Arky Vaughn, a GREAT offensive player

[Imapotato]

I say no

He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average
Forbes Field helped his game of gap hitting
His OPS is nothign to brag about, 1935 was a year for the ages, but the rest of his years were nothing to brag about
Most of the talent during his era was in the AL

So what do you guys think?

[DoubleX]

I say no

He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average
Forbes Field helped his game of gap hitting
His OPS is nothign to brag about, 1935 was a year for the ages, but the rest of his years were nothing to brag about
Most of the talent during his era was in the AL

So what do you guys think?

I actually think that Vaughan is overrated, but never really said so much because I thought that kind of comment would be akin to sacrilege around here. :). I think Vaughan is one of those players that smart baseball fans like to overrate. Why? Because he is generally so underrated and overlooked in baseball history, so there is a sense to overcompensate in appraising Vaughan.

I rank him in my top 5 of SS mostly because that seems to be the popular perception of where he belongs among intelligent baseball fans. But I do feel like he should be a little lower. I can't support it at this point, it's just a gut feeling.

I do disagree with you about his OPS though. A careeer 136 is pretty darn impressive for a SS (like I pointed out early, Tejada, who is now considered one of the best hitters in the game, is only 112). His .318 BA is also pretty impressive. It's not like Pie Traynor's .320 which was accumulated in a .295 league. Vaughn did it in a .276 league, which is still a little high, but makes him a legitimate .300 hitter in my mind (whereas Traynor is a mirage).

So until further notice, Vaughn is firmly at 4th for me in the SS list.

[Ubiquitous]

I say no

He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average
Forbes Field helped his game of gap hitting
His OPS is nothign to brag about, 1935 was a year for the ages, but the rest of his years were nothing to brag about
Most of the talent during his era was in the AL

So what do you guys think?

lowering his AB to get a high average? You mean not making an out is a negative?

He finished in the top ten of OPS 7 times in 12 full seasons.

Oh and what park doesn't help gap hitters?

[KCGHOST]

To me Vaughan is a rock solid #2 on the non-active list of shortstops. And the only threat to that status is currently playing 3B for the Yanks. You might question the era he played in, but all the pretenders for his ranking have enjoyed the last ten years of homer happiness and new stadium band boxes. I might add Vaughan played have his games in the cavern that was Forbes field.

[Ubiquitous]

I do agree that the NL in that time frame was an inferior league but lets see who else can come close to ARky in this time period.

Boston/Washingtons's Joe Cronin
Chicago's Luke Appling
Philad/NY: Dick Bartell

And that is about it. Boudreau and Stephens come along in the early 40's.

So Arky's competition in the NL is Dick Bartell, whose peak isn't as long or as high as Arky's nor is the rest of his career close to ARky's. So for Arky is the best SS in the inferior NL. So how does he do against the best SS of the AL?

Well Arky has Joe beat in most offensive categories until Joe moves to Fenway and suddenly he starts knocking homers out instead of doubles. Now then we could knock Arky's numbers a bit because of the inferior league but would it be knocked down enough to make up for the large lead in BA and OBP? And on top of that would we then have to alter Joe's stats because of Fenway?

We then have Luke Appling. Which is a tough one. Good batting average, good OBP not much power, good with the glove and played forever. In terms of offense it is hard to find decline years for Luke. For instance at the age of 41 and 42 Luke in 1000 PA better his career average in batting average and OBP. So Luke playing in a superior league was gave you roughly the same defense as Arky maybe a little less but gave you just as good offense as Arky. I think one would have to put Luke Appling in front Arky, because of league and time spent on the ballfield.

[538280]

First of all, if you're going to start a thread like this please at least spell the guy's name right. VaughAn. There's an A between the h and the n.


I say no

He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average

Potato, this is just INSANE. Somehow you're making walking at the expense of making an out a negative attribute. By walking, Vaughan wasn't making any extra outs. How can that be bad?

Vaughan was great at all aspects of the offensive game. He could hit for average, power, and he took his pitches. Vaughan in 1935 led his league in BA, OBP, and SLG. He finished top 10 in all three categories 4 times, FROM SHORTSTOP! I don't know if anyone else sans Wagner/A-Rod can claim that.


Forbes Field helped his game of gap hitting
His OPS is nothign to brag about, 1935 was a year for the ages, but the rest of his years were nothing to brag about


Whatever. A 136 OPS+ from shorstop. That's just not impressive? You just can't brag about that? Name me one shortstop not named Honus or A-Rod who has that.

With Forbes Field, it was good for contact hitters, horrible for home runs. This helped players like Traynor and Clemente in BA, but it really hurt them in HR power. If Vaughan played outside Forbes in a more regular park, I'd venture his BA may be five or so points lower, but he'd hit 15-20 home runs a year instead of his normal 5-12. That would probably increase his value.

I think the only legit knock on Arky is his short career. I give him credit for the time when he walked away from the game 1943-1947, I feel his reasons were completely justified and I may have done the same. I'm not expecting most others to do that though, and I have him significantly higher than most others because of that.

[Ubiquitous]

I feel his reasons were completely justified and I may have done the same. I'm not expecting most others to do that though, and I have him significantly higher than most others because of that.


Why exactly do you think he walked away?

[Wee Willie]

I say no

He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average?
Well, that won't necessarily give you a high BA, if that's what you mean by "average". Killebrew walked - his BA was .256. Of course walking is going to help your OBP - but I don't see how that's a bad thing, especially in Vaughan's case. Arky frequently hit leadoff, and a good leadoff man needs to have good plate discipline.



Forbes Field helped his game of gap hittingI doubt that. Plus, what were gappers in Forbes may have been homers somewhere else.



His OPS is nothign to brag about, 1935 was a year for the ages, but the rest of his years were nothing to brag aboutSorry, but an OPS+ of 135 for a shortstop is definitely something to brag about. He wasn't among the truly elite hitters - but relative to his position, I think he was great.

Rating Vaughan where I do has nothing to do with overcompensating for his "underratedness". I'm just putting his numbers in what I think is the right context.

[SABR Matt]

It depends on how you define a great hitter.

If you define him in terms of his position, then there's no question at all that Arky Vaughn is a great hitting SS. If you define it in terms of overall, then he's a very good hitter, but not an al-time great...that's OK though because he's an above average fielder in his prime at a high value position and what you end up with is a player who is easily in the top 50 or 60 all time.

[538280]

Why exactly do you think he walked away?

It is known why he walked away. He just couldn't tolerate his manager, Leo Durocher. A while back I made a long post about why exactly I do give him credit, but I can't seem to find it. Basically, to simplify things, the team was getting in various fights and really their chemisty wasn't working. Durocher was having a huge negative influence on the team. Arky just decided it wasn't worth it anymore and quit. He did have support from many of his teammates.

Now, if this were a player who had a reputation as an idiot and a clubhouse lawyer there's no way I'd give them credit. But, Vaughan was known as a quiet leader who led by example. He was always given the utmost respect from his teammates. Durocher, on the other hand, had a reputation for being an idiot. He was a man who very many people had trouble getting along with. It's not like it was just Arky. Reportedly they also had conflicts as players and Arky just walked away and didn't come back until Durocher wasn't manager anymore.

[DoubleX]

Now, if this were a player who had a reputation as an idiot and a clubhouse lawyer there's no way I'd give them credit. But, Vaughan was known as a quiet leader who led by example. He was always given the utmost respect from his teammates. Durocher, on the other hand, had a reputation for being an idiot. He was a man who very many people had trouble getting along with. It's not like it was just Arky. Reportedly they also had conflicts as players and Arky just walked away and didn't come back until Durocher wasn't manager anymore.

And this is a valid reason for walking away? Are you saying that in the face of adversity that each one of your teammates has to deal with as well, it's ok to up and quit just because the manger is an idiot?

Reggie Jackson and Billy Martin had their differences, resulting in actual fisticuffs, but Reggie didn't quit. Arky should have sucked it up like the other 24 players on that team and just played the game and let his play do the talking for him. Abandoning the team out of personal spite is petty and selfish.

IMO, he chose to remove himself from the game (and at a time when many of his peers didn't have a choice in their removal). This is not military service, this is not career ending injury, this is completely voluntary, so I'm not going to give him credit for something he obviously didn't want credit for anyway.

[Imapotato]

I do agree that the NL in that time frame was an inferior league but lets see who else can come close to ARky in this time period.

Boston/Washingtons's Joe Cronin
Chicago's Luke Appling
Philad/NY: Dick Bartell

And that is about it. Boudreau and Stephens come along in the early 40's.

So Arky's competition in the NL is Dick Bartell, whose peak isn't as long or as high as Arky's nor is the rest of his career close to ARky's. So for Arky is the best SS in the inferior NL. So how does he do against the best SS of the AL?

Well Arky has Joe beat in most offensive categories until Joe moves to Fenway and suddenly he starts knocking homers out instead of doubles. Now then we could knock Arky's numbers a bit because of the inferior league but would it be knocked down enough to make up for the large lead in BA and OBP? And on top of that would we then have to alter Joe's stats because of Fenway?

We then have Luke Appling. Which is a tough one. Good batting average, good OBP not much power, good with the glove and played forever. In terms of offense it is hard to find decline years for Luke. For instance at the age of 41 and 42 Luke in 1000 PA better his career average in batting average and OBP. So Luke playing in a superior league was gave you roughly the same defense as Arky maybe a little less but gave you just as good offense as Arky. I think one would have to put Luke Appling in front Arky, because of league and time spent on the ballfield.


I am talking overall...not just SS

Alot of the talent was in the AL, not the NL...thus Arky finished higher in the leaderboards as a result...would he have done so as an AL player?

538280,

His walked ALOT, and sometimes that is not a good thing...look at Joe Morgan...Most of Arky's OPS came from his OBP...not his SLG

That is a lopsided player, and lopsided to me does not equat a "Great" offensive player, a good one yes because he got on base, but not great, because if someone was on base and they needed a run, would you want Arky to have the bat in his hands?

[Imapotato]

It depends on how you define a great hitter.

If you define him in terms of his position, then there's no question at all that Arky Vaughn is a great hitting SS. If you define it in terms of overall, then he's a very good hitter, but not an al-time great...that's OK though because he's an above average fielder in his prime at a high value position and what you end up with is a player who is easily in the top 50 or 60 all time.


Ahhh so here is the kicker

Would you say he got in the HOF and has more accolades BECAUSE he was a SS with very good to great defensive (aside from his 1st 2 years) SS with some pop

Or he got into the HOF because he was an offensive SS juggernaught?

[Dodger Green]

I am talking overall...not just SS

Alot of the talent was in the AL, not the NL...thus Arky finished higher in the leaderboards as a result...would he have done so as an AL player?

538280,

His walked ALOT, and sometimes that is not a good thing...look at Joe Morgan...Most of Arky's OPS came from his OBP...not his SLG

That is a lopsided player, and lopsided to me does not equat a "Great" offensive player, a good one yes because he got on base, but not great, because if someone was on base and they needed a run, would you want Arky to have the bat in his hands?

Considering OBP is much, much more important than SLG, this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[538280]

538280,

His walked ALOT, and sometimes that is not a good thing...look at Joe Morgan...Most of Arky's OPS came from his OBP...not his SLG

That is a lopsided player, and lopsided to me does not equat a "Great" offensive player, a good one yes because he got on base, but not great, because if someone was on base and they needed a run, would you want Arky to have the bat in his hands?

Potato, you're not making any sense. You originally said "He walked, lowering his ABs to get a high average". Don't you realize that makes no sense? He did lower his ABs, BY NOT MAKING AN OUT!. Not making an out is something Vaughan should get credit for, lots of credit, and you're somehow turning it into a negative trait.

Why is it bad if you walk a real lot? As far as I'm concerned, the less outs you make the better.

[Imapotato]

Becuase you are a new fnagled stat guy

Us traditional types think of great as an all around player...so an all around offensive player like a Mays, a Williams, A Ruth, A Cobb

As a former player...you guys value OBP way too much...without realizing that ALL players fail a vast majority of the time, thus ok HE didn't make an out, but you are letting his colleagues be the scapgoat

What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.

I think he did ok by not making an out, but it is not a good thing...winning is good...stats mean very little

And you guys are still not saying if he was a great offensive PLAYER

[SABR Matt]

Ahhh so here is the kicker

Would you say he got in the HOF and has more accolades BECAUSE he was a SS with very good to great defensive (aside from his 1st 2 years) SS with some pop

Or he got into the HOF because he was an offensive SS juggernaught?

I believe he got into the HOF because there aren't more than 1 or 2 SSs who can claim they were better than Vaughan and have a case.

[538280]

Becuase you are a new fnagled stat guy

Us traditional types think of great as an all around player...so an all around offensive player like a Mays, a Williams, A Ruth, A Cobb

All those guys walked a lot and hit for power, and hit for average. They excelled at all aspects of hitting. They're the greatest players ever. Vaughan doesn't have to be as good as them to be great. The stats people and the traditionalists are in agreement those are the greatest players ever.


As a former player...you guys value OBP way too much...without realizing that ALL players fail a vast majority of the time, thus ok HE didn't make an out, but you are letting his colleagues be the scapgoat

What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.

That is a hypothetical situation where a single is much better than a walk. But, a walk is still much better than making an out. Vaughan makes an out, the game is over. By walking he at least prolongs the game and gives the next guy a chance.

[digglahhh]

Whether or not that's really a good thing depends on who the next guy is.

[Dodger Green]

Whether or not that's really a good thing depends on who the next guy is.

In examining a career, no, it doesn't.

THere are two ways of thinking about this:

1) OBP is on a scale of 0-1, while SLG is on a scale of 0-4. Thus, every point of OBP is almost by default worth more than 1 point of SLG.

2) Thought experiment. Would you rather have a player who hit .500 with a .500 OBP and 1.000 SLG, or who hit .500 with a 1.000 OBP and a .500 OBP.

Any roster made up of the first guy would score a ton of runs - but any roster made up of the 2nd guy would score infinite runs! He's never make an out. That's what a higher OBP does - creates more bases per out. You can't ask for more.

[Ubiquitous]

I am talking overall...not just SS

Alot of the talent was in the AL, not the NL...thus Arky finished higher in the leaderboards as a result...would he have done so as an AL player?

538280,

His walked ALOT, and sometimes that is not a good thing...look at Joe Morgan...Most of Arky's OPS came from his OBP...not his SLG

That is a lopsided player, and lopsided to me does not equat a "Great" offensive player, a good one yes because he got on base, but not great, because if someone was on base and they needed a run, would you want Arky to have the bat in his hands?

The guy was a SS. He did not need to finish first in the leaderboard to be considered great. Simply putting up numbers close to what he did as a SS would make him great.
Secondly most ARky's OPS is not OBP nor even if it was is that bad. The guy had a career BA of .318 and a career OBP of .406. Its not like we are talking about a guy with a BA of .220 and an OBP of .420. We are talking about a high batting average hitter that walked some. Arky's OPS is largely based on his BA and the hits it produced, just like everybody else out there. And yes if someone was on base and we needed a run I would want a gap-hitting high batting average low strikeout with some pop disciplined hitter like Arky. Arky was not Rob Deer, he was a hitter who walked who didn't K a lot who hit doubles and triples and had a high batting average, that is good not bad.

[Ubiquitous]

What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.

I think he did ok by not making an out, but it is not a good thing...winning is good...stats mean very little

And you guys are still not saying if he was a great offensive PLAYER


This is extreme and a strawman argument. You picking a scenario in which everything is in your favor and then forcing those who do not agree with you to try and defend the opposite of your view on this one scenario. The problem is your scenario is an extreme it is not a scenario that happens with great regularity. It is not the average scenario yet you make it the battleground, it's a bunch of what-ifs.

Yes Arky in his day was a great offensive player, was he an all-time great in the top 5 or inner circle great? No, but he was still a great offensive player. If all I had was Arky's stat line and no defensive position I would still want him on my team, granted he wouldn't in my top ten but if we had a fantasy draft he would be on my draft board.

[Ubiquitous]

We could do the scenario's all day.

Playing at Coors Field man on seconnd down by 6, player B sacs the runner to third the next hits a seeing eye grounder and scores the runner the next squibs outs. You lose by 5. In that scenario its better to walk then to give up the out just to move the base runner over. On top of that even in your scenario its better to walk then simply give up the out to move the runner over. In your scenario the second hitter comes up to the plate with two men on and if he hits his seeing eye grounder the runner on second still has a chance of scoring and even if he doesn't take it the bases are now loaded and there is either one or no outs in the inning. Now all that is needed is the third batter to elevate the ball and the run is going to score and the base situation will still be highly favorable. In your scenario one run scores but after that the base situation is not favorable to scoring another run, while with the walk the run scores to tie the game and it puts the team in a very favorable situation to take the lead.

[digglahhh]

2) Thought experiment. Would you rather have a player who hit .500 with a .500 OBP and 1.000 SLG, or who hit .500 with a 1.000 OBP and a .500 OBP.

The second guy can't exist. You can't hit .500 and have a 1.000 OBP. if you have 100 PAs, go 1-2 with 98 walks, your OBP is .990. Making one out bars you from the 1.000 OBP. The first player never walks, only singles, and does it exactly half of the times he gets up.

Anyway, your hypotheticals remove all context, the game is played by humans of different skill sets and organized into teams, it is not simulated via a computer.

Allen Iverson could drive to the basket in the closing seconds of a game down by one and dish the ball of b/c the center begins to close him out, he could throw a crisp, textbook pass to set up a wide open shooter from 18 feet. If that open guy is Samuel Dalembert...who cares! Iverson did the right thing, the efficient thing, statistically speaking, passing up a contested shot for an open one. But what did he really do- he passed the buck and set up an inferior player to fail. Iverson can say- hey I did the right thing, but that statistical truth is mitigated by the fact that he is an NBA great and a future HOFer, while the other guy can't shoot beyond 5 feet.

The guy who you give the chance to matters- it matters big time. 20 years later you can just say he didn't make an out, or he made a good pass. But if you are the superstar, sometimes you have to take the game in your own hands.

Overall you are correct, but there are certain ABs that are more important than other based on this situation and the outcome that single AB can determine the game. You don't want an all time great hitter passing the bat to some journeyman hitting behind him.

All walks are not equal. If it doesn't matter who is gettign the next chance, why do light hitting NL middle IFs in the eigth slot get intentionally walked- it matters who hits next- big time!

[Ubiquitous]

I agree with the view but at the same time see as a bit of a over simplification.

Yes you want your best hitter to hit, but the the point of the defense and opposing pitching is to keep him from hitting. Swinging at bad pitches will turn a great hitter into a bad hitter real quick

Its like the AI example. If AI doesn't pass and instead he himself takes the shot he might have a 20% chance of making the basket. By passing even to a bad player he might increase the chance of the score to say 28%. So even if the shot doesn't go in the better shot was being taken regardless of the name on the back of the jersey.

[Dodger Green]

But when we evaluate how great a player is, in total, we don't ask "how did he do in his 3rd AB of his 2695th game." We look at his totals.

Hank Aaron hit 755 HR. We sort of assume that some of them mattered. We could say "well, if he hit his HR's always when down by 5, then who cares?" But we can safely assume that although some of his HR surely didn't do much, his career numbers tell us he was impactful.

It's the same with walks and OBP. Sure, some didn't do much. But in total, over the course of an entire career, being on base more often is what makes the difference in scoring more than anything else.

[Ubiquitous]

We could say "well, if he hit his HR's always when down by 5, then who cares?" But we can safely assume that although some of his HR surely didn't do much, his career numbers tell us he was impactful.


Tell that to the Sosa-bashers.

[Imapotato]

The guy was a SS. He did not need to finish first in the leaderboard to be considered great. Simply putting up numbers close to what he did as a SS would make him great.
Secondly most ARky's OPS is not OBP nor even if it was is that bad. The guy had a career BA of .318 and a career OBP of .406. Its not like we are talking about a guy with a BA of .220 and an OBP of .420. We are talking about a high batting average hitter that walked some. Arky's OPS is largely based on his BA and the hits it produced, just like everybody else out there. And yes if someone was on base and we needed a run I would want a gap-hitting high batting average low strikeout with some pop disciplined hitter like Arky. Arky was not Rob Deer, he was a hitter who walked who didn't K a lot who hit doubles and triples and had a high batting average, that is good not bad.


OPS=OBP+SLG

So how are you not agreeing with me here?

I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??

[Dodger Green]

OPS=OBP+SLG

So how are you not agreeing with me here?

I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??
1) Stan Hack was a third baseman, and more offense is expected of 3B (after 1920, that is)

2) Hack's slugging percentage is 56 points lower than Vaughan's, and they played in pretty much identical conditions. That's huge.

3) Hack's OBP is a little lower, albeit not too much.

4) Stan Hack has a legitimate case as one of the 10 best 3B ever.

So, I think Hack is pretty damn good - but not nearly as good as Vaughan.

[Ubiquitous]

OPS=OBP+SLG

So how are you not agreeing with me here?

I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year


I don't agree with you because your conclusion is wrong. You say that Arky is an unbalanced player because his OBP is high. For some reason you think that means he wasn't doing anything besides walking. I say this because you basically ignore how the high OBP was attained and even chastise Arky for walking in your first post.

Again I'll say almost every single player in baseball history has his OPS decided by hits and what he does in them. Walks don't decide OPS nor do they make up a large majority of OPS. Its the hits and what you with them that decides your OPS. Arky had a good OPS because he had a high batting average and he hit a good chunk of XBH as well.

Nor was he an unbalanced player, whatever that means. This isn't a Eddie Stanky or Eddie Yost. Again this was high average hitter who didn't strike out, took a walk and hit doubles and triples. That isn't an unbalanced hitter that is a very good all-around hitter.

[SABR Matt]

OPS=OBP+SLG

So how are you not agreeing with me here?

I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??

Uh...actually, I consider Stan a very very good offensive player. Not quite as great as Vaughan but still very good. The limiting factor is Hack's position and the fact that he was not a great fielder.

[538280]

OPS=OBP+SLG

So how are you not agreeing with me here?

I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??

Potato, you're not making any sense. Stan Hack wasn't near the offensive player Vaughan was. Don't have to look past the OPS+, or even the raw OPS, to see that. Vaughan had a 136 OPS+, Hack was at 119. Hack wasn't too far behind in OBP, but he wasn't a slugger at all, while Vaughan did have good power. Arky was 16% better than league in SLG, Hack was 3% better. That's the difference in offense.

And if you walk to talk about league leads or top 10s, it's still not that close. Vaughan scored 29 on the Black Ink Test, and has 156 Gray Ink. Both are truly outstanding totals for a shortstop. Hack scored 11 on Black Ink, 125 on Gray Ink. He wasn't near the hitter. He was a very good offensive player though, but Vaughan was significantly better.

Going by your definition, Hack was actually an extremely imbalanced offensive player. His SLG is only three points higher than his OBP. At least Arky's is 47 points higher.

[Appling]

We then have Luke Appling. Which is a tough one. Good batting average, good OBP not much power, good with the glove and played forever. In terms of offense it is hard to find decline years for Luke. For instance at the age of 41 and 42 Luke in 1000 PA better his career average in batting average and OBP. So Luke playing in a superior league was gave you roughly the same defense as Arky maybe a little less but gave you just as good offense as Arky. I think one would have to put Luke Appling in front Arky, because of league and time spent on the ballfield.

Luke should get special credit for his great hitting when he batted in a lineup with no other good hitters: No high average hitters, and certainly no POWER hitters, in that Chicago batting order.

Seeing Luke bat was the only reason some of us went to White Sox games.
"Come-onnnn, Luke!"

[Ubiquitous]

Bill James in his initial Abstract in 1988 had Luke Appling as the 10th highest peak in SS history and 2nd best career. It would looking at the list make him around 5th or so best SS of all time for Bill James. Then over a decade later he ranks them again. Now then some of the players that were playing 1988 had a full career so I can naturally understand that some would move ahead of Luke. Players like Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, Trammell, and Barry Larkin. But in the new rankings he moves players that were not playing in that decade ahead of Luke and he does so not because his Win shares tells him so but because of the subjective element.

For instance Pee Wee Reese is ranked ahead of Luke yet he trails Luke in all the categories that Bill usese to setup the ranking system. Career WS, Top 3, Top 5, and per 162. Pee Wee gets a 1.1 point boost for being born 11 years later but that is it. Alan Trammell doesn't do as well in every category either yet he ranks ahead of Appling. Ozzie Smith as well and even Ernie Banks doesn't do well against Luke yet Luke slips all the way down to 11th. While Arky moves to second.

[Imapotato]

This is extreme and a strawman argument. You picking a scenario in which everything is in your favor and then forcing those who do not agree with you to try and defend the opposite of your view on this one scenario. The problem is your scenario is an extreme it is not a scenario that happens with great regularity. It is not the average scenario yet you make it the battleground, it's a bunch of what-ifs.

Yes Arky in his day was a great offensive player, was he an all-time great in the top 5 or inner circle great? No, but he was still a great offensive player. If all I had was Arky's stat line and no defensive position I would still want him on my team, granted he wouldn't in my top ten but if we had a fantasy draft he would be on my draft board.


Isn't that what everyone does...put the arguement into the context of their favor?

You have never done so on these boards? Others have not used their stat du jour to say so and so...is better, worse then advertised

I am giving an example on how a player like Arky Vaughn might be a disadvantage rather then an advantage...but Moneyball and OBP is really the new testement in player evaluation nowadays so people disagree...I say too many walks with not alot of power is not a good thing..ted Williams is GREAT because he walked alot and hit HRS, Ruth same thing, Cobb got on base and stole...Arky just got on base, mostly 1st or 2nd....that relies on others alot more then the 3 I mentioned

I am stating my opinion on what a GREAT offensive player, regardless of position should be...

a guy that can get on base, can slug them in, can hit for high average, total bases, and have great defense

Arky was great on getting on base...his slugging is expanded by a career year in 1935 and Stan Hack for example is marred by a horrible 1944 in which he played 90 somethign games

Now Arky is great in someones opinion because in his career he did what he did as a SS

Hack is ok, because he did what he did as a 3rd baseman

I don't share that assesment

Now, I am not saying Hack is great or Vaughn is slightly above average

But I think they are closer then just looking at career numbers

and I think just because Vaughn is a SS, does not make him a GREAT offensive player

Is he top 5 in SS, yes

But is he top 50 overall, no I don't believe so

and 53280

AGAIN...I am reiterating This is as a PLAYER, not a SS...I don't care if he is a C or LF...so what? Positions change and it should not make someone great or avaergae because of the position he played

You just wanna thorw out WARP or black ink, or whatever stat you want...yet have not read the point that is most relevant...was he a great offensive PLAYER...was one astronomical year the difference between greatness and above average?

Is OBP so important to your analysis that nothing else matters?

[Imapotato]

Uh...actually, I consider Stan a very very good offensive player. Not quite as great as Vaughan but still very good. The limiting factor is Hack's position and the fact that he was not a great fielder.


Again, I hate the fact that nowadays its what positon one plays

HR Baker and Jimmy Collins go to great players to above avaerage just because Mike Schmidt revolutionizes the 3rd base evaluation

No one else sees something wrong with that?

and I don't think highly of Stan Hack like you do...but just for giggles, swap Arky's 1935 for Stan's 1944

Wow, don't they just because polar opposites in who is better

that is what I hate about over using purely stat analysis...one season for good or bad can skew a players value

[538280]

HR Baker and Jimmy Collins go to great players to above avaerage just because Mike Schmidt revolutionizes the 3rd base evaluation

No one else sees something wrong with that?


Potato, there have been numerous statistical studies that have came out in the last few years documenting that early 3B like Baker and Collins should not be compared straight up offensively to modern 3B like Schmidt. It has been statistically proven that 3B was more of a defese oriented positoin until about 1940.

It has been those statistical studies that have radically changed my rankings of many players, particularly Collins and Heinie Groh. Before I looked at them against guys like Schmidt and Mathews and figured they weren't that great offensively, now I realize that they were playing a defensive position that compares more with second base today.

[Imapotato]

Potato, there have been numerous statistical studies that have came out in the last few years documenting that early 3B like Baker and Collins should not be compared straight up offensively to modern 3B like Schmidt. It has been statistically proven that 3B was more of a defese oriented positoin until about 1940.

It has been those statistical studies that have radically changed my rankings of many players, particularly Collins and Heinie Groh. Before I looked at them against guys like Schmidt and Mathews and figured they weren't that great offensively, now I realize that they were playing a defensive position that compares more with second base today.


So what you ar saying is that your whole outlook on baseball depends on what someone else writes at the time?

So if someone came out and said Reggie Jackson should not be in the HOF fo so and so reasons and it looks good and adds up...your whole outlook would change on your avatar?

No wonder you and I disagree all the time...sometimes you have to take those experts with a grain of salt

I have been eating eggs for 30 years, during that time they have said eggs are bad then good, then bad, now good again

All the time I have eaten my eggs...

[538280]

So what you ar saying is that your whole outlook on baseball depends on what someone else writes at the time?

So if someone came out and said Reggie Jackson should not be in the HOF fo so and so reasons and it looks good and adds up...your whole outlook would change on your avatar?

No wonder you and I disagree all the time...sometimes you have to take those experts with a grain of salt

I have been eating eggs for 30 years, during that time they have said eggs are bad then good, then bad, now good again

All the time I have eaten my eggs...

Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.

If someone tried to prove that Reggie Jackson isn't a HOFer, then they wouldn't be able to prove it, they would just be able to present evidence. The evidence would probably be heavily based on the fact that he struck out a real lot and his BA was bad. I would reply with the same things I always say, that strikeouts really aren't much worse than regular outs and that Reggie was actually a good contact hitter before his decline phase.

[DoubleX]

So many of these threads are starting to overlap, I can't keep track of what discussion is going on. I originally opened this to make a reply about Heinie Groh, then realized this was the Arky Vaughan thread, but only after I thought it might be the Chipper Jones thread. Well at least I didn't it confuse it for one of four Jeter/Larkin threads. :)

Seriously, throw the Jeff Kent thread into the mix as well, and I feel like we're having nearly identical discussions in like a half dozen threads. :crazy :)

[Imapotato]

Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.

If someone tried to prove that Reggie Jackson isn't a HOFer, then they wouldn't be able to prove it, they would just be able to present evidence. The evidence would probably be heavily based on the fact that he struck out a real lot and his BA was bad. I would reply with the same things I always say, that strikeouts really aren't much worse than regular outs and that Reggie was actually a good contact hitter before his decline phase.

Statistical studies?

I have know that fact since 1980...all you have to do is know the type of baseball that was played back then, the bunts, the hit and runs...the double steals and could get that assesment from common sense

Much less the overall opinion that early baseball documents...i.e. The Sporting News and Al spauldin's Baseball guide, told you what a 3rd baseman should have in reagrds to tools

and like I stated...if someone had a 'proven' system to prove Strikeouts were worse then regular outs...you'd flip flop on your perception of Reggie Jackson

[Ubiquitous]

Isn't that what everyone does...put the arguement into the context of their favor?

You have never done so on these boards? Others have not used their stat du jour to say so and so...is better, worse then advertised



Uh no because you are purposefully slanting the evidence your way even when the evidence doesn't point your way. You explain away Arky's high batting average but saying it was caused by the walks. That isn't putting anything in any kind of real context. That is simply manipulating the data and coming up with a false conclusion.

So Arky wasn't Ted Williams with the bat, so what? Only Ted Williams was Ted Williams with the bat. Arky hit doubles and triples, took a walk, did not strike out, and had a high batting average. That is what you want in a great hitter. So he isn't a top 5 hitter of all time, again so what? Not everybody can be top 5.

[Appling]

Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.


I agree. Even as late as 1945-1950 era Floyd Baker held a job as the starting third-baseman for the White Sox with a .251 lifetime batting average and no power. (.297 career slugging average!) Floyd ("Home Run") Baker was able to stay in the major leagues for 13 years -- without a bat!