@dallasactuary said:
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.
There could be some extreme examples in a season...but if your team is in the lead by a large margin, then your probability of winning is almost automatically going to go up regardless what you do(it being almost bullet proof), since you are going to most likely win....so it tends to even out. Will have to see if there are anyone that fits that example.
In the case of Morris, it means when he gives up runs in a blowout, then those aren't harming his win probability as much...which goes nicely wiht the whole topic on Morris, that even if he WAS giving up an inordinate amount of runs in blowouts, it wouldn't be damaging to his metric, and would alleviate any concerns of not giving him proper credit if he did indeed have the mythical advantage of pitching to the score. But it is moot anyway for him because he didn't give up an inordinate amount of runs in blowouts.
But, i agree with your point for pitchers. I don't put anything on the same validity par as for the hitters.
PS, as you know, it usually isn't even necessary to look at the Win Probability Added and the context of game score to assess a player's value. The results of the 24 base/out run expectency almost always comes to the same conclusion as Win Probability Added, just like OPS+ does, just like Batter Runs does.
Thats why i say that Win Probability is actually a stat for traditionalists as it answers their questions of clutch, and all these other things people having been chiming on in this thread. It shows the players value of their contribution.
Not defending Ichiro, just don't agree there were 1,200 better hitters or whatever you claimed.
On Mantle, the Yankees were begging him to play another year. They didn't have much of a team. He said his legs hurt too much and he "couldn't steal a base when he needed to, go from first to third on a single or score from second on a single". He also said "all they have to do is walk me" because there were no good hitters behind him.
Mickey also said he should have retired two years earlier .
You can come up with as many stats as you want to, but I'm going to believe that Mickey was correct. Not many players in any sport retire while they can still play at a high level.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Mantle's "decline" occurred in the late 60's, culminating in 1968 when it was harder to hit than in any year since Honus Wagner's time. Did the hitters who were caught in the middle of it realize what was going on? I doubt it. I think Mantle probably didn't realize how good he still was; he just knew he wasn't as good as once was, and he overestimated how much he'd dropped off because he didn't really understand that it was happening to every hitter. But more, I think he wasn't having any fun playing for a crappy team after all those years of winning; he couldn't say that, so he blamed himself.
Mantle was one of the 10 best players in the AL in 1967 and still among the top 20 in 1968. Whether he "should have" retired rather than play those seasons is Mantle's call, but his not being good enough to play was not a factor. His not being good enough to satisfy his own standards probably was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
What I can't understand about Mantles' stats are:
His last two years his Slugging percentage was .434 and .398,
yet his OPS + was 149 and 143 for those years.
How can that be possible? I know his OBP was still just below .400 for both years, mostly
because he got so many walks. Do all those walks raise your OPS+?
Seems like really inflated OPS+ numbers to me.
I explained that in my post. It was 1968. Bob Gibson had an ERA of 1.12. Tommy John had an ERA of 1.98 and came in 5th in the AL. The ERA for the entire AL was 2.98. Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 and led the league - by 11 points! Dick McAuliffe led the league in runs scored - with 95! The last time the AL had nobody score 100 runs or more? 1918. Mantle's pedestrian looking .385 OBP was the third best in the league. His OPS was ninth best in the league. His Win Probability Added was fourth in the league. Yes, his legs were leaving him and his baserunning and fielding reflected that. I said earlier that he was one of the 20 best players in the league that year, but he was one of the 10 best hitters in the league that year.
There is no possible way to understand how good Mantle, or any other player, was in 1968 (and to a slightly lesser degree in 1967) without first understanding just how difficult it had become to get on base and score a run by then. The starkest line in baseball is between 1968 and 1969; they changed rules, they changed parks and they changed pitching mounds because the deadball era had returned.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Thanks for the explanation.
That means Yaz's decline after the 1970 season is even harder for me to understand.
He was still in his prime, age 31, but he had a pretty big drop off in production starting then.
It was a lot easier to hit in the 70's but his best seasons were the mid to late sixties when it was
basically the same as the dead ball era.
Declines are largely in the eye of the beholder. But here's one way to look at Yaz specifically that gives it a little different perspective. Just focus on OPS+, which is as good a proxy for overall value as there is all lined up on baseball-reference. Now follow that from his rookie season down to 1970 - nothing remarkable for a star player, and age 30 is a very common age (31 is historically the most common) for hitters to have their last truly great season and then start to decline, some very slowly, others more quickly, Now, blip over 1971 and 1972 and pick up again in 1973. Starting in 1973 and continuing through the end of his career there is again nothing at all remarkable considering where Yaz had peaked three years earlier.
So, the perception that Yaz declined rapidly after 1970 isn't quite right. The question is really "what happened in 1971 and 1972". And the answer is partly "I don't know" but there are some strong clues:
In April, 1971 Yaz had an OPS+ of 225 - no decline
In May his OPS+ was 156 - down from his awesome April, but no "decline"
In June, 115 - could be random noise, or was he hurt?
In July, 77 - he played every day but I think he was hurt
In August, 116 - better, but still not himself
In September, 87 and he sat out half the games - pretty sure he was hurt
In April, 1972, OPS+ of 21 then on to the DL
In May, OPS+ of 65 in 4 games - still hurt
In June, OPS+ of 198 - he's back
He dipped a bit in July and August but came roaring back in September
Yaz didn't decline any more dramatically than most other stars; rather, from June 1971 through May 1972 he was either on the DL or battling injuries. That's what I see, anyway.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The year before he came to the Yankees, Paul O'Neill said he felt like had one of his best years hitting wise but everything ended up in gloves and the stats just sucked. He felt like he was crushing the ball the whole year but it never evened out
statistically (though I guess one could argue it did in a big way the following year as well as regression from the prior year) and based on how good he had been the prior year he said he felt like he wasn't playing much differently but he was just not getting the results.
Can this be explained - or disproved - from the data? I don't go that deep in my ability to access such data. While I have the basics of sabermetrics, I'm admittedly not super advanced. I have followed and understood what's been posted, but I don't really know where to go to find the sortables...
And sorry for the Yankee centric stuff but they're my team and I love Coney and O'Neill's rememberences...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
The year before he came to the Yankees, Paul O'Neill said he felt like had one of his best years hitting wise but everything ended up in gloves and the stats just sucked. He felt like he was crushing the ball the whole year but it never evened out
statistically (though I guess one could argue it did in a big way the following year as well as regression from the prior year) and based on how good he had been the prior year he said he felt like he wasn't playing much differently but he was just not getting the results.
Can this be explained - or disproved - from the data? I don't go that deep in my ability to access such data. While I have the basics of sabermetrics, I'm admittedly not super advanced. I have followed and understood what's been posted, but I don't really know where to go to find the sortables...
And sorry for the Yankee centric stuff but they're my team and I love Coney and O'Neill's rememberences...
Yes, bad luck can stick with someone for a bit, and loud outs are an example....but in the vein of being human, it is very easy to remember all the loud outs, and forget about the duck snorts, lol...we all do that. Regardless, we are looking at the results, and a loud out is still an out.
There are stats like batting average on balls in play that show that some players may have had a little bad luck for stretchs, and that it doesn;t mean they have declined.
But now they keep track of exit velocity, etc....so it probably wouldn't be too hard to figure that in.
@JoeBanzai said:
Not defending Ichiro, just don't agree there were 1,200 better hitters or whatever you claimed.
On Mantle, the Yankees were begging him to play another year. They didn't have much of a team. He said his legs hurt too much and he "couldn't steal a base when he needed to, go from first to third on a single or score from second on a single". He also said "all they have to do is walk me" because there were no good hitters behind him.
Mickey also said he should have retired two years earlier .
You can come up with as many stats as you want to, but I'm going to believe that Mickey was correct. Not many players in any sport retire while they can still play at a high level.
If you can't see how Tony Phillips is on par with Ichiro, and Joe Morgan light years better, then you won't see it. Though I will agree that 1,200 is an estimate. If I look at it in more detail and it turns out he is 998th...or 788th....1,356th....then I will recant or clarify the 1,200 statement. It is when fools start saying top 100 or so when it gets ridiculous. Also, as stated, if someone's definition of "one of the greatest hitters ever," includes the 1,200th best as "One of the greatest ever," then I will agree....and that is still impressive considering how many humans have lived since baseball was invented, and 1,200th best is still pretty spectacular.
Nothing Manlte has said has refuted any of the statistical analysis put forth. He also wasn't speaking in absolutes, because he indeed could go from first to third on a single and score from second on a single. He also stole six bases. Basically, what he is really saying is he couldn't do those things as good as he used to.
As Dallas pointed out, if you look around offense in baseball, then Mantle was still elite. It is entirely possible most of the hitters were feeling a bit frustrated with their 'underperforming', since EVERYONE wasn't hitting.
Mantle's contributions were what the valid measurements said they were, and if he was being humble in not recognizing it, or feeling like it wasn't good enough because he was no longer the God he once was....all of that is irrelevant as to his run contribution and win contribution as described in his performance and the valid measurements.
I got into this thread for a couple of reasons, and one being that a comment was made about OB% and giving walks the same value as a hit(which is actually a true statement by that poster), but when that statement takes the next step and uses that example as a reason why the good measurements are aren't reliable, and a person's opinion on the value of a walk has just as much credence...is where sanity must reign.
So many people gave examples of how walks in certain situations don't have the same value as hits, and I agreed with them. They felt opinions carried enough weight to refute the concrete measurements. They were wrong.
I think most people understood the walk value with nobody on base, when I explained it with Morgan.
But what I want to highlight again is that the good measurements are 'fixing' EXACTLY what people are complaining about...THEY ARE NOT GIVING WALKS THE SAME VALUE AS A HIT IN THOSE SITUATIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE BELLY ACHING ABOUT!
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
In that last situation, the single is appx seven times more valuable than the walk. There ya go. But then again, don't forget those out mades....and don't forget that those situations simply don't occur that often.
IN RELATION TO THE VALUES OF HITTING AND EACH HITTING EVENT, ALL OF THAT, AND ALL OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, LEAVING ONLY A FEW THINGS LEFT TO DISCUSS WITHIN THOSE GOOD MEASUREMENTS....and none of those things are the things you people are complaining about. I'm actually one of the biggest complainers on the advanced measurements, but even those complaints are fairly minor(except the big issues like defense and positional adjustments).
I want to give a nod to Dallas too, because earlier he recognized his uncomfortability with having all his best hitters from 1950 and prior...because the era adjustments are one of my biggest complaints, as none of the best evaluation tools have been able to account for the era adjusments properly. I've gone on and on in regard to Babe Ruth on that one. I'm not going to do it in this thread, except for my one statement......
"The fact that Babe Ruth could hit more home runs than every team in the league, and excel as both a hitter and pitcher in MLB, is more an indictment on the level of talent in the league, as opposed to showing that he is THAT much better than any player in history who could not come close to replicating those feats...because it was/is IMPOSSIBLE for modern players to out-homer every team in the league, as it would take over 200-240 home runs to do that, and the reality is that there are more players with the ability to do those things, and the modern leagues were/are not filled with dead ball style hitters."
With respect to the walk and the better measures of hitting ability, I want to point out that in OPS+ a walk counts the same as a single in OBP, but not at all in SA; since the two are added together, a walk ends up counting 50% as much as a single. But as skin has said, and demonstrated, walks are worth more than half as much as a single, so OPS+ is undervaluing a walk, not overvaluing it.
Had Topps always included walks on the backs of their cards, and shown OBP instead of batting average, I think 50% of the confusion and disagreements we have had on this forum would never have happened.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I'm just glad to have been in the thread. I also like seeing Mickey held up as he should be.
Dallas and skin - thanks for the educational stuff. I know I appreciate it and imagine most do, too.
It was a fun discussion. I think if nothing else, that this thread should at least clear up the value of a walk.
So a walk is almost as good as a hit
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......
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I'm just glad to have been in the thread. I also like seeing Mickey held up as he should be.
Dallas and skin - thanks for the educational stuff. I know I appreciate it and imagine most do, too.
It was a fun discussion. I think if nothing else, that this thread should at least clear up the value of a walk.
So a walk is almost as good as a hit
m
Or, as good as a single, with bases empty.
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.
At least with putting the ball in play for a single, it allows the chance for the fielder to bobble the catch/make an error and allowing the ball to get by him. Thereby allowing for an extra base/bases with the hit. Possible extra value there. But on the other hand if the runner tries to stretch it on the error, he could be thrown out negating any gain from the single.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@Brick said:
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second?
I believe a batter who walks, and then advances to second on a pitchers' balk, is the best.
The batter/runner has not expended any energy getting to second base and is therefore
more capable of scoring on a single.
Of course, the best case scenario is walking, then balk, balk, and balk. Bingo. No wasted energy
scoring a run and the batter is fresh and ready to make some outstanding defensive plays.
@Brick said:
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second? @Brick said:
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second?
Not going to be a big difference, but a hair better better getting the double because some of the stolen bases occur with two strikes on the batter, and the subsequent plays have a slightly less chance of producing as many runs in the inning, as opposed to a batter coming up to the the plate with a fresh count with the man already on second base.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
At least with putting the ball in play for a single, it allows the chance for the fielder to bobble the catch/make an error and allowing the ball to get by him. Thereby allowing for an extra base/bases with the hit. Possible extra value there. But on the other hand if the runner tries to stretch it on the error, he could be thrown out negating any gain from the single.
Both scenarios possible, and both already accounted for in the value.
Though I would note that it is much more damaging getting thrown out trying to extend an extra base than it is positive in getting the extra base.
For example, on average, getting caught stealing has appx twice the negative value as does the positive value of a successful steal attempt.
@Brick said:
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second? @Brick said:
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second?
Not going to be a big difference, but a hair better better getting the double because some of the stolen bases occur with two strikes on the batter, and the subsequent plays have a slightly less chance of producing as many runs in the inning, as opposed to a batter coming up to the the plate with a fresh count with the man already on second base.
After looking it up:
double with nobody out and nobody on base 1.06
single with nobodoy out and and nobody on base .68. Stealing second adds .27. Total of .95 runs for the situation described.
Caught stealing in that situation would be -.58
Balk would be .36.....so whomever said balks would be more efficient, then thumbs up, because a successful stolen base usually adds a strike to the batter's count, thereby slightly reducing the chance of future positive outcome in that at bat...hence the double also being the better alternative(and balk being better than a steal).
See, that all jives with common sense too.
Note, these specific figures are for late 90's/early 2000's. There are very slight variances in different run scoring eras.
You would think based on this discussion that anyone could have the most hits in a single season or surpass 3000 hits in a career.
It is interesting to see that stats have taken over the argument in baseball. Stats are just a picture of the story, not the whole story regardless of how emphatically the statisticians tell you otherwise.
The single vs walk argument seems to ignore the opportunity cost of not swinging and instead only focuses on the final outcome, what happens once the batter is on first. Taking a strike that was hittable and then being walked could be considered a better outcome for the pitcher. In this day and age with the overemphasis on the walk I think some hitters are hurting themselves and their teams.
Good hitters with plate discipline don't often ignore hittable pitches in favor of drawing a walk. If the pitch is hittable, a good hitter will hit it. That is why the better hitters draw as many walks as they do.
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.
What I hate is when the first pitch is right down the middle, and the batter doesn't
swing and that's the only good pitch he gets the rest of the at bat.
Happens to Salvador Perez all the time. Get the first strike across, then breaking
ball off the plate, he'll swing, then another breaking ball even farther off the plate,
and bingo, there's your strikeout.
The play by play data value is rock solid concrete...nobody's opinion means squat in regard to the value of each event. Here is sort of a progression of the stats and when some opinion could factor:
*OPS+ Quick and dirty. Does not use the value of the play by play data. Does not account for baserunning. Does not give specific run value per event. It is two statistics molded into one, in which the outcome is usually pretty darn close to the best stats.
*Batter Runs: Used the average run value of each hitting even. Does not account for baserunning. Does Not account for context of baserunners on, or how many outs. Does not account for inning or game score. I haven't used this one in this thread, because the next two have it and answers the questions everyone keeps asking(and somehow still asking).
*Run Expectancy in the 24 base/out states. Those are the values above with the double and stolen base example. It gives the precise run expectancy of each event. It accounts for the number of baserunners and how many outs(both of which have drastic changes on the value of each event). It also accounts for baserunning, both stealing bases and advancing bases. It shows the expectancy or run value of each event. It does NOT account for inning or game score.
*Win Probability Added. This is uses the Run Expectancy in the 24base/out states, and then also factors in the inning and score for the probability of winning.
The run expectancy and win probability added factor in every question you guys have asked, and then some. I already explained that, no need to again. If someone doesn't get it by now, or thinks their opinion or insight sheds something more meaningful than what is already accounted for and explained, then more power to you...or they are just stubborn.
There ARE some factors which OPS+, Run Expectancy, and Win Probability Added could shed different light on players, and I talk about those all the time throughout these message boards. If I were to look at a player I would look at all three. After looking at all three of them, there is zero need for any other offensive stat. ZERO. Zero need for any opinion on the value of a walk or single, etc..
Lets look at 2006 when Ichiro led the league with 224 hits and had a nifty .322 batting average, and then also look at the top ten offensive players in those three main stats, and then see where Ichiro sits.
Knowing the differences of each of those stats, you see that the top ten in each varies very little. There is a little reshuffling among the top ten, but everyone except two players are in the top ten of all three. It is remarkable how OPS+ stands well with the top stats, and that is why it is easy to use.
Some differences of the stats. OPS+ is a pure percentage stats. It doesn't account for number of plate appearances. That is why in longevity cases it can give misleading figures. In one season it can do the same since a player can miss a number of games and have a high OPS, and also sit vs certain pitchers to retain a high OPS(the Ken Phelps factor) but actually have a lower value than some other players.
THe other two are both rate and counting, and as long as a player is playing above average, having a lot of at bats helps those numbers. For longevity, it shows their value better. However, for longevity, it can also hurt some players since it compares to a league average...thus making their number go down in a slightly below average year(a year in which there is still value). For single season purpose, if a guy misses 20 games, then this will affect their results, unlike OPS+ in which it won't.
I put numbers by some guys for fun since somehow Morneau won the MVP that year. If i'm looking at this, I look at all three, and if someone wants to make a case for Hafner as the best hitter since his OPS+ was so high, and he was also the leader in RE/24, then they can make a compelling case since those are two extremely high validity stats. If someone wants to make a case for Ortiz because his WPA is off the charters the best that year, then they have just a strong a case as he also sits high in the other two stats. Those are both opinion and different ways of looking at two players, and I would have a hard time refutting either case. SO yes, opinion can matter in cases like those.....but in cases of the hit or walk value, the opinion means nothing.
Here is where Ichiro ranked in each of those three categories that year:
OPS+ 42nd
RE24 33rd
WPA 33rd
As you can see, his baserunning(and also his high amount of plate appearances), gave him a bump compared to his OPS+. It includes all the values you guys talked about, and more. It credited him for his two out singles, etc.. For the elite hitters, they only got 1/8 the value of a single for their walks with two outs and men on 2nd/3rd. All of that is in there. He is getting credited PROPERLY.
There is no sane rational that can claim Ichiro to be anywhere near the best hitter in the league that season, despite his league leading hit total and .322 average. In each of the three valid ways to look at a hitter, he simply does not stack up to the best. All of his singles have a certain value, and just because someone 'feels' a single should be worth more than Ichiro is being credited, doesn't mean it actually has that value. I explained all that already.
Here are the hit leaders that year:
Ichiro
Young
Jeter
Tejeda
Vlad
Matthews
Morneau
Sizemore
Wells
Crawford
Yes, that list should spark a lightbulb in anyone'es head that wonders why hit totals aren't quite as meaningful as they believe. I say believe, becausee they have no valid basis to say otherwise.
If all else fails, and Perkdog will appreciate this, often times the the traditional 115 runs, 54 HR, 137 RBI will tell a far more accurate story than a hit total and a 110 RUns, 9 HR, and 49 RBI.
So looking at David Ortiz's league leading 54 HR and 137 RBI to along with his league leading WPA of 7.8, he is lightyears better hitter than Ichiro as he reigned king in BOTH the traditional measurements and the most accurate measurements...and the most likely choice for MVP that year.
@Darin said:
What I hate is when the first pitch is right down the middle, and the batter doesn't
swing and that's the only good pitch he gets the rest of the at bat.
Happens to Salvador Perez all the time. Get the first strike across, then breaking
ball off the plate, he'll swing, then another breaking ball even farther off the plate,
and bingo, there's your strikeout.
I feel the same about Javier Baez. They are pure guess or sell out type hitters. They will hit their home runs, but nothing else. Baez is absolutely awful against RHP and probably should not be playing against them.
Those guys should make people appreciate hitters like Joey Votto....and yes Ichiro too, who was also a better hitter than guys like Perez or Baez(even though they had more home runs).
I also notice that we're starting to confuse 'best hitter' with MVP. Most of the best hitter on the above list were big, lumbering DHs who could hit but not run or field.
I'll also point out that while 'stats tell the whole story' of an at bat, even Dallas and skin have admitted (even if in rare cases) that context matters. So yes, it is a blend. And no, stats can't tell the whole story. As I said from jump street. Player evaluation is a blend of statistical analysis and context. Stats in a vacuum are fun but can't tell you the whole story about a player.
See: Mickey Mantle's final season where his traditional stats sucked (his advanced stats were better) and yet he was still one of the best players in the league. Context matters.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
See: Mickey Mantle's final season where his traditional stats sucked (his advanced stats were better) and yet he was still one of the best players in the league. Context matters.
1968 Mickey Mantle
Games played, 144. 65 players played more games
Hits, 98 players more
Batting average, 75 players higher
Doubles, 105 players more
Home runs, 24 players more
RBI, 50 players more
SLG, 37 players higher
OPS, 18 players higher
OBP, 3 players higher
BB, 1 player more
Runs scored, 58 players more
Mantle was the best at getting walked, but since 58 players scored more runs than him, his walks didn't mean as much.
Willie McCovey played in 4 more games, walked 72 times to Mantles 106 with an OBP of .378 to Mantles .385, yet scored 81 times to Mickey's 57.
Bob Allison was better too. Didn't get walked, but in a similar number of games was a better hitter and he could still run. Mantles OPS+ was 14 points higher. Allison SLG .456, Mantle .398. OPS for both virtually tied.
Who bats behind you certainly seems to affect how often you get walked and how often you score.
Top 7 Player? Not in my mind. If he could still run he would have been in Center Field and not at 1B.
How about that for context?
OPS+.........you can have it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Mantle was the best at getting walked, but since 58 players scored more runs than him, his walks didn't mean as much.
No, no, no. You posted a bunch of stats presumably to provide more context, which is fine, but then you threw it all out here. The hitters behind Mantle were terrible. It is not Mantle's responsibility to hit 100 home runs to make up for the shortcomings of his teammates, it is Mantle's responsibility to get on base. That is what is in his control. Counting runs scored by individual players and comparing them among players on great teams, average teams and terrible teams is a meaningless exercise. Had the Yankees been a better team, Mantle would have scored more runs. Had the Yankees put Mantle in the leadoff spot, he would have scored more runs. But Mantle was on the team he was on, and he hit in the spot he was assigned. THAT is his context, and Mantle can only be properly evaluated within it.
I just re-read an essay by Bill James laying out the factors that generally cause a player to be under or over rated. I think I'll post it in a new thread, and, being dallasactuary, make an attempt at a formula and evaluate some players. Several of the factors James describes apply to Mantle in 1968, although he wrote the essay to explain why Darrell Evans was the most underrated player of all time.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
I also notice that we're starting to confuse 'best hitter' with MVP. Most of the best hitter on the above list were big, lumbering DHs who could hit but not run or field.
The MVP debate is another good one.
The award often goes to the "best" hitter, often on a division winning team. It seems like "Valuable" is/has often been replaced by "statistically dominant". Pitchers are usually excluded because of the Cy Young award, although that really doesn't make sense. If he is most valuable, he's probably the best pitcher and gets both awards?!?!?!?
The above mentioned Mickey Mantle should/could have been MVP in BOTH 1960 and 1961 but it went to Maris, who had a couple of great years but was certainly helped by Yankee Stadium and the presence of Mantle (much more than Mantle was helped by Roger). You can also make a case for Mickey in 1952 (a pitcher deservedly won it that year), 1955, 1958, 1959 (Nellie Fox?) the above mentioned 1960 and 1961 and even 1964, although Brooks had a wonderful year.
When healthy, Mantle was the superior ballplayer EVERY year from 1952 to 1964. No one could do what he could, although he might not have been the most "Valuable" every year. His teams were in the World Series 9 times during that span and won the World Series 6 times. Best player + best team = MVP?
The award has always been (in my opinion) a sort of gift given by the voters. Can't have the same guy win it too much, in fact there was once a rule you could only win it ONCE, or Babe Ruth might have had them all from 1919 to 1931 except for 1925.
Teddy Ballgame got screwed a couple of times as well in my opinion. The writers hated him. Hitting numbers are staggering.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Mantle was the best at getting walked, but since 58 players scored more runs than him, his walks didn't mean as much.
No, no, no. You posted a bunch of stats presumably to provide more context, which is fine, but then you threw it all out here. The hitters behind Mantle were terrible. It is not Mantle's responsibility to hit 100 home runs to make up for the shortcomings of his teammates, it is Mantle's responsibility to get on base. That is what is in his control. Counting runs scored by individual players and comparing them among players on great teams, average teams and terrible teams is a meaningless exercise. Had the Yankees been a better team, Mantle would have scored more runs. Had the Yankees put Mantle in the leadoff spot, he would have scored more runs. But Mantle was on the team he was on, and he hit in the spot he was assigned. THAT is his context, and Mantle can only be properly evaluated within it.
I just re-read an essay by Bill James laying out the factors that generally cause a player to be under or over rated. I think I'll post it in a new thread, and, being dallasactuary, make an attempt at a formula and evaluate some players. Several of the factors James describes apply to Mantle in 1968, although he wrote the essay to explain why Darrell Evans was the most underrated player of all time.
I have been saying this for awhile.
If you have terrible hitters behind you a base on balls (given to you by pitcher) is not as valuable as if you are batting leadoff.
That's why we (finally) agree that the value of a base on balls cannot be constant throughout the lineup. Sorry I didn't express it better earlier!
Looking forward to dallasactury's future posts!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I have been saying this for awhile.
If you have terrible hitters behind you a base on balls (given to you by pitcher) is not as valuable as if you are batting leadoff.
That's why we (finally) agree that the value of a base on balls cannot be constant throughout the lineup. Sorry I didn't express it better earlier!
I really don't think we're saying the same thing. Obviously, if you have crappy hitters behind you, nothing you do is "as valuable" to scoring runs as when another player does the same thing with good hitters behind him. Except for a HR, in which case the value becomes dependent on the strength of the hitters ahead of you. But, and here is where I think we are still not saying at all the same thing, neither of these reflects AT ALL on the value of the player himself. Plunk Mickey Mantle in the middle of a lineup in 1968 where the next best player is Horace Clark and add up his runs scored, RBI, etc. and figure out his "value". Now plunk Lee May in the middle of the Reds lineup with Bench, Perez, Rose, Tolan and Johnson in 1969 and do the same thing. You appear to be saying that May was more valuable than Mantle; if so, then we're not saying the same thing.
As for the value of a walk being constant throughout the lineup, I never said that it was. What I said was that it is not in the player's control where he bats in the lineup, and it is nonsense to claim that a player is more or less valuable based on a decision his manager made. Here's where I think we're talking past each other: I'm making a distinction between "value" to a team based on a million factors outside of a player's control, and value inherent in the player himself. When selecting a most valuable player it seems clear to me which interpretation of "value" matters, and which doesn't.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think one of Dallas' future posts(maybe in a few years) might be
comparing Mike Trout with Mickey Mantle and seeing how his numbers stack up.
Trout probably would have another MVP this year if he hadn't missed games because of injury.
Ever since I can remember, baseball pundits have been waiting for the next Mickey Mantle.
I personally believe he has arrived and is currently wearing an Angels uniform.
I'm with you on Trout. I thought he was a reasonable pick for MVP this year, even with all the games he missed. Through 925 games Trout has an OPS+ of 172; through 952 games, Mantle stood at 174. So yes, Trout can reasonably be compared to Mantle. But, and it's a big but, in Mantle's next 931 games his OPS+ was 180. So as great as Trout has been, he has to keep getting better. And, over the same 900+ games to start their careers, Trout had 33.8 WPA (which is outstanding) while Mantle had 38.8 (which is more outstanding). And, over Mantle's next 900+ games, his WPA increased to 41.9, which is so good it's just silly. Trout is without any doubt the greatest player playing today and has only Pujols for competition going back a generation. But he's still looking up at Mantle; not so far up that he can't see him, but he's got some work to do to catch him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Dallas- I just hope Trout can stay healthy, or at least relatively healthy the next 5-6 years as
they should be his prime years. I thought it was interesting that this year was the first time
he had more walks than strikeouts. Possibly that could mean he's becoming more selevtive
and is getting a better idea which pitches he can handle.
I do think there's a strong chance that he could get even better and keep pace with Mantles' numbers.
Its going to be interesting to follow his career, at any rate.
Agree on Trout - a special talent. I hope the Angels surround him with talent some day. He's definitely got it in him to get better, too. Great all around player; defense sometimes gets overlooked but his glove is almost as good as his bat.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Agree on Trout - a special talent. I hope the Angels surround him with talent some day. He's definitely got it in him to get better, too. Great all around player; defense sometimes gets overlooked but his glove is almost as good as his bat.
Maybe they are tired of fooling around. They added Upton last year and now the Japanese Babe Ruth is coming to Los Angeles.
Star free agent Shohei Ohtani agreed to sign with the Angels on Friday.
The 23-year-old Ohtani, a starting pitcher whose fastball has reached 102 mph and whose powerful left-handed swing will allow him to play in the lineup when he isn’t pitching, forsook generational riches for an opportunity to test himself against the world’s greatest players. And after narrowing his finalists to seven and allowing each team a two-hour presentation earlier in the week, he chose the Angels.
This could be fun
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Whether or not the Angels add a bunch of talent around Trout will matter a great deal to how many games the Angels win. It will not, of course, affect in any way how good Trout is.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The play by play data value is rock solid concrete...nobody's opinion means squat in regard to the value of each event. Here is sort of a progression of the stats and when some opinion could factor:
*OPS+ Quick and dirty. Does not use the value of the play by play data. Does not account for baserunning. Does not give specific run value per event. It is two statistics molded into one, in which the outcome is usually pretty darn close to the best stats.
*Batter Runs: Used the average run value of each hitting even. Does not account for baserunning. Does Not account for context of baserunners on, or how many outs. Does not account for inning or game score. I haven't used this one in this thread, because the next two have it and answers the questions everyone keeps asking(and somehow still asking).
*Run Expectancy in the 24 base/out states. Those are the values above with the double and stolen base example. It gives the precise run expectancy of each event. It accounts for the number of baserunners and how many outs(both of which have drastic changes on the value of each event). It also accounts for baserunning, both stealing bases and advancing bases. It shows the expectancy or run value of each event. It does NOT account for inning or game score.
*Win Probability Added. This is uses the Run Expectancy in the 24base/out states, and then also factors in the inning and score for the probability of winning.
The run expectancy and win probability added factor in every question you guys have asked, and then some. I already explained that, no need to again. If someone doesn't get it by now, or thinks their opinion or insight sheds something more meaningful than what is already accounted for and explained, then more power to you...or they are just stubborn.
There ARE some factors which OPS+, Run Expectancy, and Win Probability Added could shed different light on players, and I talk about those all the time throughout these message boards. If I were to look at a player I would look at all three. After looking at all three of them, there is zero need for any other offensive stat. ZERO. Zero need for any opinion on the value of a walk or single, etc..
Lets look at 2006 when Ichiro led the league with 224 hits and had a nifty .322 batting average, and then also look at the top ten offensive players in those three main stats, and then see where Ichiro sits.
Knowing the differences of each of those stats, you see that the top ten in each varies very little. There is a little reshuffling among the top ten, but everyone except two players are in the top ten of all three. It is remarkable how OPS+ stands well with the top stats, and that is why it is easy to use.
Some differences of the stats. OPS+ is a pure percentage stats. It doesn't account for number of plate appearances. That is why in longevity cases it can give misleading figures. In one season it can do the same since a player can miss a number of games and have a high OPS, and also sit vs certain pitchers to retain a high OPS(the Ken Phelps factor) but actually have a lower value than some other players.
THe other two are both rate and counting, and as long as a player is playing above average, having a lot of at bats helps those numbers. For longevity, it shows their value better. However, for longevity, it can also hurt some players since it compares to a league average...thus making their number go down in a slightly below average year(a year in which there is still value). For single season purpose, if a guy misses 20 games, then this will affect their results, unlike OPS+ in which it won't.
I put numbers by some guys for fun since somehow Morneau won the MVP that year. If i'm looking at this, I look at all three, and if someone wants to make a case for Hafner as the best hitter since his OPS+ was so high, and he was also the leader in RE/24, then they can make a compelling case since those are two extremely high validity stats. If someone wants to make a case for Ortiz because his WPA is off the charters the best that year, then they have just a strong a case as he also sits high in the other two stats. Those are both opinion and different ways of looking at two players, and I would have a hard time refutting either case. SO yes, opinion can matter in cases like those.....but in cases of the hit or walk value, the opinion means nothing.
Here is where Ichiro ranked in each of those three categories that year:
OPS+ 42nd
RE24 33rd
WPA 33rd
As you can see, his baserunning(and also his high amount of plate appearances), gave him a bump compared to his OPS+. It includes all the values you guys talked about, and more. It credited him for his two out singles, etc.. For the elite hitters, they only got 1/8 the value of a single for their walks with two outs and men on 2nd/3rd. All of that is in there. He is getting credited PROPERLY.
There is no sane rational that can claim Ichiro to be anywhere near the best hitter in the league that season, despite his league leading hit total and .322 average. In each of the three valid ways to look at a hitter, he simply does not stack up to the best. All of his singles have a certain value, and just because someone 'feels' a single should be worth more than Ichiro is being credited, doesn't mean it actually has that value. I explained all that already.
Here are the hit leaders that year:
Ichiro
Young
Jeter
Tejeda
Vlad
Matthews
Morneau
Sizemore
Wells
Crawford
Yes, that list should spark a lightbulb in anyone'es head that wonders why hit totals aren't quite as meaningful as they believe. I say believe, becausee they have no valid basis to say otherwise.
If all else fails, and Perkdog will appreciate this, often times the the traditional 115 runs, 54 HR, 137 RBI will tell a far more accurate story than a hit total and a 110 RUns, 9 HR, and 49 RBI.
So looking at David Ortiz's league leading 54 HR and 137 RBI to along with his league leading WPA of 7.8, he is lightyears better hitter than Ichiro as he reigned king in BOTH the traditional measurements and the most accurate measurements...and the most likely choice for MVP that year.
By the way, Derek Jeter (not on OPS+ list) was HANDS DOWN the MVP that year. It was not close for anyone who watched baseball. Justin Mourneau winning he award was atrocious. That list proves it - fat guy DHs and the best shortstop in baseball that year.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
By the way, Derek Jeter (not on OPS+ list) was HANDS DOWN the MVP that year. It was not close for anyone who watched baseball. Justin Mourneau winning he award was atrocious. That list proves it - fat guy DHs and the best shortstop in baseball that year.
You're right, and if I or anyone ever implied that OPS+ was the only stat that you ever needed to consult then we were wrong. But skin showed three stats, both of which usually align fairly closely with OPS+, because all of them are important and Jeter does very well on the other two. And what all of them show, in combination, is that Ortiz was the best hitter in the AL that year (once you factor in how many games Hafner missed). What they also show, in combination, is that Jeter was a good enough hitter that his playing shortstop well more than made up for the offensive gap with Ortiz and that he deserved the MVP. How Morneau even got into the conversation, let alone won it, is the mystery; his wasn't the worst MVP pick, but it was a bad one.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
By the way, Derek Jeter (not on OPS+ list) was HANDS DOWN the MVP that year. It was not close for anyone who watched baseball. Justin Mourneau winning he award was atrocious. That list proves it - fat guy DHs and the best shortstop in baseball that year.
You're right, and if I or anyone ever implied that OPS+ was the only stat that you ever needed to consult then we were wrong. But skin showed three stats, both of which usually align fairly closely with OPS+, because all of them are important and Jeter does very well on the other two. And what all of them show, in combination, is that Ortiz was the best hitter in the AL that year (once you factor in how many games Hafner missed). What they also show, in combination, is that Jeter was a good enough hitter that his playing shortstop well more than made up for the offensive gap with Ortiz and that he deserved the MVP. How Morneau even got into the conversation, let alone won it, is the mystery; his wasn't the worst MVP pick, but it was a bad one.
Several players were "worthy" that year, Jeter would have been a fine choice. Sizemore had a great year too. He always seemed to stand out when I saw him play against Minnesota, looks like he did well against other teams as well.
Ichiro was not in the "conversation" that year and shouldn't have been. His batting average was one point higher than Morneau's and SLG was 140 points lower.
Don't know if you ever watched Morneau play, but if you did, you might have a different opinion.
For a big (certainly NOT FAT) man, he was a very good baserunner, would go from first to third on a single where a lot of other players would have held up at second. He also really crushed the ball when he hit it. I realize he played 1B and that hurts him. I have been watching the Twins since about 1963 and Morneau would often do things that surprised/impressed me.
The year he was having in 2010 before he got hurt was tremendous.
Really too bad his concussions ended his career early, he was a VERY good all-around player, that doesn't always show up on the stats.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
It was DJs only real shot at the MVP and I'm still a little bitter
It was his last real shot, but Jeter should have won the MVP in 1999 also. My apologies if that just makes you even more bitter.
I disagree; I've always tried to be objective despite my unabashed support of the Yankees. In 1999, I couldn't really get upset with the choice of Pudge over Jeter, especially when I thought they both were a distant 2/3 to Pedro Martinez. I usually argue against pitchers getting the award but he was all time good that year. So even though I thought Jeter was deserving, it's hard to complain too much when another guy earne the greater snub. In the Mourneau MVP year, it was Jeter against a 'weaker' field in that he was the only 'premium' position player in the running...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Pudge? Not even close to the best that year - 9th in WAR, 9th in WPA and not even top 10 in OPS+. Great at catcher, as always but not one of his personal best years. Martinez was great, as always, that year but he didn't even start 30 games; pitchers with 29 starts do not get, or deserve, an MVP. Jeter deserved the MVP that year; Alomar and Ramirez were his worthy competition.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
That may be what the stats tell you and that's why stats can sometimes be misleading. Thankfully, the MVP is not an award for best individual statistical season in a vacuum; I'm guessing this is in part your desire to have history corrected so that Joe Morgan could have the award every year he played. Sportswriters from all over the country watch baseball games, follow baseball and offer their opinion. Some have always been statistically driven and their percentage continues to rise (which is likely a good thing) and some have a vote and don't really watch much baseball. Voting rules have been adjusted but certainly have been loose, at best, over the years. Now, I'm going to do this from memory but this was probably my peak years of drinking, watching, talking, arguing and occasionally fist fighting over baseball. As a staunch Yankee fan, all of this is tough to write. I was quite happy Pedro did not win the award. But he was VERY deserving of the award and only a fool would disagree. Sure, he made only 29 starts but 35 is a full season for a pitcher these days. That's one a month. In those 29, I think he won 24 and lost 3. I know, I know, wins don't count anymore. Fine. How about 300+ strikeouts, an ERA and WHIP of near 2 and 1 flat for the statistical brilliance*. Speaking of which, all of these numbers were at the point in time where the average Major Leaguer had a higher percentage of testosterone coursing through their veins than the average thoroughbred. The Barroid Bonds, Mark McGwinstrol and Sammy Sosountilsteroids were entering the record books and 30 HR hitters were weaklings. In the midst of all of this was this skinny little Dominican pitching in Fenway Park. I watched him live every time he took the bump that year. And the best way I can describe it for those of you who didn't see it is it looked like a seriously skilled 20 year old wiffle ball pitcher throwing to 8 year olds. It wasn't just a guy pitching well; he was embarrassing people. Laughing at them in some rare cases. Some players reach a point in their career arc where they have become so good at their sport that it looks like they're actually playing something different than everyone else. I don't think I need to cite specifics because you all know what I'm talking about - it's rare but there's an example from every sport. And Pedro Martinez was clearly at this point in his career and therefore also clearly deserving of any award you chose to give him - MVP, Cy Young, Miss America - and everyone would have nodded their heads and agreed if they had just seen him pitch live.
*Fill it in, if you're up for it - I KNOW you can. You're obviously better with the stats than me. I think you can find one of those brilliant sabermetricians (Bill James?) who attempted to put this season (or maybe these two back to back seasons) in historical context and proposing it may have been the greatest a pitcher ever pitched. Full of all the BABIP, ERA+, exFIP, WHIP, K/9 and league adjusted, park adjusted, era adjusted metrics you love. I don't remember all the stats as well but I remember that I read it. I read. A lot.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Comments
Thanks my friend
There could be some extreme examples in a season...but if your team is in the lead by a large margin, then your probability of winning is almost automatically going to go up regardless what you do(it being almost bullet proof), since you are going to most likely win....so it tends to even out. Will have to see if there are anyone that fits that example.
In the case of Morris, it means when he gives up runs in a blowout, then those aren't harming his win probability as much...which goes nicely wiht the whole topic on Morris, that even if he WAS giving up an inordinate amount of runs in blowouts, it wouldn't be damaging to his metric, and would alleviate any concerns of not giving him proper credit if he did indeed have the mythical advantage of pitching to the score. But it is moot anyway for him because he didn't give up an inordinate amount of runs in blowouts.
But, i agree with your point for pitchers. I don't put anything on the same validity par as for the hitters.
PS, as you know, it usually isn't even necessary to look at the Win Probability Added and the context of game score to assess a player's value. The results of the 24 base/out run expectency almost always comes to the same conclusion as Win Probability Added, just like OPS+ does, just like Batter Runs does.
Thats why i say that Win Probability is actually a stat for traditionalists as it answers their questions of clutch, and all these other things people having been chiming on in this thread. It shows the players value of their contribution.
Not defending Ichiro, just don't agree there were 1,200 better hitters or whatever you claimed.
On Mantle, the Yankees were begging him to play another year. They didn't have much of a team. He said his legs hurt too much and he "couldn't steal a base when he needed to, go from first to third on a single or score from second on a single". He also said "all they have to do is walk me" because there were no good hitters behind him.
Mickey also said he should have retired two years earlier .
You can come up with as many stats as you want to, but I'm going to believe that Mickey was correct. Not many players in any sport retire while they can still play at a high level.
Mantle's "decline" occurred in the late 60's, culminating in 1968 when it was harder to hit than in any year since Honus Wagner's time. Did the hitters who were caught in the middle of it realize what was going on? I doubt it. I think Mantle probably didn't realize how good he still was; he just knew he wasn't as good as once was, and he overestimated how much he'd dropped off because he didn't really understand that it was happening to every hitter. But more, I think he wasn't having any fun playing for a crappy team after all those years of winning; he couldn't say that, so he blamed himself.
Mantle was one of the 10 best players in the AL in 1967 and still among the top 20 in 1968. Whether he "should have" retired rather than play those seasons is Mantle's call, but his not being good enough to play was not a factor. His not being good enough to satisfy his own standards probably was.
What I can't understand about Mantles' stats are:
His last two years his Slugging percentage was .434 and .398,
yet his OPS + was 149 and 143 for those years.
How can that be possible? I know his OBP was still just below .400 for both years, mostly
because he got so many walks. Do all those walks raise your OPS+?
Seems like really inflated OPS+ numbers to me.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I explained that in my post. It was 1968. Bob Gibson had an ERA of 1.12. Tommy John had an ERA of 1.98 and came in 5th in the AL. The ERA for the entire AL was 2.98. Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 and led the league - by 11 points! Dick McAuliffe led the league in runs scored - with 95! The last time the AL had nobody score 100 runs or more? 1918. Mantle's pedestrian looking .385 OBP was the third best in the league. His OPS was ninth best in the league. His Win Probability Added was fourth in the league. Yes, his legs were leaving him and his baserunning and fielding reflected that. I said earlier that he was one of the 20 best players in the league that year, but he was one of the 10 best hitters in the league that year.
There is no possible way to understand how good Mantle, or any other player, was in 1968 (and to a slightly lesser degree in 1967) without first understanding just how difficult it had become to get on base and score a run by then. The starkest line in baseball is between 1968 and 1969; they changed rules, they changed parks and they changed pitching mounds because the deadball era had returned.
Thanks for the explanation.
That means Yaz's decline after the 1970 season is even harder for me to understand.
He was still in his prime, age 31, but he had a pretty big drop off in production starting then.
It was a lot easier to hit in the 70's but his best seasons were the mid to late sixties when it was
basically the same as the dead ball era.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Declines are largely in the eye of the beholder. But here's one way to look at Yaz specifically that gives it a little different perspective. Just focus on OPS+, which is as good a proxy for overall value as there is all lined up on baseball-reference. Now follow that from his rookie season down to 1970 - nothing remarkable for a star player, and age 30 is a very common age (31 is historically the most common) for hitters to have their last truly great season and then start to decline, some very slowly, others more quickly, Now, blip over 1971 and 1972 and pick up again in 1973. Starting in 1973 and continuing through the end of his career there is again nothing at all remarkable considering where Yaz had peaked three years earlier.
So, the perception that Yaz declined rapidly after 1970 isn't quite right. The question is really "what happened in 1971 and 1972". And the answer is partly "I don't know" but there are some strong clues:
Yaz didn't decline any more dramatically than most other stars; rather, from June 1971 through May 1972 he was either on the DL or battling injuries. That's what I see, anyway.
What about loud outs?
The year before he came to the Yankees, Paul O'Neill said he felt like had one of his best years hitting wise but everything ended up in gloves and the stats just sucked. He felt like he was crushing the ball the whole year but it never evened out
statistically (though I guess one could argue it did in a big way the following year as well as regression from the prior year) and based on how good he had been the prior year he said he felt like he wasn't playing much differently but he was just not getting the results.
Can this be explained - or disproved - from the data? I don't go that deep in my ability to access such data. While I have the basics of sabermetrics, I'm admittedly not super advanced. I have followed and understood what's been posted, but I don't really know where to go to find the sortables...
And sorry for the Yankee centric stuff but they're my team and I love Coney and O'Neill's rememberences...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Yes, bad luck can stick with someone for a bit, and loud outs are an example....but in the vein of being human, it is very easy to remember all the loud outs, and forget about the duck snorts, lol...we all do that. Regardless, we are looking at the results, and a loud out is still an out.
There are stats like batting average on balls in play that show that some players may have had a little bad luck for stretchs, and that it doesn;t mean they have declined.
But now they keep track of exit velocity, etc....so it probably wouldn't be too hard to figure that in.
If you can't see how Tony Phillips is on par with Ichiro, and Joe Morgan light years better, then you won't see it. Though I will agree that 1,200 is an estimate. If I look at it in more detail and it turns out he is 998th...or 788th....1,356th....then I will recant or clarify the 1,200 statement. It is when fools start saying top 100 or so when it gets ridiculous. Also, as stated, if someone's definition of "one of the greatest hitters ever," includes the 1,200th best as "One of the greatest ever," then I will agree....and that is still impressive considering how many humans have lived since baseball was invented, and 1,200th best is still pretty spectacular.
Nothing Manlte has said has refuted any of the statistical analysis put forth. He also wasn't speaking in absolutes, because he indeed could go from first to third on a single and score from second on a single. He also stole six bases. Basically, what he is really saying is he couldn't do those things as good as he used to.
As Dallas pointed out, if you look around offense in baseball, then Mantle was still elite. It is entirely possible most of the hitters were feeling a bit frustrated with their 'underperforming', since EVERYONE wasn't hitting.
Mantle's contributions were what the valid measurements said they were, and if he was being humble in not recognizing it, or feeling like it wasn't good enough because he was no longer the God he once was....all of that is irrelevant as to his run contribution and win contribution as described in his performance and the valid measurements.
I got into this thread for a couple of reasons, and one being that a comment was made about OB% and giving walks the same value as a hit(which is actually a true statement by that poster), but when that statement takes the next step and uses that example as a reason why the good measurements are aren't reliable, and a person's opinion on the value of a walk has just as much credence...is where sanity must reign.
So many people gave examples of how walks in certain situations don't have the same value as hits, and I agreed with them. They felt opinions carried enough weight to refute the concrete measurements. They were wrong.
I think most people understood the walk value with nobody on base, when I explained it with Morgan.
But what I want to highlight again is that the good measurements are 'fixing' EXACTLY what people are complaining about...THEY ARE NOT GIVING WALKS THE SAME VALUE AS A HIT IN THOSE SITUATIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE BELLY ACHING ABOUT!
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
In that last situation, the single is appx seven times more valuable than the walk. There ya go. But then again, don't forget those out mades....and don't forget that those situations simply don't occur that often.
IN RELATION TO THE VALUES OF HITTING AND EACH HITTING EVENT, ALL OF THAT, AND ALL OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, LEAVING ONLY A FEW THINGS LEFT TO DISCUSS WITHIN THOSE GOOD MEASUREMENTS....and none of those things are the things you people are complaining about. I'm actually one of the biggest complainers on the advanced measurements, but even those complaints are fairly minor(except the big issues like defense and positional adjustments).
I want to give a nod to Dallas too, because earlier he recognized his uncomfortability with having all his best hitters from 1950 and prior...because the era adjustments are one of my biggest complaints, as none of the best evaluation tools have been able to account for the era adjusments properly. I've gone on and on in regard to Babe Ruth on that one. I'm not going to do it in this thread, except for my one statement......
"The fact that Babe Ruth could hit more home runs than every team in the league, and excel as both a hitter and pitcher in MLB, is more an indictment on the level of talent in the league, as opposed to showing that he is THAT much better than any player in history who could not come close to replicating those feats...because it was/is IMPOSSIBLE for modern players to out-homer every team in the league, as it would take over 200-240 home runs to do that, and the reality is that there are more players with the ability to do those things, and the modern leagues were/are not filled with dead ball style hitters."
With respect to the walk and the better measures of hitting ability, I want to point out that in OPS+ a walk counts the same as a single in OBP, but not at all in SA; since the two are added together, a walk ends up counting 50% as much as a single. But as skin has said, and demonstrated, walks are worth more than half as much as a single, so OPS+ is undervaluing a walk, not overvaluing it.
Had Topps always included walks on the backs of their cards, and shown OBP instead of batting average, I think 50% of the confusion and disagreements we have had on this forum would never have happened.
I'm just glad to have been in the thread. I also like seeing Mickey held up as he should be.
Dallas and skin - thanks for the educational stuff. I know I appreciate it and imagine most do, too.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
It was a fun discussion. I think if nothing else, that this thread should at least clear up the value of a walk.
So a walk is almost as good as a hit
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......
Or, as good as a single, with bases empty.
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.
Time for another topic
I wonder which is better. A double leading off the inning or the leadoff hitter being walked and then stealing second?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
At least with putting the ball in play for a single, it allows the chance for the fielder to bobble the catch/make an error and allowing the ball to get by him. Thereby allowing for an extra base/bases with the hit. Possible extra value there. But on the other hand if the runner tries to stretch it on the error, he could be thrown out negating any gain from the single.
I believe a batter who walks, and then advances to second on a pitchers' balk, is the best.
The batter/runner has not expended any energy getting to second base and is therefore
more capable of scoring on a single.
Of course, the best case scenario is walking, then balk, balk, and balk. Bingo. No wasted energy
scoring a run and the batter is fresh and ready to make some outstanding defensive plays.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Not going to be a big difference, but a hair better better getting the double because some of the stolen bases occur with two strikes on the batter, and the subsequent plays have a slightly less chance of producing as many runs in the inning, as opposed to a batter coming up to the the plate with a fresh count with the man already on second base.
Both scenarios possible, and both already accounted for in the value.
Though I would note that it is much more damaging getting thrown out trying to extend an extra base than it is positive in getting the extra base.
For example, on average, getting caught stealing has appx twice the negative value as does the positive value of a successful steal attempt.
After looking it up:
double with nobody out and nobody on base 1.06
single with nobodoy out and and nobody on base .68. Stealing second adds .27. Total of .95 runs for the situation described.
Caught stealing in that situation would be -.58
Balk would be .36.....so whomever said balks would be more efficient, then thumbs up, because a successful stolen base usually adds a strike to the batter's count, thereby slightly reducing the chance of future positive outcome in that at bat...hence the double also being the better alternative(and balk being better than a steal).
See, that all jives with common sense too.
Note, these specific figures are for late 90's/early 2000's. There are very slight variances in different run scoring eras.
You would think based on this discussion that anyone could have the most hits in a single season or surpass 3000 hits in a career.
It is interesting to see that stats have taken over the argument in baseball. Stats are just a picture of the story, not the whole story regardless of how emphatically the statisticians tell you otherwise.
The single vs walk argument seems to ignore the opportunity cost of not swinging and instead only focuses on the final outcome, what happens once the batter is on first. Taking a strike that was hittable and then being walked could be considered a better outcome for the pitcher. In this day and age with the overemphasis on the walk I think some hitters are hurting themselves and their teams.
Robb
Good hitters with plate discipline don't often ignore hittable pitches in favor of drawing a walk. If the pitch is hittable, a good hitter will hit it. That is why the better hitters draw as many walks as they do.
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.
What I hate is when the first pitch is right down the middle, and the batter doesn't
swing and that's the only good pitch he gets the rest of the at bat.
Happens to Salvador Perez all the time. Get the first strike across, then breaking
ball off the plate, he'll swing, then another breaking ball even farther off the plate,
and bingo, there's your strikeout.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
To tie this up a little.
The play by play data value is rock solid concrete...nobody's opinion means squat in regard to the value of each event. Here is sort of a progression of the stats and when some opinion could factor:
*OPS+ Quick and dirty. Does not use the value of the play by play data. Does not account for baserunning. Does not give specific run value per event. It is two statistics molded into one, in which the outcome is usually pretty darn close to the best stats.
*Batter Runs: Used the average run value of each hitting even. Does not account for baserunning. Does Not account for context of baserunners on, or how many outs. Does not account for inning or game score. I haven't used this one in this thread, because the next two have it and answers the questions everyone keeps asking(and somehow still asking).
*Run Expectancy in the 24 base/out states. Those are the values above with the double and stolen base example. It gives the precise run expectancy of each event. It accounts for the number of baserunners and how many outs(both of which have drastic changes on the value of each event). It also accounts for baserunning, both stealing bases and advancing bases. It shows the expectancy or run value of each event. It does NOT account for inning or game score.
*Win Probability Added. This is uses the Run Expectancy in the 24base/out states, and then also factors in the inning and score for the probability of winning.
The run expectancy and win probability added factor in every question you guys have asked, and then some. I already explained that, no need to again. If someone doesn't get it by now, or thinks their opinion or insight sheds something more meaningful than what is already accounted for and explained, then more power to you...or they are just stubborn.
There ARE some factors which OPS+, Run Expectancy, and Win Probability Added could shed different light on players, and I talk about those all the time throughout these message boards. If I were to look at a player I would look at all three. After looking at all three of them, there is zero need for any other offensive stat. ZERO. Zero need for any opinion on the value of a walk or single, etc..
Lets look at 2006 when Ichiro led the league with 224 hits and had a nifty .322 batting average, and then also look at the top ten offensive players in those three main stats, and then see where Ichiro sits.
TOP TENS:
OPS+..................RE24................WPA
Haftner 181.....Hafner 59........Ortiz 7.8
Manny..............Ortiz 58............Jeter
Ortiz 161..........Jeter..................DYe
Thome.............Thome..............Hafner 4.6
Dye...................Manny.............Morneau 4.6
Giambi.............Giambi.............Giambi
Mauer...............Dye.................Manny
Morneau 140...Morneau 44...Sizemore
Thomas.............Mauer............Thomas
Vlad....................Sizemore.......Thome
Knowing the differences of each of those stats, you see that the top ten in each varies very little. There is a little reshuffling among the top ten, but everyone except two players are in the top ten of all three. It is remarkable how OPS+ stands well with the top stats, and that is why it is easy to use.
Some differences of the stats. OPS+ is a pure percentage stats. It doesn't account for number of plate appearances. That is why in longevity cases it can give misleading figures. In one season it can do the same since a player can miss a number of games and have a high OPS, and also sit vs certain pitchers to retain a high OPS(the Ken Phelps factor) but actually have a lower value than some other players.
THe other two are both rate and counting, and as long as a player is playing above average, having a lot of at bats helps those numbers. For longevity, it shows their value better. However, for longevity, it can also hurt some players since it compares to a league average...thus making their number go down in a slightly below average year(a year in which there is still value). For single season purpose, if a guy misses 20 games, then this will affect their results, unlike OPS+ in which it won't.
I put numbers by some guys for fun since somehow Morneau won the MVP that year. If i'm looking at this, I look at all three, and if someone wants to make a case for Hafner as the best hitter since his OPS+ was so high, and he was also the leader in RE/24, then they can make a compelling case since those are two extremely high validity stats. If someone wants to make a case for Ortiz because his WPA is off the charters the best that year, then they have just a strong a case as he also sits high in the other two stats. Those are both opinion and different ways of looking at two players, and I would have a hard time refutting either case. SO yes, opinion can matter in cases like those.....but in cases of the hit or walk value, the opinion means nothing.
Here is where Ichiro ranked in each of those three categories that year:
OPS+ 42nd
RE24 33rd
WPA 33rd
As you can see, his baserunning(and also his high amount of plate appearances), gave him a bump compared to his OPS+. It includes all the values you guys talked about, and more. It credited him for his two out singles, etc.. For the elite hitters, they only got 1/8 the value of a single for their walks with two outs and men on 2nd/3rd. All of that is in there. He is getting credited PROPERLY.
There is no sane rational that can claim Ichiro to be anywhere near the best hitter in the league that season, despite his league leading hit total and .322 average. In each of the three valid ways to look at a hitter, he simply does not stack up to the best. All of his singles have a certain value, and just because someone 'feels' a single should be worth more than Ichiro is being credited, doesn't mean it actually has that value. I explained all that already.
Here are the hit leaders that year:
Ichiro
Young
Jeter
Tejeda
Vlad
Matthews
Morneau
Sizemore
Wells
Crawford
Yes, that list should spark a lightbulb in anyone'es head that wonders why hit totals aren't quite as meaningful as they believe. I say believe, becausee they have no valid basis to say otherwise.
If all else fails, and Perkdog will appreciate this, often times the the traditional 115 runs, 54 HR, 137 RBI will tell a far more accurate story than a hit total and a 110 RUns, 9 HR, and 49 RBI.
So looking at David Ortiz's league leading 54 HR and 137 RBI to along with his league leading WPA of 7.8, he is lightyears better hitter than Ichiro as he reigned king in BOTH the traditional measurements and the most accurate measurements...and the most likely choice for MVP that year.
I feel the same about Javier Baez. They are pure guess or sell out type hitters. They will hit their home runs, but nothing else. Baez is absolutely awful against RHP and probably should not be playing against them.
Those guys should make people appreciate hitters like Joey Votto....and yes Ichiro too, who was also a better hitter than guys like Perez or Baez(even though they had more home runs).
I also notice that we're starting to confuse 'best hitter' with MVP. Most of the best hitter on the above list were big, lumbering DHs who could hit but not run or field.
I'll also point out that while 'stats tell the whole story' of an at bat, even Dallas and skin have admitted (even if in rare cases) that context matters. So yes, it is a blend. And no, stats can't tell the whole story. As I said from jump street. Player evaluation is a blend of statistical analysis and context. Stats in a vacuum are fun but can't tell you the whole story about a player.
See: Mickey Mantle's final season where his traditional stats sucked (his advanced stats were better) and yet he was still one of the best players in the league. Context matters.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
1968 Mickey Mantle
Games played, 144. 65 players played more games
Hits, 98 players more
Batting average, 75 players higher
Doubles, 105 players more
Home runs, 24 players more
RBI, 50 players more
SLG, 37 players higher
OPS, 18 players higher
OBP, 3 players higher
BB, 1 player more
Runs scored, 58 players more
Mantle was the best at getting walked, but since 58 players scored more runs than him, his walks didn't mean as much.
Willie McCovey played in 4 more games, walked 72 times to Mantles 106 with an OBP of .378 to Mantles .385, yet scored 81 times to Mickey's 57.
Bob Allison was better too. Didn't get walked, but in a similar number of games was a better hitter and he could still run. Mantles OPS+ was 14 points higher. Allison SLG .456, Mantle .398. OPS for both virtually tied.
Who bats behind you certainly seems to affect how often you get walked and how often you score.
Top 7 Player? Not in my mind. If he could still run he would have been in Center Field and not at 1B.
How about that for context?
OPS+.........you can have it.
No, no, no. You posted a bunch of stats presumably to provide more context, which is fine, but then you threw it all out here. The hitters behind Mantle were terrible. It is not Mantle's responsibility to hit 100 home runs to make up for the shortcomings of his teammates, it is Mantle's responsibility to get on base. That is what is in his control. Counting runs scored by individual players and comparing them among players on great teams, average teams and terrible teams is a meaningless exercise. Had the Yankees been a better team, Mantle would have scored more runs. Had the Yankees put Mantle in the leadoff spot, he would have scored more runs. But Mantle was on the team he was on, and he hit in the spot he was assigned. THAT is his context, and Mantle can only be properly evaluated within it.
I just re-read an essay by Bill James laying out the factors that generally cause a player to be under or over rated. I think I'll post it in a new thread, and, being dallasactuary, make an attempt at a formula and evaluate some players. Several of the factors James describes apply to Mantle in 1968, although he wrote the essay to explain why Darrell Evans was the most underrated player of all time.
The MVP debate is another good one.
The award often goes to the "best" hitter, often on a division winning team. It seems like "Valuable" is/has often been replaced by "statistically dominant". Pitchers are usually excluded because of the Cy Young award, although that really doesn't make sense. If he is most valuable, he's probably the best pitcher and gets both awards?!?!?!?
The above mentioned Mickey Mantle should/could have been MVP in BOTH 1960 and 1961 but it went to Maris, who had a couple of great years but was certainly helped by Yankee Stadium and the presence of Mantle (much more than Mantle was helped by Roger). You can also make a case for Mickey in 1952 (a pitcher deservedly won it that year), 1955, 1958, 1959 (Nellie Fox?) the above mentioned 1960 and 1961 and even 1964, although Brooks had a wonderful year.
When healthy, Mantle was the superior ballplayer EVERY year from 1952 to 1964. No one could do what he could, although he might not have been the most "Valuable" every year. His teams were in the World Series 9 times during that span and won the World Series 6 times. Best player + best team = MVP?
The award has always been (in my opinion) a sort of gift given by the voters. Can't have the same guy win it too much, in fact there was once a rule you could only win it ONCE, or Babe Ruth might have had them all from 1919 to 1931 except for 1925.
Teddy Ballgame got screwed a couple of times as well in my opinion. The writers hated him. Hitting numbers are staggering.
I have been saying this for awhile.
If you have terrible hitters behind you a base on balls (given to you by pitcher) is not as valuable as if you are batting leadoff.
That's why we (finally) agree that the value of a base on balls cannot be constant throughout the lineup. Sorry I didn't express it better earlier!
Looking forward to dallasactury's future posts!
I really don't think we're saying the same thing. Obviously, if you have crappy hitters behind you, nothing you do is "as valuable" to scoring runs as when another player does the same thing with good hitters behind him. Except for a HR, in which case the value becomes dependent on the strength of the hitters ahead of you. But, and here is where I think we are still not saying at all the same thing, neither of these reflects AT ALL on the value of the player himself. Plunk Mickey Mantle in the middle of a lineup in 1968 where the next best player is Horace Clark and add up his runs scored, RBI, etc. and figure out his "value". Now plunk Lee May in the middle of the Reds lineup with Bench, Perez, Rose, Tolan and Johnson in 1969 and do the same thing. You appear to be saying that May was more valuable than Mantle; if so, then we're not saying the same thing.
As for the value of a walk being constant throughout the lineup, I never said that it was. What I said was that it is not in the player's control where he bats in the lineup, and it is nonsense to claim that a player is more or less valuable based on a decision his manager made. Here's where I think we're talking past each other: I'm making a distinction between "value" to a team based on a million factors outside of a player's control, and value inherent in the player himself. When selecting a most valuable player it seems clear to me which interpretation of "value" matters, and which doesn't.
I think one of Dallas' future posts(maybe in a few years) might be
comparing Mike Trout with Mickey Mantle and seeing how his numbers stack up.
Trout probably would have another MVP this year if he hadn't missed games because of injury.
Ever since I can remember, baseball pundits have been waiting for the next Mickey Mantle.
I personally believe he has arrived and is currently wearing an Angels uniform.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
I'm with you on Trout. I thought he was a reasonable pick for MVP this year, even with all the games he missed. Through 925 games Trout has an OPS+ of 172; through 952 games, Mantle stood at 174. So yes, Trout can reasonably be compared to Mantle. But, and it's a big but, in Mantle's next 931 games his OPS+ was 180. So as great as Trout has been, he has to keep getting better. And, over the same 900+ games to start their careers, Trout had 33.8 WPA (which is outstanding) while Mantle had 38.8 (which is more outstanding). And, over Mantle's next 900+ games, his WPA increased to 41.9, which is so good it's just silly. Trout is without any doubt the greatest player playing today and has only Pujols for competition going back a generation. But he's still looking up at Mantle; not so far up that he can't see him, but he's got some work to do to catch him.
Dallas- I just hope Trout can stay healthy, or at least relatively healthy the next 5-6 years as
they should be his prime years. I thought it was interesting that this year was the first time
he had more walks than strikeouts. Possibly that could mean he's becoming more selevtive
and is getting a better idea which pitches he can handle.
I do think there's a strong chance that he could get even better and keep pace with Mantles' numbers.
Its going to be interesting to follow his career, at any rate.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Agree on Trout - a special talent. I hope the Angels surround him with talent some day. He's definitely got it in him to get better, too. Great all around player; defense sometimes gets overlooked but his glove is almost as good as his bat.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Maybe they are tired of fooling around. They added Upton last year and now the Japanese Babe Ruth is coming to Los Angeles.
Star free agent Shohei Ohtani agreed to sign with the Angels on Friday.
The 23-year-old Ohtani, a starting pitcher whose fastball has reached 102 mph and whose powerful left-handed swing will allow him to play in the lineup when he isn’t pitching, forsook generational riches for an opportunity to test himself against the world’s greatest players. And after narrowing his finalists to seven and allowing each team a two-hour presentation earlier in the week, he chose the Angels.
This could be fun
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Whether or not the Angels add a bunch of talent around Trout will matter a great deal to how many games the Angels win. It will not, of course, affect in any way how good Trout is.
By the way, Derek Jeter (not on OPS+ list) was HANDS DOWN the MVP that year. It was not close for anyone who watched baseball. Justin Mourneau winning he award was atrocious. That list proves it - fat guy DHs and the best shortstop in baseball that year.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You're right, and if I or anyone ever implied that OPS+ was the only stat that you ever needed to consult then we were wrong. But skin showed three stats, both of which usually align fairly closely with OPS+, because all of them are important and Jeter does very well on the other two. And what all of them show, in combination, is that Ortiz was the best hitter in the AL that year (once you factor in how many games Hafner missed). What they also show, in combination, is that Jeter was a good enough hitter that his playing shortstop well more than made up for the offensive gap with Ortiz and that he deserved the MVP. How Morneau even got into the conversation, let alone won it, is the mystery; his wasn't the worst MVP pick, but it was a bad one.
Several players were "worthy" that year, Jeter would have been a fine choice. Sizemore had a great year too. He always seemed to stand out when I saw him play against Minnesota, looks like he did well against other teams as well.
Ichiro was not in the "conversation" that year and shouldn't have been. His batting average was one point higher than Morneau's and SLG was 140 points lower.
Don't know if you ever watched Morneau play, but if you did, you might have a different opinion.
For a big (certainly NOT FAT) man, he was a very good baserunner, would go from first to third on a single where a lot of other players would have held up at second. He also really crushed the ball when he hit it. I realize he played 1B and that hurts him. I have been watching the Twins since about 1963 and Morneau would often do things that surprised/impressed me.
The year he was having in 2010 before he got hurt was tremendous.
Really too bad his concussions ended his career early, he was a VERY good all-around player, that doesn't always show up on the stats.
It was DJs only real shot at the MVP and I'm still a little bitter
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
It was his last real shot, but Jeter should have won the MVP in 1999 also. My apologies if that just makes you even more bitter.
Alan Trammell.
I disagree; I've always tried to be objective despite my unabashed support of the Yankees. In 1999, I couldn't really get upset with the choice of Pudge over Jeter, especially when I thought they both were a distant 2/3 to Pedro Martinez. I usually argue against pitchers getting the award but he was all time good that year. So even though I thought Jeter was deserving, it's hard to complain too much when another guy earne the greater snub. In the Mourneau MVP year, it was Jeter against a 'weaker' field in that he was the only 'premium' position player in the running...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Pudge? Not even close to the best that year - 9th in WAR, 9th in WPA and not even top 10 in OPS+. Great at catcher, as always but not one of his personal best years. Martinez was great, as always, that year but he didn't even start 30 games; pitchers with 29 starts do not get, or deserve, an MVP. Jeter deserved the MVP that year; Alomar and Ramirez were his worthy competition.
@dallasactuary
That may be what the stats tell you and that's why stats can sometimes be misleading. Thankfully, the MVP is not an award for best individual statistical season in a vacuum; I'm guessing this is in part your desire to have history corrected so that Joe Morgan could have the award every year he played.
Sportswriters from all over the country watch baseball games, follow baseball and offer their opinion. Some have always been statistically driven and their percentage continues to rise (which is likely a good thing) and some have a vote and don't really watch much baseball. Voting rules have been adjusted but certainly have been loose, at best, over the years. Now, I'm going to do this from memory but this was probably my peak years of drinking, watching, talking, arguing and occasionally fist fighting over baseball. As a staunch Yankee fan, all of this is tough to write. I was quite happy Pedro did not win the award. But he was VERY deserving of the award and only a fool would disagree. Sure, he made only 29 starts but 35 is a full season for a pitcher these days. That's one a month. In those 29, I think he won 24 and lost 3. I know, I know, wins don't count anymore. Fine. How about 300+ strikeouts, an ERA and WHIP of near 2 and 1 flat for the statistical brilliance*. Speaking of which, all of these numbers were at the point in time where the average Major Leaguer had a higher percentage of testosterone coursing through their veins than the average thoroughbred. The Barroid Bonds, Mark McGwinstrol and Sammy Sosountilsteroids were entering the record books and 30 HR hitters were weaklings. In the midst of all of this was this skinny little Dominican pitching in Fenway Park. I watched him live every time he took the bump that year. And the best way I can describe it for those of you who didn't see it is it looked like a seriously skilled 20 year old wiffle ball pitcher throwing to 8 year olds. It wasn't just a guy pitching well; he was embarrassing people. Laughing at them in some rare cases. Some players reach a point in their career arc where they have become so good at their sport that it looks like they're actually playing something different than everyone else. I don't think I need to cite specifics because you all know what I'm talking about - it's rare but there's an example from every sport. And Pedro Martinez was clearly at this point in his career and therefore also clearly deserving of any award you chose to give him - MVP, Cy Young, Miss America - and everyone would have nodded their heads and agreed if they had just seen him pitch live.
*Fill it in, if you're up for it - I KNOW you can. You're obviously better with the stats than me. I think you can find one of those brilliant sabermetricians (Bill James?) who attempted to put this season (or maybe these two back to back seasons) in historical context and proposing it may have been the greatest a pitcher ever pitched. Full of all the BABIP, ERA+, exFIP, WHIP, K/9 and league adjusted, park adjusted, era adjusted metrics you love. I don't remember all the stats as well but I remember that I read it. I read. A lot.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest