick "someone else". In other words, that the odds that it's Mazeroski are less than 50%. That's fair, and I almost agree with it. What I'm saying is, "someone else" isn't a bet that's allowed by the oracle - you have to pick someone. I'm picking Mazeroski. Wouldn't you? Even if the odds that it's Mazeroski are only 10%, who has a higher chance than that?
There, I have exhausted what I can write about Bill Mazeroski. I am still happy he is in the HOF, even as I have a greater understanding for why you aren't. If the oracle ever lets us know, and it tells us that the answer is "Tommy Helms", then I owe you a beer. If it tells us that the answer is "Dave Cash", now that would really be ironic.
Interesting analysis in a number of respects and also an illustration of how statistics can be couched to support one's assertion.
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.
Dallas, yes, you aren't giving the pitcher credit. They are responsible for 80% of the defense, so Mazeroski's defensive contributions aren't as high as you and some sabermatricians believe they are.
I know as much about the game as Bill James, and my insight into it is as strong or better than his, so dropping his name does nothing for your defense....and all his studies have done nothing to solve the problem of fielding measurements. Nothing. Yet you still take them as gospel.
Mazeroski's replacements during his prime were included. Had his replacements been there during Mazeroski's absolute best season when Mazeroski had 600 balls hit to him, they would most likely field 580 of them as well, unless they were missing a hand. Somehow you are believing that they would only field 400 like some league counterparts 'only were able to get to'.
Sandberg had better hands than Mazerokis, and he had better range. The only thing you lay your hat on is the double play, which is highly dependent on the pitcher and the other fielders.
How does Ryne Sandberg go from turning 126 double plays in 1984, 102 in 1985, and then only 66 in 1991?? That isn't a skill that is lost. It isn't like batting where someone can actively find your weakness and exploit it. Sandberg was just as good a fielder in 1991 as he was in 1985, yet his double plays are remarkably lower.
You keep saying everyone said Mazeroski was the best. There are people in Chicago who said Nellie Fox was the best. Hall of Fame voters obviously didn't think too highly of Mazeroski or they would have given him more support, so that goes straight against your argument that he was viewed as the best. However, while Sandberg was playing, I heard best fielder ever countless times. Countless.
Sandberg had better hands(made less errors), had more range....so how does that make Mazeroski better than him?????
Of all the defensive measurements, errors made are actually the most valid because they come closest to isolating the skill to the fielder and eliminating the most variables.
FINALLY, everyone's defensive measurement is using the same raw totals that highly influence their measurement. None of them truly take into account the inherent flaws in fielding measurements, and some of the other flaws I have pointed out, so they are all blinded by the same faulty results, so to say "everyone comes to the same conclusion," means nothing.
So a guy like Sandberg who only makes eight errors per season compared to Mazeroki's 15, also gets to more balls per season than Mazeroski(516 to 509), and shows he can turn double 126 double plays in a season when given the opportunties....is an inferior fielder than Mazeroski because Mazeroski turned more double plays per season because he simply had more double play opportunities?
Hogwash. The guy with the better hands wins as he has proven he has the same or better range AND proven he can turn elite double plays like most second basemen in MLB when given the opportunites and skilled teammates to do so.
looking at all the statistics I think it's safe to say that on average a lot of the players we remember as being standouts were only modestly better than their replacements.
I think you misunderstood my point. Disentangling the pitcher's contributions from the other fielders is complicated stuff, and historically nobody really tried. Bill James tried. You say that James did "nothing" to solve the problem, which is just as incorrect as my saying (which I didn't) that there is no problem. I am sure that you do know as much about baseball as Bill James, but I am also sure that Bill James has done far more research into how to solve this particular problem than you have. I don't take his work as gospel (I did say as much) but I acknowledge that he tried, and that he probably got closer to solving it than anyone else. You are dismissing everything he did, without even knowing what it is that he did.
Here you're just supposing so I can't really respond. I agree that if we assume that Mazeroski's replacements were just as good as he was then we will reach the conclusion that they were just as good as he was. But that's not helpful. And I am not at all believing that the gap in plays made is even close to the 580/400 ballpark. It's a positive number every year, and I'd think it tops out in the low double digits.
Here you're just begging the question. How do you know that Sandberg had better hands and better range? If you've got the formula for that then we can stop all this supposing if you'd just share it. The whole point of this lengthy back and forth is that there is no formula, and we can't know for sure who had better range, Sandberg included.
No, I keep saying that I think Mazeroski was the best, not that he was the best. And no doubt that there have been dozens of second basemen who have been described as "best ever" by their own fans and sportswriters. You and I agree that this doesn't mean much of anything. How HOF voters viewed Mazeroski in the 70's doesn't enter into my argument; I don't think I could have been clearer over the past decade or so that I think HOF voters are absolute morons, although they seem to be getting a little smarter in the past few years. Aside from that, it could well be that they considered Mazeroski to be the best but, like you, didn't think that was enough to merit HOF induction. The people I'm talking about are the ones in recent years who have dug down into the statistics (James, Palmer, and on and on) and have all reached the conclusion that Mazeroski was the best. You say that means "nothing" and that's your right. I think it means "something", and I'm way more comfortable saying that than saying it means nothing at all.
I think much of what's left of our disagreement (which honestly isn't as large as you're making it out to be) could be resolved if you'd say who you think was the best defensive second baseman and why. From what you've written here, I'm thinking you would look at fielding percentage and call it a day, but there has to be more to it than that, doesn't there? Even with errors, there is so much context that we have to try to decipher that I don't see how counting errors is at all different than counting assists.
If I remember correctly, you also claim to know more about hitting than Ted Williams.
No reason to ever debate you. You either know more about baseball than anyone on the planet or you are a complete blowhard.
Perhaps you could write a book, get it published and have the masses realize your superior knowledge. Until then, I will side with Mr. James and Mr. Williams, who did just that.
I know this because I am smarter than Einstein! I also have better hair.
Freud, Da Vinci and Franklin were also dullards compared to me.
Oops to clarify; Heinrich Einstein, Frank Freud, Antonio Da Vinci and Robert Franklin. ;-)
If Mazeroski was a lame hitter and his replacements could field as good as or nearly as good as him why wasn't he benched? Why didn't the Pirates pinch hit for him in the 60 World Series?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
You don't think managers of a professional baseball team could possibly know as much as someone who posts on a message board, do you?
In one of my baseball books a pitcher was traded to Baltimore when they had Aparicio. One day when he first arrived, a ball is hit hard up the middle, right over 2nd base. The pitcher later writes he has never seen a ball hit like that fielded, Aparicio fielded it and threw out the runner. Later the pitcher asked Boog Powel about it and Boog replied "not a big deal, that's a play he makes all the time". In the stat line it's just an assist, but a professional ballplayer was amazed by it. That's why some of these guys have the reputation as being great.
WAs Sandberg better than Mazeroski? Maybe, they were both great, GOAT arguments are pointless.
I know Sandberg is in the HOF, but IMO he may be underrated.
He was such a great all around player. Did everything well, was a very good
basestealer. Great offense and defense. He was so smooth he made the game look easy.
I loved Sandberg. Too bad he played for the Cubs during their underachieving years. He deserved a ring!
Banzi, i've seen your ridiculous points when you debate, so I don't think Einstein is a good comparison for you. Maybe PeeWee Herman.
Yes, I know more than Bill James. No, I never said I know more about hitting than Ted Williams. Ted was ahead of his time in talking about hitting mechanics and what is really at work, as opposed to some major league players who actually are great hitters, but can't explain or show what they are doing with their mechanics that help make them great.
Nobody offered anything to show that Mazeroski was a better fielder than Sandberg. Sandberg got to more balls and made less errors. Kind of hard to beat that combo. The sheer number of plays made by Mazeroski are more a product of simply getting more opportunities to field them.
The replacements fielded as well as Mazeroski.
League wide defensive replacements during Ozzie's run, fielded as well as the starters.
Pitchers comprise the majority of the fielding value, and the majority of fielding plays are of the routine variety that 99% of the MLB fielders field at the same rate.
The same cannot be side for league wide offensive replacements:
1985 AL hitting for starters vs reserves(no pitcher batting being used):
Starter....263....328....409.....738
Subs........223...300....329......629
Why are they not as interchangeable as the defensive shortstops? Remember above that the reserve shortstops fielded as good as the starters.
@dallasactuary
Nobody ever answered this. Defense has always been easily replaced by someone on the bench. Offense, not easily replaced.
The pitcher is the commodity, not the fielder...as long as the fielder can show the ability to field the routine play(which replacement level players HAVE shown to come right in and not miss a beat), then the difference in defense is minimal.
I further contend that if you took every starting Centerfielder in Division 1 College baseball right now today, and simply placed them into a Major League outfield day one of next year, that the defensive difference would be absolutely minimal compared to a league average MLB fielder.
If you took that same player and put him in the lineup for 650 plate appearances in the season, the difference would be astronomical compared to a league average hitter.
The pitcher is the commodity.
The hitter is the commodity.
The defense just has to show the ability to field the routine ball, and the pitcher and luck will determine the majority of which fielders will get the most chances(and therefore 'look' leaps and bounds better than average). Fielding the routine ball is certainly a skill that most humans cannot do. However, most baseball players at D1 can. Heck, might even say I can pluck the starting Centerfielder from every varsity high school team in Florida right now, and then throw them in LF for a major league team right now, and they would hold their own just fine. I could not remotely say the same about their hitting being thrust into a lineup for 600 plate appearances vs Major League pitchers.
Further, we have also seen 12 year old kids chasing down fly balls during the home run derby and catching them off of the most elite power hitters in the world. 12 year old kids! Those balls are hit just as hard as game action balls and they are catching them! Lets see those 12 year old face game action MLB pitchers and we all know what happens. Defense easy to replace. Hitting NOT easy to replace
Defense is far easier to replace. Defensive numbers are a mirage.
PS:
Nobody ever answered why Ryne Sandberg can be so good at turning double plays in a couple seasons(as good as Mazeroski), but then somehow his double play numbers just fall off the face of the earth??? It is because the opportunities disappeared, not because he couldn't turn them. The defensive measurements completely fail in trying to measure that. Winshares cannot capture that either. WAR we both know is a joke for defensive measurements.
Please don't confuse this with me saying defense is meaningless. It is not. However, the defensive kings of fielding stats are often put on par with the players who achieved the same value via offense, and their value is simply not the same, despite what those stats say. Hitting is the commodity. Pitching is the commodity of the defense..
@1948_Swell_Robinson I think you misuse the word commodity.
How so?
Commodity:
noun
a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
"commodities such as copper and coffee"
a useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.
"water is a precious commodity"
I think it is fairly easy to see how that would translate into what I am talking about. Obviously players/people aren't coffee or copper.
Being able to throw a 98 MPH fastball and not getting it hit hard from a guy who can hit a 440 foot home run is "useful, precious, and valuable". Being able to hit a 440 foot home run off that 98 MPH fastball is "useful, precious, and valuable"
Being a batter and being able to produce a MLB league average OPS over full time at bats is an extremely valuable and precious commodity.
Being able to pitch to those batters and limit hard contact enough so you are able to throw 185 innings is a very precious commodity.
Camping under a routine fly ball(the most common outfield out)...not so much.
Getting a MLB hitter to fly out is the commodity. Catching that fly ball is a dime a dozen.
I can go on....but really, is it that hard to see?
Yes. Exactly. Your argument is that hitting is not interchangeable, at least above some minimum level, but defense is.
If you buy a ton of coffee and later sell a ton of coffee because it is a commodity, no one cares if you sell the same beans you bought. If you hire a hitter, your argument cares greatly which one you get, but a fielder not so much.
I strongly disagree with you, but am withholding comment on the merits until I can read "Win Shares" as requested.
In any event, catching routine flies is valuable. As you suggest, no one who can't do that would be asked to play outfield at any level.
Surely you're not suggesting that clean water or time is as irreplaceable as a 185 inning ML pitcher.