Options
Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith...
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
Seems there is a lot of talk about Mazeroski lately, and the inevitable comparison to Ozzie Smith comes up. It is a seemingly logical comparison as both got their on the virtue of their defense. But that is where the comparisons stop between the two.
HITTING. Ozzie Smith was the better hitter. Take a look at a few things.
First, their career OPS+ is Ozzie 87, Mazeroski 84. But realize that Ozzie played through age 41, while Mazeroski stopped at age 35.
Mazeroski's last three season of OPS+ were 65, 69, and 33. Yes, he was a downright horrible hitter by age 35, and one can only imagine five more seasons of hitting and how low it would have dragged his career OPS+ down, had he played as long as Ozzie.
Career Batter Runs
Ozzie -132
Mazeroski -182
That is a decent lead for Ozzie, and consider that Ozzie 'lost' 35 batter runs to the negative because he actually played til 41. I can't even imagine how many negative Batter Runs Mazeroski would have accumulated playing four more years, CONSIDERING HIS LAST 500 MLB AT BATS HE HAD NEGATIVE 32 BATTER RUNS. It is not hard to imagine him batting another 1,500 more times and dropping another Negative 90 batter runs or more.
So their hitting is not as close as it seems, with a clear edge to Ozzie, especially considering Ozzie had SIX seasons where he was an above average hitter, while Mazeroski had ZERO.
DEFENSE. They were both arguable the best at their respective positions, but second base is simply not SS, so lets move on.
BASERUNNING. This is an area where Ozzie dwarfs Mazeroski. Mazeroski posted 27 stolen bases and 23 caught stealing. That is more negative value for him. Ozzie posted 580 stolen baes, and 148 caught stealing. Then there are the figures of advancing bases, where Ozzie will also have a big edge. Big edge Ozzie.
In conclusion, Mazeroski was simply not the player Ozzie Smith was. Whether that makes Mazeroski a legitimate HOF member or not is debatable. What it does show is that it is not valid to say he was the Ozzie Smith of second baseman.
HITTING. Ozzie Smith was the better hitter. Take a look at a few things.
First, their career OPS+ is Ozzie 87, Mazeroski 84. But realize that Ozzie played through age 41, while Mazeroski stopped at age 35.
Mazeroski's last three season of OPS+ were 65, 69, and 33. Yes, he was a downright horrible hitter by age 35, and one can only imagine five more seasons of hitting and how low it would have dragged his career OPS+ down, had he played as long as Ozzie.
Career Batter Runs
Ozzie -132
Mazeroski -182
That is a decent lead for Ozzie, and consider that Ozzie 'lost' 35 batter runs to the negative because he actually played til 41. I can't even imagine how many negative Batter Runs Mazeroski would have accumulated playing four more years, CONSIDERING HIS LAST 500 MLB AT BATS HE HAD NEGATIVE 32 BATTER RUNS. It is not hard to imagine him batting another 1,500 more times and dropping another Negative 90 batter runs or more.
So their hitting is not as close as it seems, with a clear edge to Ozzie, especially considering Ozzie had SIX seasons where he was an above average hitter, while Mazeroski had ZERO.
DEFENSE. They were both arguable the best at their respective positions, but second base is simply not SS, so lets move on.
BASERUNNING. This is an area where Ozzie dwarfs Mazeroski. Mazeroski posted 27 stolen bases and 23 caught stealing. That is more negative value for him. Ozzie posted 580 stolen baes, and 148 caught stealing. Then there are the figures of advancing bases, where Ozzie will also have a big edge. Big edge Ozzie.
In conclusion, Mazeroski was simply not the player Ozzie Smith was. Whether that makes Mazeroski a legitimate HOF member or not is debatable. What it does show is that it is not valid to say he was the Ozzie Smith of second baseman.
0
Comments
Ozzie had 2,400 more plate appearances than Mazeroski. Yes, Mazeroski had 1,800 at bats before age 23, and Ozzie none.
Mazeroski was effectively FINISHED at age 31, his last as a full time player, and his last as a semblence of a MLB hitter. In fact, Mazeroski had ONLY 851 at bats after age 32.
Ozzie had 4,000 at bats after age 32.
SO yes, Mazeroski was still trailing by over 2,000 at bats either occuring in the formative years or the old man years. The old man years are typically more damaging as well. So with another 2,000 at bats when he was CLEARLY finished you most likely see another NEGATIVE 120 batter runs, and THEREFORE HE IS DWARFED BY OZZIE as a hitter.
The simple way to check is to see how they were in their prime. Ozzie had six seasons of being an above average MLB hitter, Mazeroski ZERO.
In fact, I will say Mazeroski no way belongs in the Hall of Fame, NO WAY. How on earth is a guy who was finished at age 31 become a Hall of Famer?? How does he get that treatment knowing how awful he was offensively, no matter how good defensively?
The man barely played past age 32 where his hitting skills were God Awful. It is very realistic where he plays full time age 32-40, like most HOFers, that he tacks on another 5,000 plate apperances, and ANOTHER NEGATIVE 200 BATTER RUNS! Plus diminsihed fielding skills.
How good would his HOF credentials be if he has NEGATIVE 382 batter runs? That would basically wipe out the positives of his fielding, thus making him an average player for his career.
So guys like Jim Rice, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Pedro Guerrero, and Ken Singleton who are done at age 35 mind you, get the cold shoulder, while Mazeroski gets the Koufax treatment at age 31??
How is a guy like Dwight Evans with 362 BATTER RUNS ABOVE AVERAGE, while playing till age 39, not in the Hall of Fame, when this guy would have NEGATIVE 380 playing in that many seasons, and is in??? Is there a sane person in this universe that is going to tell me that his fielding was worth 600 runs over Evans to make up that difference? NO WAY ON EARTH!
Mazeroski is on the official, 'blew somebody to get in' list.
Grich and Whitaker did so much more to help their team, so obviously it can be seen as a poor choice, but it is called the Hall-of-Fame, not the Hall-of-best players. On the Fame side, Mazeroski does ok. Often having that one defining attribute is enough
Don Drysdale being voted in, but not Blyleven has a lot to do with the scoreless innings streak
Why did Pud Galvin make the Hall-of-Fame nearly 50 years after he finished his career, but not Bobby Mathews? Because Galvin pitched for a team that had better hitters in an enviorment that had more games played, so he padded his win total
Hack Wilson's name was on the top of the record book for so long that eventually he had enough support
For Mazeroski, he had the benefit of being both possibly the best defensive player ever at his position and the 1960 World Series. It still doesn't make him deserving when Grich and Whitaker are ignored, but it does make his induction more understandable than several dozen others
Smith definitely deserves to be in. At worst he was the overall equal of Trammell. Plus has the benefit of perhapd being the definitive defensive player of all of baseball
Steve
While disputing none of what you said, I will have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. I think the HOF is the proper place for a player who was the very best at something truly worthwhile. He may very well be the only player who qualifies on only that standard, but I'm fine with that. Again, I'm not arguing that he was a better overall player than Ozzie Smith or a whole host of lesser non-HOF players, just that what he did was worth honoring. In fact, as the HOF has becomes more and more polluted with players who were never among the 10 best at ANYthing, I'm even more pleased that Mazeroski is there.
I agree that there are guys who need to be recognized for being the best. Mattingly was the best hitter in the world at one time.
One could make the case that the best set up man ever should be in then. While it is not as worthwhile as a SS, it is worthwhile to a baseball team.
Bruce Sutter is in...is it partly because he made a pitch famous? Is it worthwhile to be the best ever at throwing a certain pitch? Yes. Does it matter if the rest of your game isn't good enough when looking at the whole? It should matter, just like it should matter for Mazeroski.
Mazeroski, 'may' have been the best defensively. I say may because the defensive measures used are very hairy. And if he was the best defensive player EVER, then why couldn't he play SS? If he could not, then he cannot be considered the best defensive player ever. Certainly the best defensive player ever should be handling the most important defensive position ever. Therefore, he is not the best at that aspect.
While it is true that Maz may have saved more runs than anybody at 2B, that is only because the better defensive players were manning the SS position.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some guy who never even got out of the minors who was a better defensive player...only held back because he could not hit anything.
No, no man crush.
Please refute the evidence brought forth by skip.
thanks,
In one of Bill James books he states that maz may be the best fielder regardless of position in the history of baseball and to him that looks like a HOFer. James is tough to use as he uses one set of stats to show how he isn't a HOFer and another that show's he is, but his main point is that Maz's defense will never be properly measured and that means the normal criteria for HOF will be unfair to him. He also states that Frank White was just as good but that was already pointed out. Also, James likes to use primary source material to see if a player was thought of by his peers and writers (non hometown) and Maz had plenty of primary source material stating he was one of the best 2nd baseman ever while he played.
Maz also hit more than one HR in that 60 WS. He hit 2 and drove in 5 men.
7 time AS and 8 Gold Gloves, was the best 2nd baseman in the majors in the 60's.
Based on precedence Maz was at least a great player for 10 years unlike some of the Frisch players. Stats will never show he was a great hitter but he had 6 years with 10 or more HR's and 60 RBI's or more and normally batted 7th or 8th. He wasn't just a slap hitter who Ozzie Smithed a HR in the playoffs.
1. No, IMO Sutter was not the best at anything "worthwhile". Inventing a pitch might theoretically fall into a different category of eligibility, but not one that I would endorse. Likewise, Ron Hunt does not get my HOF vote despite his amazing ability to get hit by a pitch.
2. Mattingly being the best hitter "at one time" is not enough.
3. Yes, I do think that a player has to be a real baseball player before any other consideration comes into play. Sanchez was a fine fielder, although I disagree that he could be considered the best, but he didn't hit well enough to stay in the lineup. Herb Washington may have been the best base-stealer if he'd been given a few more years to develop, but I would not be endorsing him for the HOF.
4. In general, I don't disagree that the SS is the better fielder than the second baseman, but in Mazeroski's case I do. If you believe that Danny Murtaugh and Harry Walker knew the ins and outs of runs saved and range factors, etc. and that's why they left the best second baseman in history at second base instead of moving him to short to replace the outstanding shortstops they had there, well, I'd need to be convinced of that. I think "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a far more likely explanation why Mazeroski spent his whole career at second base. Shortstops will save more runs because they get more chances; that does not automatically mean that they are better fielders.
If I was put in charge of HOF membership, putting in those who belong and removing those who don't, I would probably remove dozens of the current membership but I would not remove Mazeroski. Similarly, I don't object to Hoyt Wilhelm being in the HOF, although he is the one and only relief pitcher that I would have in there. Absent HOF membership, history would soon forget Bill Mazeroski and I just think that would have been a shame.
Based on what you are saying, then the best defensive player at each position should be in the Hall of Fame. But below is more interesting..
There is one big problem, and that is a similar one being used with Smokey Joe Wood by Jaxxr. Mazeroski only played full time until age 31, so he gets no old man years to bring down his hitting or fielding. He would be down to NEGATIVE 380 batter runs playing full time till age 40. How many negative Fielding Runs in those years? He was average or below at the end of his career. It would only get worse, so I imagine negative fielding runs coming his way....especially at second base where the replacement level fielder is much better than most sabermatricians account for.
Ozzie Smith is at 268 fielding runs above average, Mazeroski 223. With another six full time seasons, how much does Mazeroski sink below 200? Then how can me be the best fielder ever?
It can be said that Frank White was the equal of Mazeroski as a fielder.
Right now Andruw Jones is at 218 runs above average as a fielder.
Best fielder ever???....
I guess it is too bad that Graig Nettles didn't retire at age 33 and leave with 178 fielding runs saved, making him the best defensive third baseman ever. He would be like Mazeroski then!! But Nettles continued to play and had a bunch of old man seasons in the negative, dropping his career total to only 131. This again is very similar to the argument against Smokey Joe Wood, and it isn't being applied to Mazeroski, and it should be.
And get this, had Nettles retired early like Mazeroski, he would have 178 fielding runs saved in 1,533 games, which is .116 per game
Bill Mazeroski retired early before he really embarrased himself, and he had 223 fielding runs in 2,163 games, which is .103 per game
SO, one can make the case that in a similar short career that Graig Nettles was the best fielder ever! That would negate the sole reason for the basis on Mazeroski meriting the Hall as he would indeed not be the best fielder ever, with probably more than Nettles being better(like Andruw Jones). Plus Nettles actually knew how to bat.
By the way, had Maz hobbled his career into his early 40s, he would have padded his offensive stats a bit (aside from BA) and any deterioration in fielding would not have taken away from his accomplishments in his prime.
<< <i>
Based on what you are saying, then the best defensive player at each position should be in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>
Other than drug-using Keith Hernandez there is a very strong case that this is true
Is the fielding runs data you provide the same one that has recieved so much criticism for not accounting for differences the pitching staff makes?
First, we've had this discussion before, but to reiterate: I think the fielding runs saved statistic is useless and I never even look at it. When great fielders match up with great runs saved amounts it's as likely to be coincidence as anything meaningful. I know you disagree, but this is more to let you know that arguments based on that statistic aren't persuasive to me.
Ozzie Smith could have played until he was 60, let's hypothesize, and ended his career with a negative 1,000 runs saved. And you know what? He would still be the greatest shortstop in history. I will never be convinced - and you've tried - that a system that assigns negative value to any player (leaving aside the Sept. call-up who goes 0 for 10 and makes 5 errors) is measuring anything meaningful. And any system that declares that one player's value goes down because a major league team still wants him to play relative to another player who nobody wants is not only not measuring anything meaningful but is simply incorrect. In other words, the guy who gets cut is worse than the guy who doesn't get cut; if a system says otherwise, ignore that system.
In the end, and I recognize that this is very convenient for me, there is no statistic that you can point to or even create that will "prove" that Mazeroski was or was not the greatest fielder ever. I think he was, at least at the time he retired, based on what I've read and I'm glad he made it to the HOF.
And what you are saying about guys contributing with a job is what i mean. Maz was not good enough to hold a job past age 32, while others could till age 40. His fiedling stats were saved as a result, just like Smokey Joe Wood's pitching stats were because of his short career.
Graig Nettles was as good a fielder as Mazeroski, only he continued to play...hurting his 'percentages', but stil contributing.
Basically, the bottom line is that Bill Mazeroski is NOT the best defensive player in the history of the game. That is what you originally said as a basis for his induction. He simply isn't. I would take nine Graig Nettles in all the position with the great glove and arm over nine Mazeroski's at all positions. Mazeroski could fight with Rey Sanchez as the backup.
ALL DEFENSIVE STATS HAVE BIG FLAWS, and JAMES'S ARE JUST AS FLAWED. To base an argument for his induction completely on that merit is a weak position. That is what I am railing against.
Padding stats? The only padding he would be doing is hurting his team with his poor hitting. Read the first post. He may be getting more total hits, but they would be severely outweighed with the whopping amount of outs. So yes, he would pad making more OUTS as a full time player from age 33-40, and therefore be a total drag on a team's chances of winning.
Morgoth, I know he was through as hitter by age 33, and downright awful by age 35. To assume anything other than that continuing would be kidding oneself. While he was basically done at age 32, other guys played much longer and actually contributed to a MLB team. I don't have to assume. I know he contributed nothing at that point, while plenty others contributed five more full seasons worth, while hurting their percentage, but still adding. There is no assuming there at all. He got the Sandy Koufax treatment, only he wasn't Sandy Koufax!
There are plenty of second baseman NOT in the Hall who are more deserving than Mazeroski. There are probably 100 players from all positions who are not in who deserve it more than he.
Maz was injured at the end of his career so he couldn't play so your argument about if he played longer he would of been even worse is still a strawman attack. If he never got injured would he have dropped off in play? He broke his foot in 65 and started having problems with it again in 68 and by 69 he was a bench player.
The defensive stats are manipulative. His offensive ones not quite so. As I originally showed, he is only close to Ozzie in career percentages because he didn't have to face the old man years where it drops the percentages.
He may be in the team photo for best defensive players ever, but knowing how difficult it is to pin down true fielding worth, I am not sure how anybody can claim he was the best ever and have that as THE definitive reason for him to be in the Hall of Fame.
On the issue of the injury your acting like there is no cause and effect, the injury affected his ability to play bottom line, if he wasn't injured there is a good liklehood he would of continued putting up numbers like his 66 and 67 season (top 25 in MVP voting in 66 and AS selection). His AB's dropped by over 100 in his 67 season as the writing was on the wall as far as his health. The Pirates in 66 were making a big push for the playoffs and some people felt that Maz played hurt trying to get his team in the playoffs that year and that caused his more serious issues later in 67 and on.
<< <i>Dallas, the negative runs are below average, not negative in the sense you mean. >>
Yes, I know exactly what the defensive runs statistic represents. And I think its a useless stat in general, and often worse than that. The player who doesn't make the team maintains his "average" status while the guy who beat him out loses ground; in logical terms, this single example (which you are, in part, relying on in your arguments) points out the fallacy of the entire system. Basically, the bottom line is that the runs saved system you reference doesn't work in any meaningful sense, certainly not over an entire career and certainly not in comparing players in different eras or at different positions. It just doesn't work.
<< <i>And what you are saying about guys contributing with a job is what i mean. Maz was not good enough to hold a job past age 32, while others could till age 40. His fiedling stats were saved as a result, just like Smokey Joe Wood's pitching stats were because of his short career. >>
I understand your argument, but you're arguing things that I'm simply not arguing. I don't care what Maz's stats would have been after 32 because they are irrelevant to my argument. He'd already done what needed doing to satisfy me as the greatest fielder ever; he could play until he was 100 (or not) and it wouldn't change anything.
<< <i>Graig Nettles was as good a fielder as Mazeroski, only he continued to play...hurting his 'percentages', but stil contributing. >>
Obviously, I disagree that he was as good. But I'm not holding his old man years against him - I'm ignoring them which is the only proper way to treat them IMO.
<< <i>Basically, the bottom line is that Bill Mazeroski is NOT the best defensive player in the history of the game. That is what you originally said as a basis for his induction. He simply isn't. I would take nine Graig Nettles in all the position with the great glove and arm over nine Mazeroski's at all positions. Mazeroski could fight with Rey Sanchez as the backup. >>
Obviously, I disagree. Of course I, too, would take 9 Nettles because an all-Maz team would get shut out every other game. But again, that has nothing to do with my argument.
<< <i>ALL DEFENSIVE STATS HAVE BIG FLAWS, and JAMES'S ARE JUST AS FLAWED. To base an argument for his induction completely on that merit is a weak position. That is what I am railing against. >>
I couldn't disagree more that James' system flaws are as great as the runs saved system's. I think the flaws in the runs saved system are as enormous as they are obvious. But, James is hardly the only person to place Mazeroski at the top of his list; the idea that Maz was the best ever is not a new one.
<< <i>There are plenty of second baseman NOT in the Hall who are more deserving than Mazeroski. There are probably 100 players from all positions who are not in who deserve it more than he. >>
I agree there is another second baseman - Grich is clearly a HOFer. But not "plenty"; after Grich, you may have some more second basemen who were better players than Mazeroski, but there is nothing about them that makes them worthy of more honor than Maz. Same for the other positions; I'd sell out Mazeroski to get Blyleven or Santo in (or to keep Rice or Morris out), but after that nobody comes to mind. 100 better players, to be sure, but not HOF-worthy ones.
Until James knows exactly how many balls were hit in a players direction, the speed of said balls, and the type of hops, then his defensive method is severely flawed, and no argument should be based solely on that aspect.
As for James himself, he has the following second baseman with more WinShares than Mazeroski. This is pre 2003, so guys like Kent may be passed him too.
Whitaker 351
Alomar 345
Grich 329
Randolph 312
Mazeroski 219
Frank White 211
Then there are SS like Dave Concepcion with 269, and the subjective two championship rings as part of the best team ever...so I would say the Fame part has him there as well.
Oh, and James has Mazeroski as the lowest amount of WinShares for HOF second baseman. Coupled with the other Non HOFers beating him handily in WinShares, I would say there is a super strong case to say he is one of the first to go in a reshuffling.
It matters not if one were one of the best at a certain aspect, it only matters how good overall a player is. He fails.
Dallas, Graig Nettles was also arguably the best defensive third baseman ever when looking at only his prime years...ala Mazeroski, in both measureable and eye witness accounts. He too should be honored, based on your philosophy.
The Runs saved can be measured vs. replacement level player too(but it has to be the right level). For James's method if he is giving a player credit for defense at second base...when there are replacements who are sitting on the bench or in the minor leagues who are better defenders, then that is flawed right there. Sure, the player is contributing, but he is hurting the team in if there are other players who are better. He should not be getting value in an area where he is hurting the team. That is what I talked about with Biggio's defense at the end of his career at 2B. In the case of second base, there are plenty of bench players and minor league players that are as good defenisively as a good portion of MLB starters at 2B!
Morgoth, lots of guys play hurt as old men, and that is part of the reason why they have a drop in performance...Maz is no different, and he was a terrible hitter his last few seasons as a part timer...I don't know how one can see a four your trend completely reversing to the other direction as he reaches towards 40.
<< <i>Dallas, when you talk about worthy of more honor, that is a very subjective view, and to each his own on that. >>
And that's pretty much where we have to end it. Seriously, I do understand what you're arguing and I'm not in any way trying to tell you that you're wrong.
And, just as subjectively, I don't think best middle man is "worthwhile". Middle men are pitchers - "best pitcher" gets in the HOF, not "best pitcher not good enough to start or close". Best at a real position, though, is worthwhile. If I thought Nettles was the best third baseman ever then I would argue he should be in the HOF, but I don't think he was. I think the greatest ever at all the other positions are already in the HOF, and none of them purely for their fielding (although Ozzie's awfully close). So as far as I know, the only player who gets in on my standard is Mazeroski; I'm obviously OK with that but I understand your objection. I find myself more or less in your shoes when Maris' name comes up in these discussions; I don't think he deserves to be in, but I'm arguing with different standards than those who support him. I disagree with the Maris supporters, but they're not wrong.
I do think that Andruw Jones has taken the mantle as best CF ever; even if he dies tomorrow I will argue that he should be in the HOF. He's closer to the Ozzie standard than the Mazeroski standard (he's sort of Dave Kingman with coordination), but even without the HRs I think he's still a HOFer.
Graig Nettles was an excellent player but not HOF worthy in my opinion. If he played second base and fields as well as he did at third, then I say he gets in. However, he wasn't even the best 3rd baseman of his era. That goes to Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt and George Brett. The gap between the best 3rd basemen and Nettles is too great to elect him.
Regarding the comment that voting in Maz is like voting in the best set-up man, I disagree. A better comparison would be voting in Manny Mota as a HOF outfielder because he was one of the greatest pinch hitters. That would be ridiculous. You have to consider a player based on how dominant he was with respect to other players at the same position. You can't evaluate a catcher based on how he matches up with his peers at first base. But you should evaluate a pitcher based on how dominant he was compared to other pitchers.
Ozzie did not get there as a a hitter, but he was certainly a better hitter than Maz. A quick way to see that is that Ozzie had SIx seasons where he was an above average MLB hitter. Mazeroski had zero! Ozzie absolutely dwarfed him on the basepaths.
As I said before, he is the lowest ranked second baseman in the Hall of Fame according to WinShares, and there FIVE guys who are higher than him who are not in the HOF...Fox, Whitaker, Alomar, Grich, and Randolph. There may even be a couple of others, but I didn't dig deep.
Some of those guys are way ahead of him too.
The combination of being the lowest HOF player at your position, with five guys who are not in who are better, hints very hard that his status of merit is in severe question, if not downright ridiculous.
The point about Nettles is that during his prime years he could be viewed as the best Defensive third baseman...only during the old man years did he lose ground there.
<< <i>
The point about Nettles is that during his prime years he could be viewed as the best Defensive third baseman...only during the old man years did he lose ground there. >>
The problem with Nettles is he was also far behind his peers offensively. He was a respectable hitter but nowhere near the class of Schmidt, Brett and even Robinson. In that case, his great glovework can't compensate for that gap.
Yes he was behind those guys but he sure wasn't Joe Foy with the stick either.
Steve
WinShares has
Robinson at 352
Nettles at 322
Mazeroski 219
Not bad for Nettles. More impressive than Mazeroski's standing. He won more games.
Playoffs (if you even can call them that) began with the 69 season.
Steve
<< <i>Nettles checks in SITUATIONAL BATTER RUNS(which is the most comprehensive play by play account of the hitters value provided) checks in at 179 for his career. Brooks has 106(not counting his first few years).
WinShares has
Robinson at 352
Nettles at 322
Mazeroski 219
Not bad for Nettles. More impressive than Mazeroski's standing. He won more games. >>
I don't buy into all those boutique stats. I look at the key traditional catagories. Just like GWBI's used to be a key stat, it's now not even talked about anymore. Most of these stats being bantered about will also fall by the wayside. I must say I've never seen a game where the announcers talk about So and So's league leading WinShares.
By the way, your non 'boutique' stats have Nettles with 390 career HR. 1,300 career RBI
Mazeroski's career average is .260 and his OB% is .299. Like I said, he is Rey Sanchez with a full time job!
Other non boutique stats for Maz, equals 769 runs and 853 RBI. Not very good.
How he is in the Hall of Fame, when there is a full team of players from the 70's who dwarf him...who are not in.
Then please answer me this. Where do you draw the line on what stats to use and when they became regularly used to classify them boutique?
RBI were not even a stat in the early game of baseball, so that must be a boutique stat as well. The traditional stats you clamor for WERE NOT ALL TRADITIONAL! They came about at different times. You don't even have to look at the more accurate stats. All you need to do is look at OB% and SLG% and it will get you 90% there. Just don't compare the rate stats of someone who retired at age 31, to a guy who retired at age 40, without understanding how hte length of career affects those.
Morgoth, you should be buying Rey Sanchez Rookie Cards to compliment the Maz rookies.
To this day I still follow the Pirates.
I even named a Team I played for in softball the Pirates.
I can remm playing a form of ball as a kid (we called it against the wall) and I would either be the Pirates or the Mets.
Does Maz belong in the Hall? not for me to answer, my only reply is that he is in and is marginal. Not a true HOF'r.
Steve
<< <i>Gemmint, call them boutique stats or whatever you will....but please be consistent with whom you apply them to. If you are so bent on applying them to Nettles, then do the same to Mazeroski.
By the way, your non 'boutique' stats have Nettles with 390 career HR. 1,300 career RBI
Mazeroski's career average is .260 and his OB% is .299. Like I said, he is Rey Sanchez with a full time job!
Other non boutique stats for Maz, equals 769 runs and 853 RBI. Not very good.
How he is in the Hall of Fame, when there is a full team of players from the 70's who dwarf him...who are not in.
Then please answer me this. Where do you draw the line on what stats to use and when they became regularly used to classify them boutique?
RBI were not even a stat in the early game of baseball, so that must be a boutique stat as well. The traditional stats you clamor for WERE NOT ALL TRADITIONAL! They came about at different times. You don't even have to look at the more accurate stats. All you need to do is look at OB% and SLG% and it will get you 90% there. Just don't compare the rate stats of someone who retired at age 31, to a guy who retired at age 40, without understanding how hte length of career affects those.
Morgoth, you should be buying Rey Sanchez Rookie Cards to compliment the Maz rookies. >>
I'm not applying any of those stats to exclude Nettles. I don't even follow those stats. His home runs and RBIs, though respectable and much higher than Maz's need to be applied in the context of 3rd basemen. It's by far more of a power hitting position than 2nd. A 3rd baseman pretty much has to hit 500HRs, 1500RBI or have 3,000 hits to get in. There may be a few exceptions but they'd be close to one of those numbers. Nettles also batted only .248 in his career. A stat you conveniently omitted while including Maz's .260 average. In my opinion, that sub .250 average for a 3rd baseman alone warrants his omission. Just like Dave Kingman and Darrell Evans, both who hit 400+ HRs but couldn't top the .250 batting benchmark.
Also, seriously Maz's Baseball Magazine was the best, I miss it today
yes it was.
Steve