Greatness vs Value

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok, so what's the difference between "greatness" and "value" in terms of comparing baseball players? I have my own thoughts but I will post my thoughts a little bit later.

[LouGehrig]

Alex is greatness. Jeter is value.

Bonds is greatness. Mays is value.

Vaughn is greatness. Tino Martinez is value.

Piazza is greatness. Elston Howard is value.

[candy curveball cummings]

Alex is greatness. Jeter is value.

Bonds is greatness. Mays is value.

Vaughn is greatness. Tino Martinez is value.

Piazza is greatness. Elston Howard is value.

That sums up my thoughts.

[oscargamblesfro]

For me value lasts and greatness doesn't necessarily last- and can even be faulty- for instance in his time hal chase was regarded as a great player. he wasn't, and setting aside the fact that he was corrupt ,most modern people realize that he wasn't nearly as good as people back then thought he was, though around 1910 he was considered to be great. you can say he wasn't great and you'd be correct, but you can't say that he wasn't considered to be great. there are many examples of people being thought of as great when they weren't, or underappreciated when they were actually excellent. greatness or the perception of greatness can change, it isn't static-and can be subjective while value is true and stands the test of time. at least thats how i interpret it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Alex is greatness. Jeter is value.

Bonds is greatness. Mays is value.

Vaughn is greatness. Tino Martinez is value.

Piazza is greatness. Elston Howard is value.
This is vague. Can you explain it in more detail. How do you define greatness and value?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That sums up my thoughts.
It does? What does it mean?

[northside]

greatness or the perception of greatness can change, it isn't static-and can be subjective while value is true and stands the test of time. at least thats how i interpret it.

Value can change as well. If you bought something for $20.00 and thought you made a value purchase only to find out I paid $15.00 for the same thing, you didn't get such a value.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Value can change as well. If you bought something for $20.00 and thought you made a value purchase only to find out I paid $15.00 for the same thing, you didn't get such a value.
Ummm...ok? :o What does this have to do with a baseball player's "value"?

[candy curveball cummings]

It does? What does it mean?

It means that Alex Rodriguez is great. His numbers rank him among the greatest of all-time. But Derek Jeter is value. How many times as Derek Jeter elevate his game at the most important moments? His regular-season highlight reel would show a good but not great player. His post-season highlight reel would show the greatest shortstop of all-time. If you had to choose between ARod and Jeter for Game 7 of the World Series, who would you chose? If you had to choose one of those guys for a game played in May, who would you choose? This, to me, is the difference of Greatness and Value.

[northside]

Ummm...ok? :o What does this have to do with a baseball player's "value"?

It has everything to do with his value. Value is just as much a perspective as greatness. That's why people vote for the MVP. It's not a clear cut obvious answer. Everyone's take on "value" is different.

[Ubiquitous]

So Alex isn't good in the playoffs too? He had a bad series last year against the Angels, you don't think Jeter never had a bad series in the playoffs before?

Jeter has had 23 post season series so far, and 6 of them at the very least are absolutely terrible performances. Over a quarter of all his series he has been downright terrible. Yet he gets a free pass not only that but he gets looked upon as a god for his performance.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It means that Alex Rodriguez is great. His numbers rank him among the greatest of all-time. But Derek Jeter is value. How many times as Derek Jeter elevate his game at the most important moments? His regular-season highlight reel would show a good but not great player. His post-season highlight reel would show the greatest shortstop of all-time. If you had to choose between ARod and Jeter for Game 7 of the World Series, who would you chose? If you had to choose one of those guys for a game played in May, who would you choose? This, to me, is the difference of Greatness and Value.
Have you actually looked at Jeter's entire career performance in the post season? He's actually slightly worse in the postseason than in the regular season:

regular season: .317/.388/.463
post season: .307/.379/.463

He's had some really good postseason series and some really crappy postseason series. Of cousre he's had the Fox TV hype for years.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So Alex isn't good in the playoffs too? He had a bad series last year against the Angels, you don't think Jeter never had a bad series in the playoffs before?

Jeter has had 23 post season series so far, and 6 of them at the very least are absolutely terrible performances. Over a quarter of all his series he has been downright terrible. Yet he gets a free pass not only that but he gets looked upon as a god for his performance.
I checked out A-Rod's career postseason perfomance as well.

DJeter: .307/.379/.463
A-Rod: .305/.393/.535

Hmmm...:o

[candy curveball cummings]

I checked out A-Rod's career postseason perfomance as well.

DJeter: .307/.379/.463
A-Rod: .305/.393/.535

Hmmm...:o


I agree totally. I'm not talking about his post-season totals. I'm talking about moments in the post-season, and also in high-pressure regular-season games as well. He steps up his defense, and when the team needs a hit, he gives it to them. They call the guy Mr. November for a reason.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

So how is greatness and value linked?

[Ubiquitous]

They call the guy Mr. November for a reason.

Yes because of one homer against Kim in a series in which Jeter batted .148, and in that game Jeter went 0-4 without even getting the ball out of the infield through 9 innings. "Mr. November" was one of the reasons the Yankees lost that series.

[Sockeye]

I would say that true "greatness" is the ability to put up huge numbers game after game season after season as well as the ability to raise your level of play when it counts the most. Alex Rodriguez or Barry Bonds is the perfect example of true "Greatness"

Value is the players that do all the small things to win the game. Fundamentals! Their numbers aren't anything special but it's the things they do that don't show up in the box score that often times is what wins the games. David Eckstein or Omar Vizquel are examples of real "value"

[candy curveball cummings]

Yes because of one homer against Kim in a series in which Jeter batted .148, and in that game Jeter went 0-4 without even getting the ball out of the infield through 9 innings. "Mr. November" was one of the reasons the Yankees lost that series.

Okay, you got me there. But go season-by-season on this with me:

1996-
Regular Season: .314/.370/.430
Post-Season: .361/.409/..459

Stepped Up

1997
Regular Season: .291/370/405
Post Season: .333/.417/.667

Stepped Up

1998
Regular Season: .324/.384/.481
Post-Season: .236/.328/.294

Stepped Down

1999
Regular Season: .349/.438/.552
Post-Season: .375/.434/.521

Pretty Even

2000
Regular Season: .339/.416/.481
Post-Season: .317/.427/.508

The difference in OBP and SLG is enough for this to be Stepped Up


2001
Regular Season: .311/.377/.480
Post-Season: .226/.284/.290

Stepped Down

2002
Regular Season: .297/.373/.421
Post-Season: .500/.526/.875

Stepped Up

2003
Regular Season: .323/.393/.450
Post-Season: .314/..385/.472

Even


2004
Regular Season: .292/.352/.471
Post-Season: .245/.339/.388

Stepped Down


2005
Regular Season: .309/.389/.450
Post-Season: .333/.364/.619

Stepped Up

5 times he stepped up, 3 times he stepped down, 2 times he broke even.

I haven't calculated A Rod yet, but I'm sure he stepped down in 1995, 1997, and 2005. I know he stepped down in the ALDS of 2000 and the ALCS of 2004, Although I don't know how the other series he played that year factor in. Best-case scenario for A Rod is 2 Stepped Up, 3 Stepped Down. I think I'll take Jeter here, and that's only on offense, ignoring Jeter's glove in the post-season.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

It has everything to do with his value. Value is just as much a perspective as greatness. That's why people vote for the MVP. It's not a clear cut obvious answer. Everyone's take on "value" is different.
Ok, but I was referring to this post:



Value can change as well. If you bought something for $20.00 and thought you made a value purchase only to find out I paid $15.00 for the same thing, you didn't get such a value.
I'm not sure what this has to do with baseball value? Can you elaborate?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Value is the players that do all the small things to win the game. Fundamentals! Their numbers aren't anything special but it's the things they do that don't show up in the box score that often times is what wins the games. David Eckstein or Omar Vizquel are examples of real "value"
These "things" that don't show up in the boxscore, can they be measured?

[EvanAparra]

HWR - My Greatness vs. Value

Player A - .277/.393/.463 19 HR
Player B - .331/.395/.465 28 HR

Most people would look at Player B and say he's one of the "greatest" hitters in the league, but how high is his value? Is it much better than A? Not IMO.

Player A is greatness, player B is value

[Wade8813]

I think often greatness is just a level of value. "Is this player valuable to his team?" "Of course. He's one of the greats!" as opposed to "Sure, he's pretty good."

Someone who's achieved greatness also does the small things, the intanglibles, etc.


I think another definition of value might have to do with how much the player produces compared to how much they're paid; somewhat along the lines of what northside said.

[northside]

Ok, but I was referring to this post:


I'm not sure what this has to do with baseball value? Can you elaborate?

Substitute a similar player where I stated you "bought something". If you payed 20 mil and I payed 15 mil, who got the better value? The reason I wrote this is that many Cub fans want to sign Juan Pierre to a 3 year/24 million dollar contract, when similar players can be had for a lot less.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Substitute a similar player where I stated you "bought something". If you payed 20 mil and I payed 15 mil, who got the better value? The reason I wrote this is that many Cub fans want to sign Juan Pierre to a 3 year/24 million dollar contract, when similar players can be had for a lot less.
Ok, you are talking abbut salary based on performance. I was more referring to value based on how much a player contibutes to his team winning games through his offense and defense.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

HWR - My Greatness vs. Value

Player A - .277/.393/.463 19 HR
Player B - .331/.395/.465 28 HR

Most people would look at Player B and say he's one of the "greatest" hitters in the league, but how high is his value? Is it much better than A? Not IMO.

Player A is greatness, player B is value
His value would be how much this player contributes to his team in winning games.

[EvanAparra]

Right, but one guy would be looked upon as a MVP candidate and the other would be a nobody. Even though they contribute very equally.

One looked upon as Great, and the other is just Value.

[Ubiquitous]

ARod has been in 6 post season series over 4 seasons so far. DJ has been 23 post season series over 10 years.

What did Derek Jeter do in his first 6 series? Well he had 3 really good series, 2 really bad series, and one series where his walks made him an ok player.

ARod has had one bad series where all he did was hit 4 singles, one series which was similar to DJ's ok season though slightly less ok. I would call it a bad series. After that he has had 2 great series and two really good series.

At worst they are even through the same amount of series.

ARod through 6 series has 4 good to great series, 1 bad series, and one really bad series.

Jeter has had 6 really bad series, 2 bad series, and 15 really good to great series. That is a nice track record that overall gives him a .309/.379/.463 stat line. Which goes to show you just how bad Jeter was in those 6 series if his stat line is that low despite having 15 really good to great series on his stat line.

ARod's stat line is .305/.393/.534.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Right, but one guy would be looked upon as a MVP candidate and the other would be a nobody. Even though they contribute very equally.

One looked upon as Great, and the other is just Value.
How do you know they contrubted equally? There are methods of determining how many runs a player creates. I doubt player A and player B are equal in this regard. But I would need to know more information before I can be more sure.

[northside]

Ok, you are talking abbut salary based on performance. I was more referring to value based on how much a player contibutes to his team winning games through his offense and defense.

Ok. I see where you're coming from.

[EvanAparra]

So then it all comes down to runs created? Thats the be all and end all of determining it?

[mwiggins]

His value would be how much this player contributes to his team in winning games.

That's my definition of greatness. Value includes factors outside what a player contributes to his team winning games. Such as positional replacement value - i.e. ruth is greater, wagner is more valuable because he's a shortstop and the average shortstop hits a lot less than the average corner outfielder. Ruth is the greater player, because he contributes more to his team winning games, but as a GM you'd rather have Wagner. So in effect, Wagner was has more VALUE to his team, but that value doesn't from his greatness (what he himself contributes), it comes from an outside factor. In this case, the scarcity of good hitting shortshops.

'Value' could also arise from the quality of your teammates. Put Pujols on the Mets and he's less valuable, because they have a lot more other offensive weapons than the Cards do.

And on some teams, value would arrise from a players salary. It doesn't matter to the Yankees what ARod or Jeter is making, becasue they can afford it. But on the Pirates, Joe Mauer and his $400k salary is going to be more valuable than Pujols and his $14million dollar price tag, because Mauer's salary allows them to put a better team on the field around him.

But really, 'greatness' and 'value' are such vague terms, and are often used interchangeably, that most everybody is going to have a different definition.

[candy curveball cummings]

ARod has been in 6 post season series over 4 seasons so far. DJ has been 23 post season series over 10 years.

What did Derek Jeter do in his first 6 series? Well he had 3 really good series, 2 really bad series, and one series where his walks made him an ok player.

How about we wait until after this post-season? So far, it seems to be favoring Jeter quite a bit.
His post-season stat line was raised to .315/.385/.480 after yesterday. A Rod's 1/4 hurt his line. But, I like said, let's see what happens. Maybe A Rod can rectify his funk.

[leecemark]

--Value is something players accumulate over time. Greatness is a state achieved by some players for parts of their careers. Some players accumulate alot of value by simply being in the lineup everyday and being a solid player. If they extend that over a long career a dependable good player may end up being much more valuable than one who was much greater at their best.
--Some players might have have one shining season that is their claim to greatness, with little value added over the course of their career. Others might have a great peak, but a career cut short by injuries, lack of dedication or what have you. A few players (the top level Hall of Famers) had a long period of greatness, although nobody has ever really been great from day 1 to the time they hung up their spikes.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's my definition of greatness. Value includes factors outside what a player contributes to his team winning games. Such as positional replacement value - i.e. ruth is greater, wagner is more valuable because he's a shortstop and the average shortstop hits a lot less than the average corner outfielder. Ruth is the greater player, because he contributes more to his team winning games, but as a GM you'd rather have Wagner. So in effect, Wagner was has more VALUE to his team, but that value doesn't from his greatness (what he himself contributes), it comes from an outside factor. In this case, the scarcity of good hitting shortshops.
But Wagner doesn't contribute more to winning ballgames than Ruth so how can he have more "value"? :noidea



'Value' could also arise from the quality of your teammates. Put Pujols on the Mets and he's less valuable, because they have a lot more other offensive weapons than the Cards do.
I'm not sure I agree with this. A player contributes a certain "value" to his team by his offense and defense. He "creates" runs for his team on offense and he "reduces" runs for the other team by his defense. So if X is runs creted on offense and Y is runs "taken away" on defense then a player will contribute X+Y runs to his team, which directly contributes to the number of wins his team gets. If Pujols contributes X+Y runs to his team the value of X+Y does not go down because he has better teammates. His value is independent of the value of his other teammates. If you place a team of little leaguers plus Albert Pujols in the majors he would still contribute X+Y value to his team. Now, they wouldn't win at all because his teammates would contribute next to nothing in value.

[mwiggins]

But Wagner doesn't contribute more to winning ballgames than Ruth so how can he have more "value"? :noidea




HE doesn't generate more value himself, that's what I would call greatness, but the team would win more by having Wagner.

We'll change it to Cobb, instead of Ruth, since Ruth is probably too good for this example.

Say Cobb generates 12 runs/game, while Wagner generates 11 runs/game.
Let's also say the average CF generates 6 runs/game, while the average SS generates 4 runs/game.

If you had Wagner on your team, on average him plus your CF would generate 17 runs per game. If you had Cobb, on average him plus your SS would generate 16 runs per game.

That's the theory behind value over replacement stats. In this case, I'd rank Cobb higher because he was greater, but if I was starting a team, I'd rather have Wagner because of how much better he is than the average SS, than Cobb is than the average CF.

[mwiggins]

I'm not sure I agree with this. A player contributes a certain "value" to his team by his offense and defense. He "creates" runs for his team on offense and he "reduces" runs for the other team by his defense. So if X is runs creted on offense and Y is runs "taken away" on defense then a player will contribute X+Y runs to his team, which directly contributes to the number of wins his team gets. If Pujols contributes X+Y runs to his team the value of X+Y does not go down because he has better teammates. His value is independent of the value of his other teammates. If you place a team of little leaguers plus Albert Pujols in the majors he would still contribute X+Y value to his team. Now, they wouldn't win at all because his teammates would contribute next to nothing in value.

This is a common measurement used in the MVP voting, which tries to judge how valuable a player is, not how great he is. The idea is that if you take Pujols off the Cards, they don't make the playoff's. If you add Pujols to the Mets, they still have the best record in the league, and they still score a ton of runs. Go over to the Ryan Howard for MVP thread and you'll see a lot of debate over who's lineup is worst, the cards or the phillies.

And most likely Pujols would generate more wins on a bad hitting team than a good hitting team, because a good hitting team's average margin of victory will be more than a bad team's. That theory may not be correct, but it seems to make sense.

It's also been used with Jeter...that Jeter's season this year was more valuable because so many of their other hitters were injured.

[538280]

To me it is wrong to focus on anything but value. Greatness is a subjective term. Most of the people I see incorporating "greatness" into their lists and such seem to try to put in some component of excitement. I disagree with this completely. Number one, players do what they can to help their team win games. It really doesn't matter how good they LOOK, just how much they're actually contributing. Number two, I see many of these players singling out high walk and K power hitters as the "boring" types. But what really is boring? Someone could easily say they don't find players like Ichiro who slap singles all that exciting. They prefer those players who bring power and intimidation into the game. I know a few people like that. So to them what is exciting? To them those players considered very boring by others are actually the most exciting type. I think factoring in some sort of "excitement" factor, which I've seen done here before, is basically little more than applying subjective preferences.

[Bill Burgess]

I think MWiggins is making the most sense here. I think one controls their greatness by how well they play. But value goes beyond what one can control.

If one hits great, runs great, fields great, then they are great, beyond dispute. But even with all that greatness, it's possible that someone who is less great might offer more value to a GM building a team.

If I were not such a staunch partisan Cobb supporter, I'd most certainly start my team with Wagner. I'm almost certain of this. Wagner was most assuredly less great in all measurable ways. Yet . . . due to his more valuable position, he offered his team something that Cobb could not.

A GM could, in theory replace Cobb with other great CFs, while it would be much harder to get that same value to replace Wagner's contributions.

Here's another angle. Let's say you take Ruth/A-Rod out of the Big Apple and its huge stable/floating fan bases, and transfer them to Cincinnati, with a much smaller market of fans, smaller ballpark to accommodate those fans, and a vastly shrunken media structure to put on the grand old ballyhoo. With so fewer sports writers to create the media buzz, it's harder to turn out the fans. Also, if your ballpark is deteriorating, if your cast of team mates is not attractive, if your team lacks other attractive players to compliment the Big Star, then you Big Star Attraction suddenly loses a large part of their value, through no fault of their own. Good teams which do their part, allows a superstar to tip the balance and win pennants. Bad teams - no pennants. No pennants - less chance to showcase your skills to the universe, less fame, less money, less everything good.

Their greatness may remain constant, but their value plummets, due to factors far beyond their control. One's value is in large part determined by one's surroundings. One's environment. A superstar is quite like a diamond. It requires to be presented in an attractive setting to shine to its full luster. It needs to be supported by an appropriate cast of others, in order for the superstar to be able to bring his full greatness to account and lead his team to the top.

Put that great superstar in a small market, with a ballpark still set in a crumbling inner city infrastructure, with bad transportation, a small, cramped, uncomfortable seating arrangement, or wrong pricing structure, or lousy parking, terrible concessions, dirty bathroom facilities, and who the hell will suffer these indignities to see the Big Cheese?

See how one's value depends on how one is presented. It is easier today to maximize one's value. Most ballparks are now located in comfortable suburban areas, easy to access, with nice facilities.

In the early days, many ballparks were like glorified HS grounds. Wooden stands, many of which burned down regularly. The modern, steel/concrete stadiums were built from 1909-13. Made it much easier to present superstars properly.

I've rambled here, but I hope I've shown some relevant points.

Here is the best article I've ever read on the relative value of a player.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=299547&postcount=144

[538280]

Bill. honestly, how much to do know about advanced baseball statistics? THAT is mostly what people mean when they talk value, and of course these things are not effected at all by the performance of the team around the player and are completely adjusted for the environment he plays in.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bill I think you got it it reversed. Greatness is affected by perception, not value. If a great player like Ruth played for a cellar dwelling team in a small market the perception of his greatness would be diminshed but his value wouldn't change. He would still be generating tons of runs for his team through his offensive contributions and taking away runs for the other team with his defensive contributions.

[mwiggins]

Bill I think you got it it reversed. Greatness is affected by perception, not value. If a great player like Ruth played for a cellar dwelling team in a small market the perception of his greatness would be diminshed but his value wouldn't change. He would still be generating tons of runs for his team through his offensive contributions and taking away runs for the other team with his defensive contributions.

Neither greatness or value SHOULD be affected by perception. Sounds like Bill is confusing greatness with FAME a bit, though.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Put that great superstar in a small market, with a ballpark still set in a crumbling inner city infrastructure, with bad transportation, a small, cramped, uncomfortable seating arrangement, or wrong pricing structure, or lousy parking, terrible concessions, dirty bathroom facilities, and who the hell will suffer these indignities to see the Big Cheese?


Who would show up? Anyone and everyone. Didn't matter how crappy the ho-dunk town, what time of year, what the shape of the ballpark was like, who he was playing with or against...they showed up in droves.

I think you give the NY media too much credit. They needed to have the material/events with which to work. The Boston media got the same type of material and events before '20 and he was being hailed as a greater attraction than Cobb, the biggest star in the game, the greatest slugger ever, you name it.

If he played in Cincinnati after Boston, and carried with him the same colorful personality on and off the field; along with his pretty decent accomplishments... He'd probably still have a writer in the off-season assigned to him and would still be doing endorsements. Perhaps we wouldn't be viewing Cincinnati the way we're viewing Cincinnati right now. Crosley sure would have underwent some seating upgrades and right-field fence adjustments. Would be a different legend for him, but a legend nonetheless. A butterfly effect, if you will. Might be easy to dismiss that notion, but how can one under-estimate his impact on society and baseball by giving all, or even the majority of the credit to the city he played in. Cincy's park would be packed, I'd bet the farm on it. Every road park was when he went on the road.

To me, greatness has to do with the actual skills of a player, but that's not good enough. A player needs to perform with those skills and sustain a level of unquestioned excellence. Some do it longer than others.

Value seems like something people use to excuse lack of greatness, or its used to make someone appear great when they're really not. Adam Dunn is not a great hitter at all, but people like to play Stallone and hold on to the OBP cliff to excuse him. Sure, he can't really run or field, has an average arm, can't hit for average and strikes out 175+ times a year...BUT he hits HR's in the most HR friendly era EVER and walks 100+ times in the most walk friendly era ever as it relates to the miniscule strike zone. Big whoop. People detract from Ichiro's greatness as a ballplayer and point to him not walking enough. He's so much more valuable to me than Dunn or many others as ballplayers it ain't even funny. Tired of the OBP bs value excuse.

[Bill Burgess]

Hmm. Seems like no one likes my comparison between greatness/value. Seems so clear to me.

Greatness is what one does on the field. Remains constant. No matter what city we put them in. Ballparks can alter one's greatness, however. When Duke Snider moved from Ebbets Field in Brooklyn to LA, his HR production fell off the table. Went from steady 40 HR/per, to ragged power, due to the far away RF fences. Took his bat away. But his ability remained constant.

The point I was trying to articulate was that the diamond shines best when set in the best setting. Put a diamond in a glass setting, and it loses it potential value. See the point?

The article I provided the link for did address Babe Ruth, but I was trying to make a larger point. My point was true regardless if it were Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, W. Johnson, Bonds, etc.

Let me try a different angle, if the other one doesn't work for you guys. Let's say that Barry Bonds had been a Yankee from his first day to now. He would have been able to pull in a huge amount more of fans, and the NYC media machine would have went bonkers to kick into hyper-drive gear.

PacBell Park has sold out for the last few years, in part because of Bonds, and in part because the fans dig the new cool digs. But . . . had Bonds had been unleashed in Yankeeville, he would have played before a much larger audience, on a larger world stage. If Cobb, W. Johnson, Wagner, had been Yankees, their legends would have been blown up multiple layers yet.

Randy: At the risk of incurring your wrath, I think you're objecting to an obvious truism. If you think people wanted to see Ruth in a barn-storming setting just as much as see him challenge pro teams in a comfortable stadium, in regularly-scheduled league games against the best league pitching, you have set yourself a tough task to convince me.

People like to see athletic performances under controlled conditions, against the best talent available. Ruth could help his teams reach 1m fans when he was presented in organized, scheduled league games.

Not even Babe could keep that up in barnstorming. If 70,000 people wanted to see him in a barnstorming game, where would they put all of them? On the surrounding hills? Without bathrooms, concessions, parking, etc.

I also think you under-estimate the power of NYC to put on spectacle events. OK, so here's yet another analogy, guys. In 1966, the Beatles decided to stop touring, but first made one last tour of the US. They played in baseball stadiums. The only place to hold all their fans. It was a perfect venue to host such a spectacle event. Just like baseball games.

Do you really think the Beatles could have drawn that kind of fan base if they were playing in cow pastures, or outdoor festivals like Woodstock? To draw the maximum amount of fans, an event needs to be hosted in the best, right venues. Like a ballpark, or Madison Square Garden. No other team could host a superstar like the NY teams could. The Giants could have, because the Polo Grounds had a huge seating capacity, but was probably not as comfortable as Yankee Stadium. Leave NYC, and you lose a massive amount of publicity and its attendant value.

Mays found that out when he left NY, and A-Rod found that out when he went to NY. That is what attracted Clemens and R. Johnson. I think you're fighting an uphill battle because you're holding a losing hand. And also, you are limiting the discussion to only 1 player, while I'm painting my masterpiece on a broader canvass.

[Bill Burgess]

By the way, I'm not arguing that Ruth wasn't the most powerful drawing card ever. Just saying there are better/worse ways to market the best stuff. If you're smart, one tries to market the best stuff in the best ways, not challenge people to like the best stuff irregardless of how you sell it.

The best stuff, even superstar athletes, should be marketed at the ideally set prices, in the most accessable venues, at the best possible times, etc. Why fight good marketing? Why present the right product the wrong way? Wouldn't sell as many units or product that way. See the idea?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Here's my take.

The job of a ballplayer is to help his team win ball games. He can contribute to winning ball games in two ways:

1) Contribute runs to his team (offense)
2) Take away scoring opportunities for the other team (defense)

We can now pretty accurately determine how many runs an offensive player contibutes and are getting more accurate in determining how many runs were saved on defense. This pretty much sums up value, how much does a player contribute to wins.

The measure of success and failure in a game is the base and the out. Every base a hitter creates (via hit, walk, HBP) takes the team on step closer to scoring a run. Every out a hitter makes takes the team one step closer to the end of the inning.

The goal of an offensive player is NOT, I repeat NOT to hit .400, get 257 hits, hit 60 HRs, steal 96 bases, hit 67 doubles. These events are not the end but the means to an end. The end being scoring runs. Every player has certain skills that allows them to do things to create runs.

Now, some players have a great skill in batting for high average and at the same time have little skill in drawing walks. Others have lessor skills in batting average but a higher skill in drawing walks. These two type of hitters are flawed hitters in my view. The true legendary hitters in history all had the ability to hit for a high batting average AND draw walks. I really don't care for hitters that hit .335 and have a .375 OBP. Talk a walk once in a while will you? On the other hand .250 hitters that draw 125 walks are just as flawed just in the opposite way.

I really don't get this morbid fascination with high batting averages and low walk totals. George Sisler is the poster boy for this. The man really was not a great offensive player, he was a good offensive player that could put the wood on the ball. But that skill does have value. Given that he hit over .400 in his best years his OBP was well above average. But because he didn't draw any walks he was an inefficient hitter. He had eye-poping stats but he used up a lot of outs to produce those stats. And some people refuse to admit that his stats were inflated by his era. Some even rank him as the #2 first basemen of all time. That assertion doesn't withstand careful examination of the record. There are many first basemen I would take before I would chose Sisler.


Today Ichiro is lightenly rod for heated debates. The man can flat out hit. But he has chosen to sacifice some value to get as many hits as he can. He really is not an elite offensive player. He has no power and he doesn't draw hardly any walks. An in today's game it impossible to be an elite hitter without any power. But that's ok because he is a great player in the sense that he brings excitement to the game, plays good defense, and runs the bases well. Greatness is pretty much the perception of a player. Sometimes percetion and value match up and sometimes they don't. It's when they don't match up that we have the great debates.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Alex is greatness. Jeter is value.

Bonds is greatness. Mays is value.

Vaughn is greatness. Tino Martinez is value.

Piazza is greatness. Elston Howard is value.


Well lets not get started on A-Rod just yet...also Willie Mays hit .247 in the post season...Bonds hit .245, so lets not get ahead of ourselves there.

Value is what a player means to his team
Greatness is how good a player is

[ChrisLDuncan]

Here's my take.

The job of a ballplayer is to help his team win ball games. He can contribute to winning ball games in two ways:

1) Contribute runs to his team (offense)

2) Take away scoring opportunities for the other team (defense)Today Ichiro is lightenly rod for heated debates. The man can flat out hit. But he has chosen to sacifice some value to get as many hits as he can. He really is not an elite offensive player. He has no power and he doesn't draw hardly any walks. An in today's game it impossible to be an elite hitter without any power. But that's ok because he is a great player in the sense that he brings excitement to the game, plays good defense, and runs the bases well. Greatness is pretty much the perception of a player. Sometimes percetion and value match up and sometimes they don't. It's when they don't match up that we have the great debates.

So by your definition, where do you put Jeter????

[ChrisLDuncan]

It means that Alex Rodriguez is great. His numbers rank him among the greatest of all-time. But Derek Jeter is value. How many times as Derek Jeter elevate his game at the most important moments? His regular-season highlight reel would show a good but not great player. His post-season highlight reel would show the greatest shortstop of all-time. If you had to choose between ARod and Jeter for Game 7 of the World Series, who would you chose? If you had to choose one of those guys for a game played in May, who would you choose? This, to me, is the difference of Greatness and Value.

If I had a choice between Jeter and anybody I take Jeter ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hmm. Seems like no one likes my comparison between greatness/value. Seems so clear to me.

Greatness is what one does on the field. Remains constant. No matter what city we put them in. Ballparks can alter one's greatness, however. When Duke Snider moved from Ebbets Field in Brooklyn to LA, his HR production fell off the table. Went from steady 40 HR/per, to ragged power, due to the far away RF fences. Took his bat away. But his ability remained constant.

No point in going back and forth with arguments. We just disagree. You're looking at it all wrong imo. You're looking back with 20/20 vision from what we have now, but try to step outside of that for a moment. The NYC that you know and love, might not exist baseball wise or media wise, as it does today, if not for Ruth's sale to the Yanks. Now, that might sound like a bold statement, but I believe it to be true.

What would his sale to Cincinnati have meant for that city and to its baseball future? Tough to say cause it'd all just be a guess. A ton imo. What would his non-sale to NY taken away from what we know it brought them. A ton imo. That difference; the impact of that difference is enormous and its not all just media based. The media existed but Ruth brought something with him that magnified it beyond belief. The same would happen in whatever city he went to imo. All your examples of Yankee Stadium being so comfortable and cozy...no Ruth, no Yankee Stadium funds.

You chose to steer the term "value" toward "fame." Different types of value for sure. How much a guy makes compared to his output. Talent scarcity at certain positions. Skills at each position... for instance how much value does a catcher with a gun give a team today, compared to in Bench's time? How much value does a third baseman who makes charging in, barehanding, and throwing off his right foot accurately look routine, bring in today's game compared to past era's. The value of outfielder's skills...a strong arm or being fast. Well, outfields have never been smaller and runners are more reluctant than ever to get thrown out taking an extra base, because a three run homer is bound to come. Or, how much value is there in a small cup of domestic beer that costs $6.00 at every stadium.

[Bill Burgess]

No point in going back and forth with arguments. We just disagree. You're looking at it all wrong imo. You're looking back with 20/20 vision from what we have now, but try to step outside of that for a moment. The NYC that you know and love, might not exist baseball wise or media wise, as it does today, if not for Ruth's sale to the Yanks. Now, that might sound like a bold statement, but I believe it to be true.

Yes and no. I fully agree that Babe Ruth was a walking media event unto himself. Understood. We're agreed on that part. And I also agree that he put the Yankees on the map. No doubt about that.

But he did have assistance there. He went to the one market where they would be able to cash in to the max on his 'eventness'. The 2 Colonels were of 'Deep Pockets', and the metropolis had about 25-30 newspapers in 1920, and soon to start decreasing, courtesy of Randolph Hearst.

And Ruth DID finance the building of Yankee Stadium with his fans/fame. But if he had went to a small market, say Cincy, would they have had the humongous fan base that would have allowed the financing of a super ballpark like Yankee Stadium? Maybe. But I'm dubious. Not that Ruth wouldn't have created a ton of new fans, but the city, like small markets elsewhere, had a finite set of sports fans, compared to NYC. In addition to its resident fan base, NYC has a floating set of tourists fans to which it can market, unlike small markets.

What would his sale to Cincinnati have meant for that city and to its baseball future? Tough to say cause it'd all just be a guess. A ton imo. What would his non-sale to NY taken away from what we know it brought them. A ton imo. That difference; the impact of that difference is enormous and its not all just media based. The media existed but Ruth brought something with him that magnified it beyond belief. The same would happen in whatever city he went to imo. All your examples of Yankee Stadium being so comfortable and cozy...no Ruth, no Yankee Stadium funds.

You chose to steer the term "value" toward "fame." Different types of value for sure. How much a guy makes compared to his output. Talent scarcity at certain positions. Skills at each position...

And yet they keep buying the over-priced concessions. I'm trying to expound on value the best I can. Others can only do it in a stat-bound sense. And you still will ONLY relate to the principle as it applies to Babe, while I am trying to apply value to all players in general. Can we expand this beyond Babe Ruth, or do I lose your interest there? NYC had done the same media thing to all players since the 1920's, or haven't you noticed? Would Steinbrenner be able to buy players as he does in any smaller market?

[KCGHOST]

We argue forever but with out a common defintion of these words we are going in circles. If two guys are going to discuss something, but don't agree on the definition of the terms it is going to be awfully hard to come to a rational argument let alone come to a sensible conclusion. I prefer greatness to refer strictly to performance on the field. Value has to relate that performance to the cost of having that greatness on you team.

And this emphasis on the post-season is ridiculous. No one player gets a team to the play-offs consistently by himself.

[Bill Burgess]

We argue forever but with out a common defintion of these words we are going in circles. If two guys are going to discuss something, but don't agree on the definition of the terms it is going to be awfully hard to come to a rational argument let alone come to a sensible conclusion. I prefer greatness to refer strictly to performance on the field. Value has to relate that performance to the cost of having that greatness on you team.

And this emphasis on the post-season is ridiculous. No one player gets a team to the play-offs consistently by himself.
Agreed. Understood. Which is why we will not get anywhere with our discussion. Keep spinning our wheels, talking 'past' each other, never once communicating, or even caring what the other person is saying.

Happens here all the time. Most of the time.

[NJND96]

Very interesting thread. I don't post much but would like to add my thoughts:
I think that greatness is less a measurable quality - it's like the old definition for pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This doesn't mean that greatness and measurable stats are mutually exclusive. I view greatness as a player's ceiling if you will - how close they come to reaching their ceiling is a measurement of how great they actually are. Greatness transcends our perception of value at any given moment.

Value is subjective in many ways. What is valuable right now may not have been valuable 20 years ago and might not be valuable 20 years from now. Just because a player is valuable does NOT necessarily mean that they are great - in a perfect world they would be, but it's not always the case. Eddie Murray and Don Sutton were tremendously valuable players, but I don't think that many people would say that they were seeing greatness when they saw them play.

By definition, a "great" player should be "valuable" - and ideally the "greatest" player would be the "most valuable". However, injuries, war, segregation and any other number of circumstances might limit their value.

I'll use an example from players I saw - I grew up a Yankee fan, and when I watched Don Mattingly play from 84-87 I was watching a great player who was also a valuable player. After injuries took their toll, Mattingly was still a great player, but he was no longer a valuable player. Once a player is great you can't become "ungreat". But how much value a player gets out of their greatness determines how we view them.

Just my initial thoughts on an interesting topic.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Agreed. Understood. Which is why we will not get anywhere with our discussion. Keep spinning our wheels, talking 'past' each other, never once communicating, or even caring what the other person is saying.

Happens here all the time. Most of the time.
Bill,

Is that why you haven't responded to my last post? :p

[THE OX]

IMO greatness is when a player has the talents to hit 60 homers a season or win 25 games as a pitcher, and does just that once in a while.

IMO value is when a player has the talents to win 18 games as a pitcher or hit 35 homers per season, and does that well or better quite often.

[LouGehrig]

For me value lasts and greatness doesn't necessarily last- and can even be faulty- for instance in his time hal chase was regarded as a great player. he wasn't, and setting aside the fact that he was corrupt ,most modern people realize that he wasn't nearly as good as people back then thought he was, though around 1910 he was considered to be great. you can say he wasn't great and you'd be correct, but you can't say that he wasn't considered to be great. there are many examples of people being thought of as great when they weren't, or underappreciated when they were actually excellent. greatness or the perception of greatness can change, it isn't static-and can be subjective while value is true and stands the test of time. at least thats how i interpret it.

Hal Chase was the greatest defensive first baseman in baseball history. He was a great player. The fact that he was a gambler and low life does not alter the fact that he was a great player.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant person. The fact that he cannot define "sexual act" does not affect the fact that he is brilliant.

[grey eagle]

Hal Chase was the greatest defensive first baseman in baseball history. He was a great player. The fact that he was a gambler and low life does not alter the fact that he was a great player.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant person. The fact that he cannot define "sexual act" does not affect the fact that he is brilliant.
I don't think Chase was a great player at all. His reputation, particularly on the defensive end, was greatly overblown.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Hal Chase was the greatest defensive first baseman in baseball history. He was a great player. The fact that he was a gambler and low life does not alter the fact that he was a great player.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant person. The fact that he cannot define "sexual act" does not affect the fact that he is brilliant.
You make assertions without evidence or at least make assertions that assumes we all accept them as if they are self-evident. They are not. :rolleyes:

[candy curveball cummings]

ARod has been in 6 post season series over 4 seasons so far. DJ has been 23 post season series over 10 years.

What did Derek Jeter do in his first 6 series? Well he had 3 really good series, 2 really bad series, and one series where his walks made him an ok player.

ARod has had one bad series where all he did was hit 4 singles, one series which was similar to DJ's ok season though slightly less ok. I would call it a bad series. After that he has had 2 great series and two really good series.

At worst they are even through the same amount of series.

ARod through 6 series has 4 good to great series, 1 bad series, and one really bad series.

Jeter has had 6 really bad series, 2 bad series, and 15 really good to great series. That is a nice track record that overall gives him a .309/.379/.463 stat line. Which goes to show you just how bad Jeter was in those 6 series if his stat line is that low despite having 15 really good to great series on his stat line.

ARod's stat line is .305/.393/.534.

Looks like ARod's off to another really bad series. After today, his career Post Season average is .294.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes two games alter the entire argument.

Jeter went 1-4 today. If the Yanks play 2 more games and he goes 0-8 his line will be .353/.353/.706. Sounds pretty good right? Except he would have been useless in 3 of the 4 games and his only value would have come from game 1.

If ARod goes 0-4 tomorrow and then goes 2-4 with a homer in a close loss in game 4. His playoff line would look pretty darn bad, yet he would have done just as much Jeter's .353/.353/.706 line to help the Yanks win.

Regardless of what happens in this series it doesn't change what either one of them has done in the past.

[brett]

Its funny because based on that description I would say that Jeter is greatness while A-Rod is value. Greatness has to do with the player and the circumstances.


It means that Alex Rodriguez is great. His numbers rank him among the greatest of all-time. But Derek Jeter is value. How many times as Derek Jeter elevate his game at the most important moments?

[Bill Burgess]

I really don't get this morbid fascination with high batting averages and low walk totals. George Sisler is the poster boy for this. The man really was not a great offensive player, he was a good offensive player that could put the wood on the ball. But that skill does have value. Given that he hit over .400 in his best years his OBP was well above average. But because he didn't draw any walks he was an inefficient hitter. He had eye-popping stats but he used up a lot of outs to produce those stats. And some people refuse to admit that his stats were inflated by his era. Some even rank him as the #2 first basemen of all time. That assertion doesn't withstand careful examination of the record. There are many first basemen I would take before I would chose Sisler.


Today Ichiro is lightening rod for heated debates. The man can flat out hit. But he has chosen to sacrifice some value to get as many hits as he can. He really is not an elite offensive player. He has no power and he doesn't draw hardly any walks. An in today's game it impossible to be an elite hitter without any power. But that's OK because he is a great player in the sense that he brings excitement to the game, plays good defense, and runs the bases well. Greatness is pretty much the perception of a player. Sometimes perception and value match up and sometimes they don't. It's when they don't match up that we have the great debates.
Disagree with you, Adam. I feel that Sisler was indeed a very great player, and his peers in the BB community also concurred with me. Cobb, Hornsby, BB Magazine editor, FC Lane, Branch Rickey, Eddie Collins and many other certain, select connoisseurs of fine, vintage ball of that day were in absolute awe of him.

However, Sizzler did have a flaw in his hitting arsenal. He was an undisciplined, impatient hitter who refused to make the pitcher pitch. He refused to take his walks that he had coming, and consequently, was not as great an offensive force as he could and should have been.

St. Louis sports writer, John B. Sheridan took him to task for this very serious flaw. Just like Ted Williams' refusal to hit to LF, he hurt his team and cost his team wins. And for this, his stat record is significantly less than it should have been.

But just as few here discount Williams for his hitting flaw, so I don't discount Sisler's greatness for his. But I do acknowledge he limited his own value due to sheer stubbornness. Maybe Williams/Sisler were cousins.

I also think Ichiro is a very great player. Similar to Sisler. If Ichiro tried to bring more mid-range pop into his game, he might shave a few points off his BA, and that is why I think he doesn't go for the long ball. Perhaps he could bring more bang to the table without compromising his BA. Tough call. Hard to say. Wish he'd try.

Bill

[538280]

Bill, do you even truly understand the value a player like Sisler or Ichiro generates though? Forget about what the people at the time said, we have very accurate measures today which predict run scoring almost perfectly. They are far more accurate than something someone may have said on scene. You seem to say that he was still an all time great offensive player despite his one weakness-this is just NOT true, and no formal statistical methology will support that claim.

I would like you to give us a statistical analysis of how Sisler's offensive record, looking at it in a real value way that actually correlates with run scoring, justifies being one of the top 20 players of all time. DON'T focus on cliches on how batting average is the be all end all. It is not at all. It is not even half of a player's offense.

[Bill Burgess]

I would like you to give us a statistical analysis of how Sisler's offensive record, looking at it in a real value way that actually correlates with run scoring, justifies being one of the top 20 players of all time. DON'T focus on clichés on how batting average is the be all end all. It is not at all. It is not even half of a player's offense.
I'll tell you what, Chris. I don't like the way you conduct your analysis. But I will look at the following.

Can you calculate Sisler OPS+ for his Peak, 1916-22. Then compute that per PA. And then index that stat to the L average for 1916-22. That will give us all Sisler's Relative OPS+/PA.

Or . . . if you can calculate his total bases/PA, divided by his L. Ave., that would be a good backup stat. One stat normally needs others to act as a safeguard.

A third stat might involve his outs/PA. I don't really know what most of this crap means, but it might be interesting to see what they show.

In all cases, we need to see Sisler's numbers with respect to his era peers. That is why we need to index all the stats to L. ave. Raw data is too camouflaged.

And when we finally have this new data, let's see who they compare to, and see if his stats were world-class or baloney.
-----------------------------
Matt Souders' PCA gives Sisler an PCA MVP award for 1922. He also give Sisler's Peak good marks for defense.

George Sisler GG Rankings

1916 - 3 (Pipp)
1917 - 7 (Pipp)
1918 - 1
1919 - 3 (Pipp)
1920 - 1
1921 - 4 (McInnis)
1922 - 8 (Sheely)

[538280]

I'll tell you what, Chris. I don't like the way you conduct your analysis. But I will look at the following.

Can you calculate Sisler OPS+ for his Peak, 1916-22. Then compute that per PA. And then index that stat to the L average for 1916-22. That will give us all Sisler's Relative OPS+/PA.

Calculating OPS+ per PA makes no sense. OPS+ is a rate stat. OPS is already based on a per opportunity basis. It is also already indexed to league average, so you can't index OPS+, it is already indexed to league average.

I will tell you that Sisler's OPS+ in his peak seasons was 154. This is a very good figure, and he certainly was a great player in those years. It is NOT up there with the greatest peak 1Bmen of all time. It is about the same as Eddie Murray's, Rafael Palmeiro's, and Fred McGriff's, all three of whom are players that are usually called pure longevity guys with very low peaks. OPS+ has Sisler's peak in the same bredth as Murray's, Palmeiro's, and McGriff's. This is NOT just some arcane calculation. It is just a comparison of the players OBP and SLG to the league average OBP and SLG of that time. It is lower than the CAREER average of Dick Allen, that player of whom you recently called not deserving of the HOF.

Now, this means George Sisler's OBP and SLG comapared to average in his BEST seasons were worse than Allen's OBP and SLG compared to league over his career, including his not so great seasons. Allen's peak OPS+ was 180. Let's put this in chart form, peak and career OPS+ with Dick Allen and GEorge Sisler:
....................Peak.......Career
Dick Allen........180..........156
Geroge Sisler...154..........124

These are things that have been proven to correlate with run scoring of a team very well. These are the things that produce runs, NOT high batting averages, regardless of what the perception was!



Or . . . if you can calculate his total bases/PA, divided by his L. Ave., that would be a good backup stat. One stat normally needs others to act as a safeguard.

That is slugging percentage.


A third stat might involve his outs/PA. I don't really know what most of this crap means, but it might be interesting to see what they show.

That is just the converse of OBP. Both the things you just requested me to calculate are the two components of OPS+.


And when we finally have this new data, let's see who they compare to, and see if his stats were world-class or baloney.

He was a very good player but not even close to as good as you've made him out to be.

[538280]

Matt Souders' PCA gives Sisler an PCA MVP award for 1922. He also give Sisler's Peak good marks for defense.

George Sisler GG Rankings

1916 - 3 (Pipp)
1917 - 7 (Pipp)
1918 - 1
1919 - 3 (Pipp)
1920 - 1
1921 - 4 (McInnis)
1922 - 8 (Sheely)

Great. You might want to check what Matt's PCA (as well as every other statistcal metric ever made) places Sisler in all time rankings.

[leecemark]

--As just a quick answer Bill, Sisler had the following finishes in OPS+ from 1916-22; 8th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 2nd, 6th and 3rd. That is a pretty nice peak/prime, but hardly dominating. He didn't have any top 10 (or top 25 for that matter) finishes after 1922, which was mid-career. If the 2nd half of his career had been a match for his first he might make my top 10 1B, but he still wouldn't be anywhere close to my top 20 players. Since he was actually a mediocore player in the second half of his career he doesn't make my top 100.

[leecemark]

Matt Souders' PCA gives Sisler an PCA MVP award for 1922. He also give Sisler's Peak good marks for defense.

George Sisler GG Rankings

1916 - 3 (Pipp)
1917 - 7 (Pipp)
1918 - 1
1919 - 3 (Pipp)
1920 - 1
1921 - 4 (McInnis)
1922 - 8 (Sheely)

--That is a fairly good defensive record, but it sure doesn't suggest all time great. Two GG seasons, 3 middle of the pack and two bottom of the barrell (remember there were only 8 regular 1B' in the league). If you list the post-1922 marks it turns ugly on defense as well as offense.

[Bill Burgess]

This time around, I'm only referring to Sisler's Peak. Referring to his post injury phase is like discussing Koufax's early phase. What's the point?

Neither were remotely great in those 2 phases. When we speak of Sisler's peak, he had 29 league leads in a 6 yr. period. That's quite a good peak.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=492498&postcount=299

And remember the above argument. Sisler's 1920 season was very favorably compared to both Morgan's best and R. Jackson's best seasons. He created more runs while using up less outs. Matt opined that while Morgan/Jackson's best seasons were slightly better, Sisler held his own quite nicely.

So, please stop bashing Sisler's Peak. I'm not submitting it for the best peak ever. I award that to Ruth, Hornsby, Cobb, Bonds, Williams. Morgan was not close to those Peaks.

[Bill Burgess]

Great. You might want to check what Matt's PCA (as well as every other statistcal metric ever made) places Sisler in all time rankings.
Please stick to Peak.

[Bill Burgess]

--As just a quick answer Bill, Sisler had the following finishes in OPS+ from 1916-22; 8th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 2nd, 6th and 3rd. That is a pretty nice peak/prime, but hardly dominating. He didn't have any top 10 (or top 25 for that matter) finishes after 1922, which was mid-career. If the 2nd half of his career had been a match for his first he might make my top 10 1B, but he still wouldn't be anywhere close to my top 20 players. Since he was actually a mediocore player in the second half of his career he doesn't make my top 100.
Please, let's stay on Peak, OK? I agree his career stats are diminished, so what's the argument? We agree his decline dragged his career stats into an ugly place. But so what? I'm not arguing his place in history or rankings. Only Peak. This time.

[538280]

I have been sticking to peak. Did you see what Sisler's peak OPS+ was, and how it compares to REAL all time greats? It was 154. I showed you how it compared with the other 1Bmen (not very well). Morgan's best peak OPS+ were 164, ten points higher than Sisler's, if you're interested. How exactly is Sisler's peak even NEAR as great as you say they are?

His three best peak seasons in Win Shares aren't even in the top 20 among 1Bmen, or the top 100 all time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes because of one homer against Kim in a series in which Jeter batted .148, and in that game Jeter went 0-4 without even getting the ball out of the infield through 9 innings. "Mr. November" was one of the reasons the Yankees lost that series.
Agreed Jeter, a poor WS but, Lets not give Jeter too much "credit" for that lost WS.
Here are a few more numbers, other than Paul O'Neill at .333
Brosius------------------.168
Spencer-----------------.200
Williams-----------------.208
Justice------------------.167
Martinez----------------.190
Posada-----------------.174
Knoblauch------------- .056
Soriano a respectable-- .240

Yankees-----------------.183
Arizona------------------.264

It looks like a team effort by the Yanks.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes which is why I said he was one of the reasons.

[Ubiquitous]

Okay here is something I don't quite understand.

ARod is on all the highlight reels for striking out with bases loaded and two outs. One ESPN commentator even said during the piece that ARod's post-season struggles continue. What? They still continue? Is this like how Randy Johnson was considered a choker before 2001? Anyway back to that inning. ARod strikes out, yes it is no good, but guess what? Jeter got the first out with a pop up bunt. He botched it and he got the free pass. Sheffield struck out with two men on and one out, he gets a free pass. Who gets highlighted? ARod.

ARod did not do well today with the bat that is for sure. But in the end he went 0 for 4 and stranded 3 runners. What did Jeter the Saviour do? He went 1-4 stranded 3 runners as well and committed an error, but he gets a pass.

Like I said above Jeter can absolutely nothing in the next two or three games and still have his stat line look like he was great during the series. Meanwhile ARod could very well be the hero in the next two games and his stat could look mediocre.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes which is why I said he was one of the reasons.

That you did, but for those who don't care to dig deeper.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Getting back to the theme here, Lou Gehrig has to rank high, maybe the best value career wise. I can't think of any other hitter who hit at such a level and at the same time was seldom out of the starting line up. off the top of my head, if I recall Musial a terrific hitter not missing many games.

It's pointed out that Lou did not play every inning of every game, even a few token appearances. Could anyone, under the conditions of those day, lots of double headers in those days, 3 in one week common. I reviewed a good number of Yankee box scores from those days. The were many times, at least a dozen that I could find where the Yanks played 3 doubleheaders in one week and Lou played every inning. There was one time when 4 DH's and a single game in between were played over a 7 day period and Lou played every inning.

One of the greatest sluggers, all those consecutive games, all those years, thats real value to a team.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

New age stat people will tell you that Lou wasn't very valuable though. They will compare his numbers with those of other first baseman and say...its easier to find a great hitting first baseman...blah, blah.

[538280]

I have been sticking to peak. Did you see what Sisler's peak OPS+ was, and how it compares to REAL all time greats? It was 154. I showed you how it compared with the other 1Bmen (not very well). Morgan's best peak OPS+ were 164, ten points higher than Sisler's, if you're interested. How exactly is Sisler's peak even NEAR as great as you say they are?

His three best peak seasons in Win Shares aren't even in the top 20 among 1Bmen, or the top 100 all time.

Are you going to reply to this post, Bill?

[538280]

Getting back to the theme here, Lou Gehrig has to rank high, maybe the best value career wise. I can't think of any other hitter who hit at such a level and at the same time was seldom out of the starting line up. off the top of my head, if I recall Musial a terrific hitter not missing many games.


Lou Gehrig had the durability, but very few players who get up this high didn't. Lou was pounding out every game, which was great, but what really matters more is that he ended up not having great longevity. Of course, I feel for his tradgedy, but when we're ranking players you can't give him any credit for that. Gehrig would probably still be around the #5 hitter of all time though IMO.

[leecemark]

New age stat people will tell you that Lou wasn't very valuable though. They will compare his numbers with those of other first baseman and say...its easier to find a great hitting first baseman...blah, blah.


--Randy, you just don't get it. New age stats LOVE Lou Gehrig. He was incredibly valuable, whether you look at it by new stats or traditional ones. It IS true that good hitting firstbase men are pretty common (and great hitting ones are not truely rare), but Gehrig was still the best of them.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

New age stat people will tell you that Lou wasn't very valuable though. They will compare his numbers with those of other first baseman and say...its easier to find a great hitting first baseman...blah, blah.
Gee, another strawman argument. :rolleyes: Why am I not surprised? Can you give us a name of a specific "new age stat person" that claimed this? Every all-time list from sabermetric folks have Lou Gehrig as the #1 all-time first baseman. I don't know of one that doesn't.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Never said they don't rate him #1. Only that he is brought down a bit in value because of his position. If you haven't seen that around here, then you aren't paying attention. Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:

[Bill Burgess]

Are you going to reply to this post, Bill?
I saw it. I also saw it often around a year ago, when you first started to show it. You've showed that to me about 3-4 times now. I GOT it the first time around. You expect me to respond to your stuff, but you don't always respond to mine?

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=492498&postcount=299

Remember how you got killed when you opined how many outs Sizz used up? And how I showed you that that was NOT the case, and even Matt told us that Sizz in 1920 was not far behind the best of Morgan, 1976 or Jackson, 1969. Remember? And you are still trying to mount the case that Sizz' peak was ho-hum, so-so, pedestrian, not that impressive, blah, blah, blah. And Sizz' peak in 1920-21, was going up against Ruth in the Polo Grounds, which denied Sizz a few league leads, some ink.

There is more to baseball than stats, Chris. You really need to get out more and see more games. And play more baseball.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Never said they don't rate him #1. Only that he is brought down a bit in value because of his position. If you haven't seen that around here, then you aren't paying attention. Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:
I never said you did. Nice bait and switch. This is what your said...



Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948
New age stat people will tell you that Lou wasn't very valuable though. They will compare his numbers with those of other first baseman and say...its easier to find a great hitting first baseman...blah, blah.
Who is saying that Lou is not very valuable? I asked you give an example. You did not. If eveyone says Lou #1 then that means no one can say he's not very valuable now can they?

[Bill Burgess]

Adam/Randy,

You're niggling. You're both right. Randy is merely referring to the bad habit some people have of discounting one's stats based on their position. It's called 'replacement value'.

And while no one moves Gehrig out of #1 (except a single enlightened Fever member), some DO discount his offense based on his position. It's called positional adjustment, and is quite unfair.

Randy is quite correct that all players should have their offense compared to all other hitters, and never discounted based on position.

So, both of you guys are right. Just talking past each other.

Bill

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Adam/Randy,

You're niggling. You're both right. Randy is merely referring to the bad habit some people have of discounting one's stats based on their position. It's called 'replacement value'.

And while no one moves Gehrig out of #1 (except a single enlightened Fever member), some DO discount his offense based on his position. It's called positional adjustment, and is quite unfair.

Randy is quite correct that all players should have their offense compared to all other hitters, and never discounted based on position.

So, both of you guys are right. Just talking past each other.

Bill
Sure pops. :D

I just like busting Sultan's chops because he's a stubborn knucklehead JUST LIKE ME. :laugh

[Bill Burgess]

Sure pops. :D

I just like busting Sultan's chops because he's a stubborn knucklehead JUST LIKE ME. :laugh
It's my pleasure, Junior. You are no longer grounded, son. You may now play with your friends, the Knuckleheads. Play nice, Johnny. :laugh :waving :dance :clapping :D

[538280]

I saw it. I also saw it often around a year ago, when you first started to show it. You've showed that to me about 3-4 times now. I GOT it the first time around. You expect me to respond to your stuff, but you don't always respond to mine?

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=492498&postcount=299

Remember how you got killed when you opined how many outs Sizz used up? And how I showed you that that was NOT the case, and even Matt told us that Sizz in 1920 was not far behind the best of Morgan, 1976 or Jackson, 1969. Remember? And you are still trying to mount the case that Sizz' peak was ho-hum, so-so, pedestrian, not that impressive, blah, blah, blah. And Sizz' peak in 1920-21, was going up against Ruth in the Polo Grounds, which denied Sizz a few league leads, some ink.

No, Bill, how in hell did I get "killed". No statistical system shows Sisler's peak being anywhere near Morgan's, nor should they. 1976 was not even Morgan's best year (1975 was). I might call Sisler 1920 (which got 33 WS) pretty close to Morgan's '76 (37). But then Morgan also had 1975, which had 44, 1972, which had 39, 1973, which had 40, and 1974, which had 37. 1920's 33 WS campaign was the highest of Sisler's career.

I would like you to show me why all these metrics are wrong. Give me a statiscal analysis of how Sisler's peak is even close to top 20 all time. To me, his peak (not career, peak) MIGHT be top 75-100 all time.

Ink is something I don't look at AT ALL. I honeslty could care less how a player fares in league leaderships-what really matters is his relative value. This is summed up well in total player metrics, NOT ink tests.


There is more to baseball than stats, Chris. You really need to get out more and see more games. And play more baseball.

How exactly does how much I watch or play baseball have ANYTHING to do with this? This is complete stupiditiy. First, I DO love the game of baseball, watch a ton of games, and certainly enjoy playing it. Second, I am SO sick of people like you claiming superior knowledge because some of us like to look a little bit deeper than those huge .400 averages in the 1920s. Honestly, do you even understand offensive value? If you think George Sisler, even at his peak, was one of the best offensive forces the game had seen, then you just don't get it.

[Ubiquitous]

Just for the record the phrase isn't "I could care less", it is " I could not care less". If you say I could care less it means it is possible that you could care even less then you do now, whereas adding the not means that this is the least you will ever care about the subject.


On to the topic, perhaps it would be best if you guys simply PM each other on your various viewpoints, instead of having the same argument over and over in every thread you two ever meet in.

[Bill Burgess]

I will tell you that Sisler's OPS+ in his peak seasons was 154. This is a very good figure, and he certainly was a great player in those years. It is NOT up there with the greatest peak 1Bmen of all time. It is about the same as Eddie Murray's, Rafael Palmeiro's, and Fred McGriff's, all three of whom are players that are usually called pure longevity guys with very low peaks. OPS+ has Sisler's peak in the same bredth as Murray's, Palmeiro's, and McGriff's. This is NOT just some arcane calculation. It is just a comparison of the players OBP and SLG to the league average OBP and SLG of that time. It is lower than the CAREER average of Dick Allen, that player of whom you recently called not deserving of the HOF.

Now, this means George Sisler's OBP and SLG comapared to average in his BEST seasons were worse than Allen's OBP and SLG compared to league over his career, including his not so great seasons. Allen's peak OPS+ was 180. Let's put this in chart form, peak and career OPS+ with Dick Allen and GEorge Sisler:
....................Peak.......Career
Dick Allen........180..........156
Geroge Sisler...154..........124
I may not be a stat man, but you've screwed this up. Big time. How the hell can Sisler's Peak average out to 154??? That is just simply not possible!

Here is Sisler's OPS+ numbers for his Peak.

1917 - 161 (3rd place)
1918 - 157 (4th place)
1919 - 154 (5th place)
1920 - 181 (2nd place)
1921 - 140 (6th place)
1922 - 170 (3rd place)

Overall, not a bad Peak. In fact, quite impressive. If I hadn't checked, you would have gotten away with murder.


perhaps it would be best if you guys simply PM each other on your various viewpoints, instead of having the same argument over and over in every thread you two ever meet in.
What? And miss all the amusing fun I get from showing up a stat kid? Wouldn't dream of it.

Oh, and Chris. Let's not let the universe forget that Sisler's Peak was artificially aborted when he was at the pinnacle. All fair judges believed he could and would have kept it up for many more seasons. He was cut down when only 27, but such objective realities are wasted on you. But for the rest of us, we all know Sisler's Peak would have gone on and on. So much for your reality.

Bill

[538280]

I may not be a stat man, but you've screwed this up. Big time. How the hell is Sisler's Peak average out to 154??? That is just simply not possible! What are you trying to pull now, Chris?

Here is Sisler's OPS+ numbers for his Peak.

1917 - 161 (3rd place)
1918 - 157 (4th place)
1919 - 154 (5th place)
1920 - 181 (2nd place)
1921 - 140 (6th place)
1922 - 170 (3rd place)

Overall, not a bad Peak. In fact, quite impressive. If I hadn't checked, you would have gotten away with murder.


Bill, even if my math was wrong, that's still NOT an extremely impressive peak for a 1Bman! Let's compare Sisler against Dick Allen again:

Allen: 200, 181, 174, 166, 165
Sisler: 181, 170, 161, 157, 154

Sisler was a great player those years. He hit for a very high average, had some really nice power for that time. He didn't walk very much, which is a problem, but he could still be great despite it. He was NOT even close to Lou Gehrig, not even close to one of the top 20 players of all time. I still haven't seen you show Sisler measures up to the top 20 all time AT ALL statistically.

[Bill Burgess]

So, Chris, I hope you can now see that your former assessment of Sisler's Peak is wrong. Completely skewed. You said the Dick Allen's career OPS+ exceeded anything Sisler posted.

Allen posted 3 OPS+ seasons over 170 (1 other had too few games).
Sisler posted 2 OPS+ seasons over 170, and was suddenly cut down at the pinnacle of his Peak. Probably would have posted several more.

So, when you post so irresponsibly, concerning stats, which are supposed to be your strong suit, I just don't know what to do with you.

Please don't take any of this personally. I have tried to stop my insults, taunts, baiting, and snideness. I still like you and think you're a good guy.

But you are the one who is pursuing me, and challenging me to prove my high regards for Sisler. You say things like his Peak is maybe between 70-80th best.

And you have only said that I don't know what value means 100 times. So, I am only trying to clarify the fine point that George Sisler did have a great Peak, and it was cut off with brutal suddenness, while he was bestriding the BB universe. Just because you can't credit him for things he didn't do, the rest of us realize why his Peak was cut off, and make mental allowances for it, even if we can't do that statistically.

That is one of your downfalls as a stat person. You close your eyes to what really, actually happened. Historians don't have that luxury, nor should they.

Bill Burgess

[rsuriyop]

Alex is greatness. Jeter is value.

Bonds is greatness. Mays is value.

Vaughn is greatness. Tino Martinez is value.

Piazza is greatness. Elston Howard is value.


You could also add...

High BA is greatness. High OBP is value.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill James on George Sisler, 1988:

George Sisler is probably the only player other than Gehrig who can reasonably be considered the greatest 1B ever in terms of Peak value. The reason I say that is that the other top contenders, most notably Foxx and McCovey, were the same type of players that Gehrig was, and thus they can be directly compared to him, a comparison that they clearly lose. But Sisler was a different type of player; he didn't have the home run pop, but he hit for a higher average, was faster and a better defensive player than Gehrig, and the comparison between the two is not easy.

. . .

In 1920 he was about as great a player as you can be . . .

The Brock2 system projects that, absent the injury he would have collected about 3,800 hits in his career and finished with a career average of about ..362.

Hornsby and Heilmann were just beginning their most productive years; I think that Sisler would have continued to out-hit them had he been healthy. Through 1922, his offensive totals will even stand the comparison to the Bambino, remembering of course that Ruth was not a full-time player until 1919.

The point is not that he was as good as Ruth, of course, but that if you can stand next to Ruth, and not look ridiculous, you're pretty good. Sisler's offensive winning percentage was comparable to Ruth's in 4 of the 8 seasons.

The questions of history are not ultimately questions about what might have been and Sisler receives no extra credit in my book for the career that he would have had; it is difficult enough to make sense of what did happen. But the peak of performance that he did reach before the illness marks him as arguably the greatest first baseman of all time--and, on that basis, Definition A Hall of Famer.

In his position summary for 1B, Bill writes this.

As to peak value, the choice between Sisler and Gehrig is not so simple, but the basic assumption of sabermetrics is that you respect the conclusion of the best available methods unless you have some reason to suspect that the conclusion is invalid. The best available methods show Sisler creating 173 and 186 runs with offensive winning percentages of .857 and .828, while Gehrig created 195 or more runs 4 times with offensive winning percentages of .884, .883, and .847. It is possible that given a more careful consideration of defense and baserunning, given that it might later be established that Gehrig's superhuman RBI totals were a natural outcome of his productivity and position in the lineup, I might switch to Sisler.
(The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, 1988, pp. 346, 347, 349)
-----------------------------
Today, Bill James no longer feels as considerate to Sisler's being cut down at the age of 27, and consequently leaves his career out of his Top 100 Players. Bill believes that Sisler is vastly over-rated, but this is due to his insistence of evaluating one's full career, and playing with double vision be damned! I highly suspect that Bill is applying modern values to the early 1920's. 1B was still a defensive postion. Didn't change over till the end of the decade. A dubious choice, if true.

But here is his Win Shares for Sisler's Peak.

1917 - 29
1918 - 22
1919 - 24
1920 - 33
1921 - 27
1922 - 29

Whew! So there, Sir Christopher. You asked by what stat system, Sisler might be perceived as a leading contender for highly regarded laurels for Peak, there you ARE!

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, even if my math was wrong, that's still NOT an extremely impressive peak for a 1Bman!

From 1917-22 it WAS??!! It sure was. It was mighty! The proto-type 1B in Sisler's era were Chase/McInnis. Sisler was just awesome for a 1B by comparison. Don't you take into consideration ANY era adjustments??

Let's compare Sisler against Dick Allen again:

Allen: 200, 181, 174, 166, 165
Sisler: 181, 170, 161, 157, 154

Once again. Sloppy work by a statman. You are using 3 of Allen's seasons which were extremely light in his workload. Your citing of Allen's 174, 166 and 165 are from seasons where his games totals were 122, 118 and 128. Didn't you bother to check?

If we were to go back and use the correct Allen OPS+ totals, from full seasons, the chart would look like this:

Allen: 200, 181, 162, 160, 151
Sisler: 181, 170, 161, 157, 154

Allen still leads but the deficit is cut down significantly.

Sisler was a great player those years. He hit for a very high average, had some really nice power for that time. He didn't walk very much, which is a problem, but he could still be great despite it. He was NOT even close to Lou Gehrig, not even close to one of the top 20 players of all time. I still haven't seen you show Sisler measures up to the top 20 all time AT ALL statistically.

I can meet you partway. I am not comparing Sisler to Gehrig anymore. Just as Cobb can never win a stat case against Babe, so Sisler can never win a stat case against Lou Gehrig. I know, because I have tried. But even my most creative efforts cannot defeat the stats of Lou. Ironically, both George/Lou have their stats significantly curtailed due to health issues.

I agree Sisler's refusal to receive his Walks are a serious problem. And his onbase suffers accordingly. But the issue we're quarreling over here is whether or not Sisler's Peak was a historically great one, and I still insist it was, you insist it wasn't.

Since you insist that Dick Allen's Peak was so darn great, why can't you see that Sisler's Peak isn't that far off of Allen's. OK. Dick's best season trumps Sizz'. And Dick's 2nd best is also significantly better, but their last 3 are most comparable.

I agree to disagree. Draw?

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

No, Bill, how in hell did I get "killed".

You got killed in your premise. Your premise had been that Sisler had used up so many outs that he didn't have a great peak. So I constructed a little chart to compare Sisler's best seasons, 1920 with the best of Morgan/Jackson, since you love those guys so darn much. And YOU picked the seasons of Morgan/Jackson, not me. Go back and check. You picked them!

How exactly does how much I watch or play baseball have ANYTHING to do with this? This is complete stupiditiy. First, I DO love the game of baseball, watch a ton of games, and certainly enjoy playing it. Second, I am SO sick of people like you claiming superior knowledge because some of us like to look a little bit deeper than those huge .400 averages in the 1920s. Honestly, do you even understand offensive value? If you think George Sisler, even at his peak, was one of the best offensive forces the game had seen, then you just don't get it.
If you watched the game more, maybe you'd figure out that a sport like baseball, which involves so many flukes, weird plays, good/bad breaks, etc., can never be reduced to numerical values for all that is important. That's why I encourage you to watch more of the stuff we argue about. Would do you a world of good. Good things happen when one watches a baseball game.

Our women are right about us. We ARE this child-like.

Bill

[538280]

So, Chris, I hope you can now see that your former assessment of Sisler's Peak is wrong. Completely skewed. You said the Dick Allen's career OPS+ exceeded anything Sisler posted.

Dick Allen's career OPS+ (156) is slightly lower than the peak OPS+ of George Sisler. That alone shoud let you know who is the better hitter. No statistical metric concurs AT ALL that Sisler's peak is up there with Allen's:

Top 3 Win Shares:
Allen: 41, 40, 35
Sisler: 33, 29, 29

Top 3 WARP3:
Allen: 12.7, 11.4, 10.3
Sisler: 12.0, 9.7, 9.5

I don't have specific seasonal PCA numbers, but Dick Allen is the best player outside of the HOF by PCA, and is really close to the top 50 all time. Sisler doesn't make the top 100. Honestly, you're making it sound like the best statistical measures support Sisler being that high and I'm defying them. That is not true AT ALL. No total player metric out there supports Sisler as a top 100 player, never mind a top 20 one.


Allen posted 3 OPS+ seasons over 170 (1 other had too few games).
Sisler posted 2 OPS+ seasons over 170, and was suddenly cut down at the pinnacle of his Peak. Probably would have posted several more.

I give Sisler no credit whatsoever for what he might have done if not for sinusitus. Since he was worth virtually nothing to his teams after the injury (high BA, but no power or walks even relative to league and bad defense from 1B-barely above replacement level), he is VERY low on career value.

Allen's OPS+ seasons are better than Sisler's, Bill, and you know that I also take into account that he played against tougher competition. Allen was also playing third base in what was, according to both WARP3 and WS, his best season. To me Allen's best seasons FAR dwarf Sisler's, and every single statistical measure concurs. Why exactly do you feel all these metrics are wrong? That is what I have been asking you this whole thread.


So, when you post so irresponsibly, concerning stats, which are supposed to be your strong suit, I just don't know what to do with you.

Please don't take any of this personally. I have tried to stop my insults, taunts, baiting, and snideness. I still like you and think you're a good guy.

But you are the one who is pursuing me, and challenging me to prove my high regards for Sisler. You say things like his Peak is maybe between 70-80th best.

I'm actually going higher than the statistical metrics would say by saying his peak is 70-80th best. I like him more than the metrics do.


And you have only said that I don't know what value means 100 times. So, I am only trying to clarify the fine point that George Sisler did have a great Peak, and it was cut off with brutal suddenness, while he was bestriding the BB universe. Just because you can't credit him for things he didn't do, the rest of us realize why his Peak was cut off, and make mental allowances for it, even if we can't do that statistically.

I think Sisler had a great peak. I really, really don't think it's anywhere near as great as you think it is. I have asked you repeatedly to analyze George Sisler's offensive record at his peak and tell me how it matches up to other players who would be considered top 20 players. I will ask this of you yet again.....so do it. Do your own statistical analysis, looking at things that actually correlates to runs. Show me why the results of every other statistical analysis ever done are wrong.

I will never credit him for things he didn't do. I only do that in very special circumstances, like wars and such. Injuries (which is basically what Sisler's case is) is not something I will ever give credit for. Sisler deserves to be punished for being a not so good player after 1922.


That is one of your downfalls as a stat person. You close your eyes to what really, actually happened. Historians don't have that luxury, nor should they.

Bill Burgess

No, I only look at what really, actually happened and refuse to consider what might have happened.

[Bill Burgess]

Master Christopher,

I really don't know why we keep talking about Sisler. You and I aren't going to get together on him. Won't happen.

While the rest of us cannot statistically credit Sisler for his post 1923 work, all the rest of Fever, or the insightful members, know that Sisler didn't suddenly 'age'.

As mature adults, we all realize what caused a great peak to go over the cliff. All the rest of us can realize how he was, and would have had a super 2nd phase career.

You just spent a lot of cyber ink telling me what a poor career Sisler had! Why do you waste your time telling me that??? Why do you waste my time?? I am now thinking you lack the finesse and are not qualified to debate me? I took a long time to quote Bill James' and you ignored it as if I wasted 30 minutes of my research time.

All you do is repeat yourself. Not statistically crediting someone for an injury does not prevent you from knowing a great peak was headed for more great peak. That you find yourself incapable of doing such an easy task makes me question if we're done here.

I answered your request in post #95, and you ignore it.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=492842&postcount=306


We're done.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bill, Chris just CHILL OUT!!!!!!!

[538280]

Master Christopher,

I really don't know why we keep talking about Sisler. You and I aren't going to get together on him. Won't happen.

While the rest of us cannot statistically credit Sisler for his post 1923 work, all the rest of Fever, or the insightful members, know that Sisler didn't suddenly 'age'.

I know this as well. His sinusitus affected his vision and made him a much worse player than he had been. It had nothing to do with aging or anything like that, it was just his condition made him no longer nearly as good as he had been.


As mature adults, we all realize what caused a great peak to go over the cliff. All the rest of us can realize how he was, and would have had a super 2nd phase career.

....I realize this as well. This doesn't mean I even care about it when evaluating him as a player.


You just spent a lot of cyber ink telling me what a poor career Sisler had! Why do you waste your time telling me that??? Why do you waste my time?? I am now thinking you lack the finesse and are not qualified to debate me? I took a long time to quote Bill James' and you ignored it as if I wasted 30 minutes of my research time.

I have read that by Bill James as well, in his original abstract. Personally, I think most of James' opinions in his first Abstract were just way off. Luckily, he came up with his Win Shares system which gave him real summaries of value rather than relying on subjective impressions. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, but often you tend to overrate the influences of certain things subconsciously while underrating other things.


All you do is repeat yourself. Not statistically crediting someone for an injury does not prevent you from knowing a great peak was headed for more great peak. That you find yourself incapable of doing such an easy task makes me question if we're done here.

I know he was headed for more great seasons if it wasn't for his sickness/injury (whatever you want to call it). He didn't, though, so it doesn't factor in at all to my evaluation of him.


I answered your request in post #95, and you ignore it.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=492842&postcount=306

We're done.

That shows that using the basic (H+BB)(TB)/(AB+BB) formula Sisler comes out slightly better than Morgan and Jackson in his best year. The problems of which are:

1.That is the basic RC formula, which really isn't very sophisticated and doesn't include the advancement factor for a walk.

2.That and 1922 are the only years where Sisler would be even close; outside of that the comparison between him Morgan and Jackson would be ridiculous.

3.As every metric shows, this doesn't add up to make his true total value higher.

[Bill Burgess]

Sir Christopher,

All good discussions have their beginnings, middle, and ending. Our Sisler discussion cannot extend on indefinitely. We need to summarize our conclusions, and bring this one to a friendly end.

So I will do my best to summarize my Sisler musings, and then you can respond to mine and summarize your Sisler conclusions. Then we must both move on to more productive discussions. OK? Is that fair to both of us.

I will go first.

I believe that George Sisler, based on his peak, 1917-22, proved himself one of the very great players of history. Having said that, I am breaking one of my own rules.

My rules require that in order to be a great player, one must be judged on his career as a whole. That is my general good rule. But all rules have their exceptions. I make a rare exception in Sisler's case, (as I do in Koufax's case), due to his very fine Peak. And I do this due to his career greatness being suddenly aborted due to poisonous sinusitis, which struck him down at the age of 27, at the peak of his career.

He took a season off and returned with double vision, which ruined his star status. Understood.

I cannot credit him statistically, but I make mental notes and realize that the peak he achieved was good enough to impress me greatly.

2. You have continuously challenged me to show statistically how I rank him so highly. Repeatedly. I showed you two. PCA and Bill James.

You do Bill James wrong when you assert he was ranking Sisler subjectively. That is an injustice to both Sisler/James. That's unfair. Before he developed Win Shares, James used a different stat system, based on 'offensive winning percentage'. It WAS a valid stat system, and one which influenced many other statmen. It developed into OPS+, I think. He created W-L for offense.

Just because he moved on to Win Shares does not invalidate his former system, does it? What if he moves on from Win Shares to a better system? Would that then make Win Shares invalid? His former system merely represented his stage of development at the time, and, as such, is a perfectly good stat system for me to points towards to answer your question.

Matt Souders also offered his opinion that Sisler's best season, 1920 compared well to Morgan's 1976 or Jackson's 1969. You now lament that Morgan was better in 1975. Well, I didn't select the years for comparison. You did, so we all went with it.

I would like for Matt to show us Sisler's entire peak, 1917-22, and see if he ranks that peak at below 70th best all time. Might make for a better discussion than only one year.

Next, you said that Sisler's Peak did not compare well with those of other 1Bmen. In the 84 years that have passed since Sisler's 1922 Peak ended abruptly, that is an unfair comparison. MOST unfair.

When Sisler peaked, he was the greatest hitting 1Bman of all time. He redefined the position. He did for 1B what Wagner did for SS, and Hornsby did for 2B. Sisler took a position noted for defense, and completely turned it on its head. Try comparing 1B pre-1922. Those guys like Chase, McInnis, Daubert couldn't hold a candle to Sisler offensively.

He brought awesome offense to 1B, when all his peers where defensive specialists. It wasn't until the end of the 20's, with the arrival of Gehrig, Foxx, and later Greenberg, Mize and Big Klu that 1B evolved as it later did.

Does that give Sizz a bump up? A huge boost? You are the one who likes to chat about positional adjustments. I don't, but if you do, you must boost his offense, seeing as that he did his magic when no other 1Bmen could.

I do not promote Sisler as having a great career. Only a great half-career. It really pisses me off when you even refer to his 'career', as if that is relevant in this discussion. Makes me want to walk away from you and not debate with you anymore. Because that is digressing from the only issue I am debating.

I rank Sisler on Peak, just as you rank Morgan/Jackson on Peak. You discount/ignore their declines and only focus on their performance potential at their crescendos of their careers.

While I don't do that normally, I do do that for Sisler/Koufax. Both had legitimate reasons for their abrupt demises.

I also cite Sisler's nice power for his time. One factor which might influence me to downrate Sisler is if I knew that his home/away were heavily skewed. I saw that his 1920 numbers were way off, so that might be a problem. But I cannot judge his career as a whole without the rest of the years to look at.

So, those are my summaries. I only rank Sisler for Peak, and in doing that, I'm breaking my own rules. But I can justify that in my mind, even if you can't.

I would also like to ask SABR Matt to rank Sisler's Peak, 1917-22, for PCA. I will PM him.

Bill

[538280]

Bill asked me to summarize my feelings on George Sisler. I will do that. I would just like to point out first to Bill that I do not, rate Joe Morgan and Reggie Jackson strictly on their peak. I don't know where you got that impression. I rate every player by a value system which includes peak and career.


It is also not true that offensive levels at first base were lower in the deadball era than they would be in later times. First base was already known as a hitter's position. In the 19th century teams would often put their biggest and strongest (and thus usually best hitters) at first base. Dan Brouthers, Roger Connor, and Cap Anson were the three best, and those would be your best hitting 1Bmen of all time at that juncture, certainly NOT Sisler. This chart shows how positional norms related to the league average in each decade. X is catcher, C is CF, the exclamation point is league average:

1870's ..................LC..321S.XR.....................
1880'S 1.............L.C......!R3...2.S.........X........
1890'S ........L...RC1........!...3..2S.......X..........
1900'S ........L.R.C...1......!.2...3.S...............X..
1910'S .........CR...L.1......!..23.........S.....X......
1920'S ........RL1.C..........!...2.......3.X.....S......
1930'S ..1.....R...L.....C....!.......3..2X.S............
1940'S ......L...R.1.C........!.3.........2XS............
1950'S ........L.1...RC.....3.!.......X...2...S..........
1960'S ......1R..L...C......3.!...........X...2.S........
1970'S ......1...RL....C....3.!.......X.....2...........S
1980'S ........1...RL.....3C..!........X2.......S........
1990'S ......1.....R...L.....3C.......2.X.....S..........

There is no widespread spectrum jump in that data. If you look at the evolution of third base and second base, that is a real spectrum jump. 1900-1940 second base was really more offensive than third base. First base was a huge offensive position in the 1880s and it only dropped slightly from its normal level in the 1890s, 1900s, and 1910s.

It is not true either that Matt's PCA system sees Sisler being better than Jackson and Morgan at their peaks. Sisler's 1920 season comes in at 15.40 PCA, that is his best season. Jackson's 1969 beats that easily at 19.07. Morgan's 1976 at 17.19 is somewhat close, but according to PCA that was his 5th best season. 1975 is at 22.16, 1973 is at 19.17 (both FAR better than any of Sisler's seasons), 1974 is at 17.31 and 1972 at 17.30. Morgan has five seasons that are all at least two (and as many as seven) wins better than Sisler's best season by PCA. How exactly does that make PCA seeing Sisler having the better peak?

Anyway, now that that is out of the way I will give you my evaluation of Sisler. I think Sisler in his peak from 1917-1922 was a great player. I think he was one of the best in the league. I don't think he was a revolutionary, top 20 type player during that peak. Sisler in those years posted OPS+ of 161, 157, 154, 181, 140, and 170. This is a very good stretch, but, well, it doens't match up at all with the true best 1Bmen of all time. Let's chart those six Sisler seasons against some of the other great 1Bmen of all time. 500 PA is the minimum qualfication to make this list, except in shortened seasons due to strikes, 19th century shorter schedules, or that sort of thing. Sisler had under 600 PA in three of these years including one year of only 506, so there should be no criticism about me including certain years. 500 PA is the cutoff:

George Sisler......181, 170, 161, 157, 154, 140 Average: 161
Lou Gehrig..........221, 208, 203, 195, 194, 190 Average: 202
Frank Thomas.....212, 181, 180, 178, 178, 177 Average: 184
Willie McCovey....211, 182, 175, 165, 161, 160 Average: 176
Jeff Bagwell........213, 179, 169, 168, 158, 152 Average: 173
Jimmie Foxx........205, 200, 188, 186, 182, 182 Average: 191
Dick Allen...........200, 181, 174, 166, 165, 162 Average: 175
Roger Connor......201, 185, 184, 176, 171, 168 Average: 181
Dan Brouthers.....206, 201, 199, 189, 187, 182 Average: 194

Sisler was a great player at his peak, but his offensive production at his position was hardly revolutionary for the position. Those other players you see above were the true revolutionary performers. Sisler was not. HIs league ranks were 3rd, 4th, 5th, 2nd, 6th, and 3rd. This is a great player but it is not true domination-there have been MANY players more sucessful than that. If you are a 1Bman you had better do better than that if you want to have one of the top 10 peaks of all time.

No total player metric out there supports Sisler as anywhere near the top 20 peaks of all time. His top three WS seasons were 33, 29, and 29. Again, this is a really good player but there are literally tons of players, many of whom are not in the HOF or have even gotten hardly any of a look, who are better than that. That is not in the top 20 1Bmen in the NBJHBBA.

No statistcal measure I've even seen shows Sisler's peak being even close to truly great. I certainly realize the limitations of these metrics and they are not always totally correct. However, they give what are very good summaries of value IMO and they all line up saying Sisler didn't have one of the top 50 or so peaks of all time. He was a very good player with solid power and a great BA. However, he had very little patience at the plate, played first base, and did it in mostly a big hitting era and in big hitting parks.

I understand you are focusing on nothing but peak, but when I rank a player I always take everything, including career, into account. Over the 2nd half of his career Sisler was just a bad player. He was a .310 hitting 1Bman, but at a time when the leauge hit .290, and he had no power and just about never walked. His defense at this point was also pretty bad. If Sisler had kept up his previous performances he might make my top 50 players-but as it is his sinusitus brought him down to barely better than replacement level, so with that he doesn't make my top 100. That is how I rank him.

[AstrosFan]

I just want this clarified. Are you saying that you see Sisler's peak as great, but not all-time great? I could see that. When you find eight first basemen with better peaks than Sisler, that doesn't speak well for his status as an all-time great. Nevertheless, a 161 OPS+ is quite excellent for a peak. Look out, though, because when Bill Burgess sees you admitting Sisler's peak to be "great" he will gloat, regardless of what you said about it not being "revolutionary".

[leecemark]

--I think Chris' post summed up Sisler pretty fairly. Sisler WAS a great player at his peak, but he wasn't historically great. He wasn't so awesome that we can just ignore the fact that he was a mediocore player for fully half his career and rank him with the all time greats. He maybe had a top ten peak (amoung first basemen), but his career probably isn't top 20.

[Bill Burgess]

OK now. We have both clarified our positions on The Sizzler. You post, Chris was nice and clear. You avoided career, which I had asked you to do, except in your concluding paragraph, but I am a forgiving man.

You made your points nicely. You compared his peak to other peaks of early 1Bmen. Which was a good thing. Looks as if we did not persuade each other to the other's position. I still believe that Sisler's peak was as good as the other 1B, whose OPS+ peaks register better numbers.

This exercise has been a good one for me. It convinces me more than ever that plain stats can not encompass the whole of a player. Sisler awed his peers and some of the others did not. Some did. Sisler was a player who had good numbers and intangibles. His competitiveness was legendary. His intensity made an impression on his peers. McCovey, Bagwell, Allen and Connor were all very good players. But no one was going crazy over them. They were all perceived as great players at their best moments.

Incidentally, your 1st chart was Greek to me. But don't speak of it further. Let it go.

McCovey/Allen played in the 60's when many other great players obscured their play. That didn't make them less great, only less acclaimed than they would have been if they had played in an era less heavily populated with amazing stars.

Sisler also had that problem. He first had Cobb/Speaker to contend with, and then at his pinnacle, a guy named Babe chose that very moment to explode into the stratosphere. His tough luck.

So, I hope we have comprehensively aired our respective opinions on George Sisler. We both have now gotten him out of our systems. I hope. The others following this discussion can now do whatever the heck they do and consider both of our analysis.

I can not help George any more than I've done. Somehow, I feel that our exchanges have done little to the older members. Maybe some of the newcomers have been able to use our Sisler debate to their advantage. I hope it serves someone well.

I was going to gloat, but AstrosFan saved you from the famous Burgess GLOAT! DAMN IT!

Nice discussion.

Bill

PS. Matt never arrived with his PCA analysis of Sisler's Peak with respect to how it ranked with the Peaks of others, especially 1Bmen. If he arrives later, good.

[538280]

I just want this clarified. Are you saying that you see Sisler's peak as great, but not all-time great? I could see that. When you find eight first basemen with better peaks than Sisler, that doesn't speak well for his status as an all-time great. Nevertheless, a 161 OPS+ is quite excellent for a peak. Look out, though, because when Bill Burgess sees you admitting Sisler's peak to be "great" he will gloat, regardless of what you said about it not being "revolutionary".

Yes, I have always thought Sisler was a great player at his peak. It just wasn't all time great, and like Mark said it wasn't great or long enough that you can just ignore the 2nd part.

[538280]

You made your points nicely. You compared his peak to other peaks of early 1Bmen. Which was a good thing. Looks as if we did not persuade each other to the other's position. I still believe that Sisler's peak was as good as the other 1B, whose OPS+ peaks register better numbers.

This exercise has been a good one for me. It convinces me more than ever that plain stats can not encompass the whole of a player. Sisler awed his peers and some of the others did not. Some did. Sisler was a player who had good numbers and intangibles. His competitiveness was legendary. His intensity made an impression on his peers. McCovey, Bagwell, Allen and Connor were all very good players. But no one was going crazy over them. They were all perceived as great players at their best moments.

I look at things differently. I just think Sisler was overrated by the observers in the game in his time. They viewed batting average as the be all end all statistic and viewed walks as having very little value, so it's natural they should overrate a player like Sisler. I really don't think statistical measures miss much-they test what actually makes teams score runs (not what the subjective interpretation at the time was-which in the case of Sisler's time was very wrong), and I really think they are extremely accurate. When I would look at peer opinion is if there is a specific intangible not seen in the numbers dealing with the player. I don't see that in Sisler. Sisler was reputed to be greater than his actual value, IMO, because people just couldn't get past his gaudy batting averages and look at his total picture as an offensive player (which wasn't an all time great picture).

About Willie McCovey too. McCovey was regarded as a truly amazing hitter, and was almost certainly by far the most feared hitter in the National League during his best years. His intentional walk totals speak for themselves in that matter. He was certainly regarded to be a player of historical stature in his own time and the unquestioned best player in his league for a time.

[four tool]

How do you measure winning contributions? Ortiz's walk-off and late inning hits? A 24-4 pitcher? Intangibles? The opposition used say that about Pesky. "He can't hit, run or field, but he'll beat you." Does that make him an all time Value player?

[538280]

This exercise has been a good one for me. It convinces me more than ever that plain stats can not encompass the whole of a player. Sisler awed his peers and some of the others did not. Some did. Sisler was a player who had good numbers and intangibles. His competitiveness was legendary. His intensity made an impression on his peers. McCovey, Bagwell, Allen and Connor were all very good players. But no one was going crazy over them. They were all perceived as great players at their best moments.


I was thinking about this a little more I really don't understand this position. Are you saying that it doesn't really matter what the statistics say, you just know he's that great because "all these people said so"? Sorry, Bill, there's a difference between perception and reality. You should read the book Moneyball, if you haven't already. Perhaps that can show you that contemporary observations aren't always worth much at all.

[northside]

I kinda see where Bill's coming from. To use a non baseball example, here in Chicago a tremendous amount of people I have spoken with say Gale Sayers was a better running back that Payton although statistics may not bear that out (I've never bothered to check). Is that what you mean?

I have no clue about Sisler so I'm not entering that debate.

[SABR Matt]

Before I give the numerical data on Sisler, I would just like to say that instinctually I believe that Sisler would have been an all time great if he hadn't been injured. I believe that perception, while not reliable as the BASIS for our understanding of a player's abilities, is rarely so completely wrong that we are left pondering which halucinogen the observers were using when so many people agreed so totally.

George Sisler was not feared because (and only because) he hit .400 once. He was feared becasue he was a hot prospect at age 18...everyone knew he would turn out to be great, and he did...until his career was tragically redirected by chance. He was feared because he would have been one of the great POWER hitters of his generation were it not for Ruth showing people how it could be done on a whole other level, and because he was exciting on the bases and in the field. He was, for a short time, the Albert Pujols of his league. If Pujols' career abruptly ended today, would he be remembered as an all-time great? Think about that before you are too hard on Bill.

Now the statistics as requested by Bill:

The simplest measure of peak dominance I can offer is the mastery element of the GI method. Sisler's 81.4 offensive Mastery score ranks him 26th among first basemen (the leader in the offensive mastery element at first base scores a 159.5). His defensive mastery score is 13.3, which places him outside of the top 120 first basemen all time in that regard. I would not describe his actual career as having demonstrated significant "mastery of his craft" relative to his peers on a wholistic level. This is perhaps not entirely fair, however, because a big part of the difference between Sisler and a guy like Bagwell or Allen is that Sisler's career effectively ended in 1923 when he was 30. What is really required to measure how skilled Sisler was, pre-injury, is for me to look at how he stacks up to other first basemen before they reach the same number of plate appearances (I carefully avoid using age here because some first basemen debuted earlier than Sisler did and some later).

Recall that the Mastery element of the GI method is made up of two things...a player's career "half-life"...(the scoring rate for the best half of a player's career pro-rated out to a 5000 PA sample, essentially)...and his dominance score, which is an accounting for the number of wins he created above the 90th percentile scoring rate assuming the players form a nearly-normal distribution in each season.

By 1922, Sisler, had scored 4.93 dominance wins, and had a career win scoring rate of about 0.0156 (normalized) offensive wins per plate appearance which prorates out to 78.1 Wins. Add the two together and low and behold you get something very close to his actual mastery score...as I said, his career essentially ended after the 1922 season. If we do this exercize for all players, limited them to their plate appearances before they reach a running PA count of 4800 (Sisler had 4580 or so PA by 1922, but I want to leave a little margin for error here), where does Sisler rank in approximate mastery score?

I carried out this exersize for every player in history with at least 3500 career PA, low and behold, I found that the new approximate Mastery score was not much different than the one based on full careers! It seems that (a) the Dominance score, which is cumulative, is a relatively small componant of the GI Mastery element and therefore causes little variation when some dominant post-age-30 seasons are lost and (b) most players have their best years before theire 5,000th PA, meaning the career scoring rate through the 5,000th PA is not much different than the scoring rate of the seasons comprising the best half of the player's individual seasons (measured by taking the player's career PA, dividing by two, ordering that player's by scoring rate (highest rates first), and finding the running scoring rate for all seasons that fall within the limit set by the career PA divided by 2).

I guess that's not terribly surprising...that in the general sense the scores would be fairly similar. However it is important to note that George Sisler moved up...fairly significantly...when I did this. He moved from 26th in offensive Mastery to 17th:

PlayerID DOM WC PA Mastery
Frank Thomas 35.46 114.17 4789 154.66
Dan Brouthers 16.19 88.06 4454 115.04
Lou Gehrig 16.34 89.33 4762 110.14
Jason Giambi 20.31 85.41 4772 109.80
Johnny Mize 13.33 88.77 4634 109.12
Hank Greenberg 11.80 84.07 4669 101.82
Todd Helton 13.69 83.47 4798 100.67
Jimmie Foxx 12.17 81.02 4590 100.43
Dick Allen 8.83 75.16 4223 97.82
Roger Connor 9.47 82.73 4781 95.99
Frank Chance 8.99 74.18 4585 89.88
Mark McGwire 11.99 68.34 4428 89.16
Jeff Bagwell 8.52 70.84 4410 88.83
Fred McGriff 5.20 77.07 4709 87.03
Willie McCovey 7.41 71.12 4596 84.78
Will Clark 4.65 67.77 4311 83.25
George Sisler 4.94 71.39 4574 82.98

It's also important to point out that 17th on this kind of list isn't exactly the mark of a future all time great. When your contemporaries are Will Clark and Fred McGriff, you're a very good player, but it's hard to argue that you are destined for enshrinement in Cooperstown and a place on someone's all time dream team.

Defensively, Sisler simply does not fair all that well by PCA...here's his season-by-season defensive breakdown:

Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
1915 36 0.38 0.276
1916 139 1.85 0.292
1917 132 0.42 0.228
1918 115 1.98 0.317
1919 131 1.69 0.289
1920 154 3.31 0.344
1921 136 1.33 0.270
1922 142 0.36 0.224
1924 151 0.64 0.235
1925 148 1.29 0.263
1926 148 0.02 0.209
1927 150 0.16 0.215
1928 122 0.85 0.252
1928 4 0.02 0.234
1929 154 -0.11 0.204
1930 105 0.51 0.239

Gyyyuuuggghhh...

Sorry, Bill...I know you were hoping for better, and I'm not going to sit here and say PCA is the end all and be-all of defensive evaluation, but as much as I believe that eye-witness accounts, especially when they agree heartily are rarely completely wrong, I also believe that a good defensive uberstat (and yes, I believe that normalized PCA defensive wins are a very good fielding analysis tool) is also rarely completely wrong. When I look at thisfielding career, I see a player had some talent (PCA gold gloves in 1918 and 1920 and a PCA-BA of .288 through 1921), and who it is clear was rather badly influenced by his eye injury after 1922, but who was already beginning to decline with the glove before he got hurt and lost his vision. I don't know that a strong case can truly be made that he would have looked that much better in the field without the eye problems.

One thing I've noticed when it comes to fielding analysis and eye witness accounts of fielding skill is that when uberstats say a player was mediocre with the glove and the people say he was great, there is usually at least one season in which the uberstat will agree he was great and you can often trace the strongest eye witness agreement on his being a great fielder to that very season.

For example, Edgar Renteria rates as being a TERRIBLE defensive shortstop overall, but when he came to Boston, the Red Sox thought they were getting a gold glover. Why such a huge disagreement? The Renteria accalades had been passed down from the 2002 season (I believe it was 2002 anyway) when he was in fact an oustanding fielder for that one year. Otherwise, he's been prone to mental mistakes, inaccurate throws and a general lack of quality footwork, but in that one year he was awesome and the reputation stuck. George Sisler had one of the top 40 fielding seasons of all time at first base in 1920...prior to 1920, if Bill will look at the common opinions about who the great fielders were, Sisler might still get some press, but it wasn't until the 1920 season was over that Sisler became the god-like defensive figure he remains to baseball historians. One great year can make or break how you are remembered, and I think that's what happened here.

Here's Sisler's offensive career, BTW, so that we can all see what actually happened through the eyes of PCA:

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
1915 295 1.69 0.266
1916 644 7.41 0.302
1917 587 8.50 0.320
1918 506 7.06 0.317
1919 561 9.29 0.333
1920 692 13.08 0.348
1921 635 10.74 0.335
1922 654 13.62 0.359
1924 684 3.22 0.260
1925 688 5.56 0.281
1926 662 3.27 0.262
1927 661 6.30 0.290
1928 51 -0.14 0.214
1928 537 4.10 0.278
1929 686 4.67 0.273
1930 470 2.38 0.262

I mentioned Albert Pujols a while ago in this post. Here's his offnesive record through 2005:

Yr PA Wins PCA-BA
2001 676 9.47 0.317
2002 675 9.20 0.315
2003 685 15.66 0.372
2004 692 12.17 0.340
2005 700 12.92 0.345

The ciritcal difference of course is that Pujols hit the big leagues and IMMEDIATELY succeeded on a phenominal level...it took Sisler a few years to get going and he arrived a few years later than Albert so he didn't have as much time to develop, but hopefully you can see the similarities in performance level at least to give you an idea of how good Sisler was for that brief three year period in his physical prime.

Bill looks at Sisler and sees what could have been with more clarity than he sees what was. Chris looks at Sisler and sees what was in black and white. I look at Sisler and try to see both...to each his own. Numerically, I have Sisler rated as the 26th greatest first baseman of all time. When I make out a list based on the numbers and my own personal corrections, I place him 21st. Bill would probably still call that too low I suppose, but I do recognize at least to some extent what was lost when he caught that ball in his eye socket.

[mwiggins]

One thing I've noticed when it comes to fielding analysis and eye witness accounts of fielding skill is that when uberstats say a player was mediocre with the glove and the people say he was great, there is usually at least one season in which the uberstat will agree he was great and you can often trace the strongest eye witness agreement on his being a great fielder to that very season.

For example, Edgar Renteria rates as being a TERRIBLE defensive shortstop overall, but when he came to Boston, the Red Sox thought they were getting a gold glover. Why such a huge disagreement? The Renteria accalades had been passed down from the 2002 season (I believe it was 2002 anyway) when he was in fact an oustanding fielder for that one year. Otherwise, he's been prone to mental mistakes, inaccurate throws and a general lack of quality footwork, but in that one year he was awesome and the reputation stuck. George Sisler had one of the top 40 fielding seasons of all time at first base in 1920...prior to 1920, if Bill will look at the common opinions about who the great fielders were, Sisler might still get some press, but it wasn't until the 1920 season was over that Sisler became the god-like defensive figure he remains to baseball historians. One great year can make or break how you are remembered, and I think that's what happened here.

Good point there, Matt, about eye-witness account's of fielding skills. Another thing that can often skew people's perceptions of fielding skill is "web gem" type plays. Even before tv highlight shows, if a guy's making diving stops, that looks impressive. Whereas the guy who was either positioned better, or got to the ball quicker (and so didn't need to dive), doesn't look as impressive to the naked eye - even though he's a better fielder than they guy making the diving stop. A big case in point would be Griffey, Jr. His rep in the 90's was as a brilliant defender, when in reality he wasn't.

[SABR Matt]

Precisely correct mwiggins.

Griffey was a TALENTED fielder but when they talked about his "loping strides and casual demeanor" they weren't screwing around. The guy was ALWAYS a loafer in center field. He didn't run particularly brilliant routes, and was slow to react when the play was his...he is also a guy I have in the past accused of intentionally making the play difficult so he could get on the highlight reel.

There are a number of examples of that kind of fielder in the historical record, but as I observed...usually those types (the highlight reel guys) put it together at least one full season. Meaning they have a special year where the balls bounce right and they read it just right and they make unusually few mistakes and it results in a spectacular looking defensive season. Sisler might have been that type of first baseman, but he did show skill in other seasons besides 1920, so I think not...I suspect he was just very good when he was young and not so good as he aged. BTW Mickey Mantle was the Griffey model CFer...a highlight reel guy with tremendous ability who looked good in a uni and who was never a particularly accomplished or valuable fielder except for one or two abberations.

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you, Matt! That was a stat opus of epic proportions! Although I cannot really claim that I understand your methodology of PCA, I respect that it's a good, valid, fair system of player evaluation.

And I can also grasp what you say about a rep being made and then lasting after it no longer applies. Perhaps that did happen to Sisler defensively.

I know everyone will now place this post in their Sisler file. I know I will. Thanks, Matt for all the statmen/guests who follow along with us.

Sisler will remain my all time first baseman, with Gehrig on my B team. I do not mind if Gehrig was the better player. Sisler is more MY kind of player. I do not and will not say Sisler was better than anyone else. All I will say is I like him, and he does not diminish in my eyes.

Bill James once said that stats should guide conclusions and not dictate them. I like stats as much as anyone can who can't understand them, but don't trust them as much as some do. I do trust them to a certain degree, but reserve the right to exercise my human mind in the final analysis.

It's probably a good thing that the good Lord didn't put a math calculator into my brain. If he did, I'd probably be dangerous, or an insufferable bore, who tried to bully everyone into agreeing with me. I think I'm more sufferable being a stat dumbbell.

[Bill Burgess]

I was thinking about this a little more I really don't understand this position. Are you saying that it doesn't really matter what the statistics say, you just know he's that great because "all these people said so"? Sorry, Bill, there's a difference between perception and reality. You should read the book Moneyball, if you haven't already. Perhaps that can show you that contemporary observations aren't always worth much at all.
Sorry, Chris. You can't make me agree with you simply because of stats. Reality/perception?

Sorry. Yes, I do indeed trust people more than number systems. People are better judges of most things. Art, dance, painting, music, writing, relationships, love, psychology, philosophy, decorating, clothes, singing, comedy, and perhaps a few hundred other things.

For you to put all your faith in player evaluations due to their numbers is your right. But I think that's foolish. Stats should only be a guiding tool. People opinions should count for at least as much, and most people agree with me, and not you. I agree that people should use stats more than they do now, but less than your 90% faith.

I doubt that even Bill James or Matt relies on stats as much as you do. In fact, Bill James says he puts great store in historical opinions. A sport like baseball is greatly artistic and romantic. That you have disdained romance in sports does NOT speak well of you, Christopher. But you are 14 years old and have a long life to come to some conclusions.

To digress for a moment, I think that God allowed humans to evolve sports as an alternative to war. Sports allows men to get their aggression, testosterone, and over-aggressive instincts out of their systems, so that they don't need to kill, invade, plunder, rape, loot, rob, beat, injure, molest each other.

Done properly, it's a healthy safety valve to blow off other-wise unhealthy aggression.

But there is a danger. If sports are done wrong, it is only a means to beat others, humiliate, crush, defeat, gloat, cheat, rough up, pummel others.

Even in the most violent sports, boxing/martial arts/hockey - among the better players, there is usually respect, camaraderie, fellowship, sportsmanship, goodwill. Such as two fighters who embrace as soon as the final bell is rung.

I hope you are not using baseball wrongly, Christopher. Baseball is fun. It's pleasant. Discussing it should not devolve into insults, taunts, baiting. That misses the whole point of allowing us all to come together to have the time of our lives.

I hope you don't feel badly just because you couldn't persuade me to your point of view on George Sisler. Bill James and Matt combined could not make me abandon my all time first baseman. So, you had little chance going in.

But . . . you should feel good about yourself. You fought well. You stuck by your guns. You did as well as anyone else might have. Well, maybe not as well as James/Matt, but you still should be proud of yourself.

I have never allowed my inability to persuade others here to sadden me. If others can't see Ewing, Cobb, Sisler, Clemente, H.Long, Lange, Biz Mackey, John Lloyd as I do, well, then, they weren't supposed to. Had little to do with my inept presentation of their Cold Cases.

Please don't feel bad about my perceptions, Chris. Many were set long before you were born, and likely to remain so. I'm a big boy and you are not responsible for my deeper BB education.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Good point there, Matt, about eye-witness account's of fielding skills. Another thing that can often skew people's perceptions of fielding skill is "web gem" type plays. Even before tv highlight shows, if a guy's making diving stops, that looks impressive. Whereas the guy who was either positioned better, or got to the ball quicker (and so didn't need to dive), doesn't look as impressive to the naked eye - even though he's a better fielder than they guy making the diving stop. A big case in point would be Griffey, Jr. His rep in the 90's was as a brilliant defender, when in reality he wasn't.
Another thing also is that, contrary to popular belief, is that even great fielders can have bad defensive seasons. We all know that great hitters can have off seasons (ala Jason Giambi) or medicore players can have great fluke season (ala Adrian Beltre). Most people believe tha defensive perfomance is static, that great defensive players will always be great defensive players year in and year out. But just like .325 hitter can slump to .270 for a season a defensive player can have similar off seasons. But defense is much more clouded by perception, "web-jems" and, bias than offense. We know the difference between a .325 hitter with great power and a .285 hitter with average power. Most can't distinguish between the defensive equivalent players.

[mwiggins]

Great post, Bill. It's funny how baseball is the major sport that most lends itself to both poetry AND mathimatics.

[SABR Matt]

It's funny...I remember some time last year I posted some fielding records for the inspection of BBF members and someone asked me regarding one of them "is it really possible that such a good fielder would have those kinds of fluctuations in performance?" (he was refering to a couple of bad years mixed in with the good ones) I answered "is it really possible that Jason Giambi could suddenly hit .220 for a year?" or somesuch. Fielding is a skill just like hitting that is subject to the vagueries of random chance. Good players have bad years. Bad players have good ones. But with fielding, it seems that once you have a good season, if you are in a high profile baseball market or on a winning team, that reputation will stick.

[four tool]

Back in the late 60s or 70s someone said "If you have one great year, you can ride it for five years, everyone still thinks you're great and that you'll do it again." That's not the direct quote, but it is the sense of it. If I remember right, Yaz said it sometime after 1967.It was said a few decades before web gems.

And how many fans think Fisk is a great clutch hitter because of WS game 6, 1975?

[SABR Matt]

And how many fans think Jeter is a great fielder because of 2001 ALDS game 4 and "the play".

BTW, I am not convinced Adrian Beltre is a one-and-done fluke. (I saw someone call him such in a post above). If he were, he'd be the first player in major league history to post an OPS+ of 150 or higher before the age of 25 and then never above 120 after that. I doubt he'll ever be a 160 OPS+ hitter again, but a lot of folks in Mariner blog-land took notice of his great hitting from June 1st on this year...(slugged over .600 from that date to the end of the season)...and believe he is capable of being worth his money in the future.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And how many fans think Jeter is a great fielder because of 2001 ALDS game 4 and "the play".

BTW, I am not convinced Adrian Beltre is a one-and-done fluke. (I saw someone call him such in a post above). If he were, he'd be the first player in major league history to post an OPS+ of 150 or higher before the age of 25 and then never above 120 after that. I doubt he'll ever be a 160 OPS+ hitter again, but a lot of folks in Mariner blog-land took notice of his great hitting from June 1st on this year...(slugged over .600 from that date to the end of the season)...and believe he is capable of being worth his money in the future.
I guess that would be me. I didn't mean to imply that Beltre would never have an All-Star season again. It's just that his 2004 season is such an outlier. It's probably one of the 8-10 greatest seasons by a third baseman and he hasn't come close to matching it.

Beltre is such a puzzling player. He debuted in the majors at age 19 which is in itself a pretty good sign for great future success. He had a solid age 20 season (.275/.352/.428, 100 OPS+). Then he took a step forward in his age 21 season (.290/.360/.475, 116 OPS+). At this point everyone was hailing his as the next great third baseman on the verge of breaking out. But it didn't happen. For the next three seasons he had a 93, 98, and 89 OPS+. I know he had that botched surgery but I can't believe it effected him for three seasons. Then in his age 25 season he turned into a mini George Brett. I was convinced that he had finally turned the corner and that his 2004 season was the beginning of a 6-8 year run at greatness. But it hasn't worked out that way. :noidea

What's intereting is that Beltre and Aramis Ramirez are less than one year apart (Ramirez debuted at age 20 in 1998) Yet Ramirez has had the better career so far.

[SABR Matt]

Sprry HWR...I'm just very defensive of Beltre these days because I'm tired of people dismissing Beltre as a bad signing after only 2 of the 5 years of his contract have gone by...LOL I think next year will be pretty good for him...but I guess we'll see.

[candy curveball cummings]

And how many fans think Jeter is a great fielder because of 2001 ALDS game 4 and "the play".

BTW, I am not convinced Adrian Beltre is a one-and-done fluke. (I saw someone call him such in a post above). If he were, he'd be the first player in major league history to post an OPS+ of 150 or higher before the age of 25 and then never above 120 after that. I doubt he'll ever be a 160 OPS+ hitter again, but a lot of folks in Mariner blog-land took notice of his great hitting from June 1st on this year...(slugged over .600 from that date to the end of the season)...and believe he is capable of being worth his money in the future.

While Beltre did have a great year from June 1st on, he did not slug over .600 from that date to the end of the season. His SLG was .543, unless my calculations are mistaken.

[SABR Matt]

Perhaps I remembered incorrectly...he may have slugged .543 from June 1 on and over .600 from August 1 on or something like that. I know he homered 9 or 10 times in September.

[Brad Harris]

Beltre had a .611 slugging percentage in the month of June this year. Perhaps that's what you were trying to recall?

Beltre looks more and more like fluke. Next year will be his age-28 season. He has now entered what ought to be his best seasons, but 2006 didn't even come close.

I averaged out Beltre's career numbers, minus his 2004 stats, to a 156 "season" for a direct comparison with 2004 (when he played 156 games.) Look how big the margin of difference between 2004 and Beltre's "average" season is:

Runs
2004: 104
Avg: 73

Hits
2004: 200
Avg: 151

Home Runs
2004: 48
Avg: 21

Runs Batted In
2004: 121
Avg: 82

Batting Average
2004: .334
Avg: .262

On Base Percentage
2004: .388
Avg: .319

Slugging Percentage
2004: .629
Avg: .431

Production (OPS)
2004: 1.017
Avg: .750

Is it possible that Beltre is older than we believe? Or that he was using some kind of steroids in 2004 and then quit? He surely didn't reach a new performance level and then unlearn those skills. So what's the most likely explanation? What's plausible here?

[Windy City Fan]

Tricky question, and I think its one that divides us quite often. Value as I define it is the sum of how much a player helped (or hurt) his team over his entire career. On a strict value scale things like missing war years, tragic injuries, even peak performance are non factors. Value comes down to figuring out how many "W's" a player helped put on the board. Of course how we figure that out can be debated, but that's essentially what value is to me. Positional adjustments or "replacement value" must be included here. There's also not a lot of contextual adjustment here. The fact that Ruth's different approach to the game let out easily outpace entire teams isn't held against him. Ruth's style was far more productive so he gets full credit for it.

Greatness is a little more subjective and plays around with context a bit more. Typically peak is given at least some weight here. This is done to varying degrees. Greatness can also factor in things like Cochrane's beaning or Sisler's sinuses. Park factor arguments can enter here if it's believed a player benefited for a particular park ala Chuck Klein. Greatness tries to ask who was the best? What we mean when we say that is subjective and certainly value should be a large factor, but we also have to consider the factors surrounding the players in question.

Value is easy once you find a system to measure it that you believe in. Greatness is a lot harder to get a handle on and to find a concensus on. Lastly, some folks in this thread seem to equate greatness with perception, which is in my mind a third catagory.

[JRB]

.......George Sisler was not feared because (and only because) he hit .400 once.............

When I look at this fielding career, I see a player had some talent (PCA gold gloves in 1918 and 1920 and a PCA-BA of .288 through 1921), and who it is clear was rather badly influenced by his eye injury after 1922, but who was already beginning to decline with the glove before he got hurt and lost his vision. I don't know that a strong case can truly be made that he would have looked that much better in the field without the eye problems.........

.........When I make out a list based on the numbers and my own personal corrections, I place him 21st. Bill would probably still call that too low I suppose, but I do recognize at least to some extent what was lost when he caught that ball in his eye socket.

SABR MATT:

I have read your recent post and find that you make many interesting and thoughtful points. I am not familiar with the "system" you are using, however I am very interested in George Sisler who you rated with your system. I have been following baseball for quite some time and have always held Sisler in much higher regard than the results of your analysis would seem to indicate are justified. It is clear from your post that your were trying to be fair and balanced in assessing Sisler, however there are a few questions I would like to raise.

First, Sisler batted over .400 two times, not once. Perhaps, you were just using the word "once" in a figurative sense, and didn't mean that he had done it only once, however I wouldn't like anyone to come away with the idea from reading your post that Sisler had only accomplished that feat once.

Secondly, you indicate what seems to be the opinion that Sisler would not have been that much better in the field without the eye problem. While you may have statistical reasons for arriving at that opinion, I think it is both medically unsound and contrary to common sense, unless Sisler had no eye problem at all. If one accepts the widely circulated premise that Sisler had ongoing eye problems after 1923, then the eye problem would have surely affected him in both the field and at bat. An eye problem does not appear while you are at bat and then suddenly disappear when you take your turn in the field, and go on and off in that fashion. You indicate that your stats indicate that Sisler's fielding was already showing evidence of going downhill prior to the onset of his eye problem. If that is the case, you may have already answered that question yourself in the excellent point you made that players have off years in the field as well as at the plate. However, once Sisler had an eye problem he would obviously have been physically prevented from rebounding defensively to his 1920 type standards.

Third, you mention that you know what Sisler lost when he "caught the ball in his eyesocket". This would seem to suggest that the onset of Sisler's problem came from being hit with a baseball. Perhaps, you have better information than me on this issue. I had always been under the impression that Sisler's eye problems stemmed from sinusitis. Back in the 1920's prior to the development of antibiotics the effects of some infections could linger for years. In fact I know people today even with multiple courses of antibiotics who will still have chronic symptoms as a result of sinus infections. Was there more than one incident? In other words, did he have his vision impaired from a sinus infection and then also "catch a baseball in his eye socket", or were you just using the phrase in some sort of poetic sense.

Fourthly, is your system giving Sisler due credit for the low number of times he strikes out?. For instance, Sisler had slightly more at bats in his career than the great Willie McCovey. Sisler struck out only 327 times, while McCovey struck out 1550 times, a ratio of a little less than 5 times more than that of Sisler. Does your system give Sisler credit for his striking out only 1/5th as often as players such as McCovey? Striking out does not move a runner along. Sisler, by consistently putting the ball in play, would have undoubetdly advanced the on base runner(s) on hundreds of occasions, i.e moving the runner from second to third on a groundout, etc. I know they didn't keep stats for GDP in those days, however Sisler was very fast and hit from the left side, so I doubt he grounded into double plays very often, so I suspect that Sisler's skill in consistently keeping the ball in play would have much more than offset the negative effects of hitting into a double play. Hopefully, your system gives Sisler some credit for that skill, and if it does not then is your system being fair and balanced to old time ballplayers like Sisler and others who counted not striking out among the most valuable of skills.

Lastly, Sisler batted more than 100 points over the batting average for the league 3 times in his career, which is the same number of times that Ted Williams performed this feat, so during his relatively short prime Sisler was clearly dominate vis a vis the league as far as batting average was concerned, and in those days batting average was almost universally considered the goal standard upon which to judge a hitter.

c JRB

[SABR Matt]

I was under the impression that he suffered an eye injury and that that his sinusitis was the result of that injury...that he was hit by a hard one-hopper that took a tricky bounce and messed up his face. If that was the wrong impression, please all, feel free to correct me.

I was aware that Sisler had hit .400 twice...I was using the word "once" as in "once upon a time"...not the number one. But that's important that you helped me clarify that.

And no...I wasn't suggesting his eyesight didn't hinder him at ALL in the field...I was only suggesting that he was already becoming a bad fielder before the eye problems started. Good question though...I was perhaps not entirely clear on that point.

The final question you raised was on the matter of strikeouts. There are a couple of important things to bring up about your comparison between McCovey and Sisler. 1) the entire league struck out way less often in Sisler's day than it did in McCovey's day. 2) Not striking out is not in and of itself a valuable hitting skill...it helps a hitter because it allows him to more easily hit for a high average (because when you put it in play, you always have some probability that it will be a hit...when you strike out...there is no chance of a hit), but the actual difference in value between a K and a normal out is very small (and it is accounted for by PCA) and not a major factor in determining who is greater. The hits it helped Sisler get are what matter most...and those are of course fully documented. :)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Beltre had a .611 slugging percentage in the month of June this year. Perhaps that's what you were trying to recall?

Beltre looks more and more like fluke. Next year will be his age-28 season. He has now entered what ought to be his best seasons, but 2006 didn't even come close.

I averaged out Beltre's career numbers, minus his 2004 stats, to a 156 "season" for a direct comparison with 2004 (when he played 156 games.) Look how big the margin of difference between 2004 and Beltre's "average" season is:

Runs
2004: 104
Avg: 73

Hits
2004: 200
Avg: 151

Home Runs
2004: 48
Avg: 21

Runs Batted In
2004: 121
Avg: 82

Batting Average
2004: .334
Avg: .262

On Base Percentage
2004: .388
Avg: .319

Slugging Percentage
2004: .629
Avg: .431

Production (OPS)
2004: 1.017
Avg: .750

Is it possible that Beltre is older than we believe? Or that he was using some kind of steroids in 2004 and then quit? He surely didn't reach a new performance level and then unlearn those skills. So what's the most likely explanation? What's plausible here?
Look at Beltre's age 20 and 21 seasons. For such a young hitter he showed great promise. Given what he did in those two seasons I can believe that with normal development you can get a season like his age 25 season. He had some botched surgery in 2001 that ruined his age 22 season. But he struggled for three years as a below average hitter before 2004.

[538280]

Sorry, Chris. You can't make me agree with you simply because of stats. Reality/perception?

Sorry. Yes, I do indeed trust people more than number systems. People are better judges of most things. Art, dance, painting, music, writing, relationships, love, psychology, philosophy, decorating, clothes, singing, comedy, and perhaps a few hundred other things.

You shouldn't trust what people say more than statistics. You REALLY shouldn't. Have you ever read the book Moneyball? Honestly, call that my #1 reccommendation to you:

http://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818/sr=1-1/qid=1160527684/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6390999-4107307?ie=UTF8&s=books

Buy it. It is an awesome and informative book. The book talks about how current Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane learned the importance of statisical analysis in baseball, and how the market was LOADED with inefficiencies. It shows how the perceptions that people have about players are just flat out wrong a good a amount of the time, and quite often should be ignored. In fact, Beane built a great team with a very low payroll in part through just paying as little attention as possible to the mainstream's perception. This is not to say he didn't realize that scouting and such could be important. Just that the way most fans, sportswriters, etc view the game is very wrong, and that they place ridiculous values on certain events that are easily proven to be wrong. It also has a chapter which gives a bit of a biography on Bill James, you would probably like that.

Do not interpret me as saying the statistics can encompass everything in player evaluation. There are important things a player does which do not show up in the statistics, as well as certain influences or biases in the statistics that are almost untraceable unless you follow the literature of the sport. But as far as mainstream perceptions? Close to useless IMO. The only case where they may be useful is if the observers are picking up on some valuable skill the player had not grasped in the statistics. Then it can be important. However, the vast majority of the time, the reason why players are shown to be overrated or underrated by these statistical measures is simply that the mainstream was misinterpreting statistics.

[JRB]

I was under the impression that he suffered an eye injury and that that his sinusitis was the result of that injury...that he was hit by a hard one-hopper that took a tricky bounce and messed up his face. If that was the wrong impression, please all, feel free to correct me.

2) Not striking out is not in and of itself a valuable hitting skill...it helps a hitter because it allows him to more easily hit for a high average (because when you put it in play, you always have some probability that it will be a hit...when you strike out...there is no chance of a hit), but the actual difference in value between a K and a normal out is very small (and it is accounted for by PCA) and not a major factor in determining who is greater. The hits it helped Sisler get are what matter most...and those are of course fully documented. :)

SABR MATT:

Thanks for your reply. Sinusitis is caused by a bacterial infection, and commonly occurs after someone has been initially weakend by a viral infection such as a cold or the flu. I've never heard of it being specifically induced by a blunt trauma, however perhaps in the weakened condition following such a trauma a person might become so weakened as to be susceptible to an infection There is an incredible body of cumulative knowledge in this forum, so perhaps someone with knowledge of the precise sequence of events can clear this matter up. I know that someone did a bio of Sisler not too long ago, so if someone has a copy perhaps they can check to see if the author addresses the sequence of events.

I strongly disagree with your contention that not striking out is not in and of itself a valuable hitting skill. I believe that not striking out is a valuable hitting skill, unless the player hits into a lot of double plays, for the reasons discussed in detail in my previous post I think any system that does not give a player proper credit for that skill is going to be biased against most of the players of Sisler's era.

[538280]

I strongly disagree with your contention that not striking out is not in and of itself a valuable hitting skill. I believe that not striking out is a valuable hitting skill, unless the player hits into a lot of double plays, for the reasons discussed in detail in my previous post I think any system that does not give a player proper credit for that skill is going to be biased against most of the players of Sisler's era.

This is just not statistically true. A million studies have been done about this in every era in baseball history. The perception of the K is that it is much worse than a regular out, the reality is that it is not. In terms of the game situation, a K is the same as a regular out whenever there is no one on base or 2 outs. A K, taking all situations, is actually slightly better than a regular out with a runner on first and less than two outs, because althrough there is the possibility of moving the runner along, in terms of what has happened in actual MLB games and it's effect on the game the possibility of the DP in the regular out is more important. The only times when a K is worse than a regular out is with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both with less than 2 outs. And even then the difference is not pronounced. Outs move runners along sometimes, but it is not a majority of the time.

Here are a few of many studies done on the effect of Ks on run scoring:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

[JRB]

This is just not statistically true. A million studies have been done about this in every era in baseball history. The perception of the K is that it is much worse than a regular out, the reality is that it is not. In terms of the game situation, a K is the same as a regular out whenever there is no one on base or 2 outs. A K, taking all situations, is actually slightly better than a regular out with a runner on first and less than two outs, because althrough there is the possibility of moving the runner along, in terms of what has happened in actual MLB games and it's effect on the game the possibility of the DP in the regular out is more important. The only times when a K is worse than a regular out is with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both with less than 2 outs. And even then the difference is not pronounced. Outs move runners along sometimes, but it is not a majority of the time.

Here are a few of many studies done on the effect of Ks on run scoring:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

How are you Man of Steel?

Thank you for the two threads you included in your post. I found the articles very unpersuasive for your claim that a strikeout is the same as a regular out, however their discussions did remind me of certain facts which make not striking out an even greater asset for players in Sisler's era than I had at first thought it to be. The author of one of the articles seemed to predicate his claim that nowdays strike outs aren't any worse than other outs on the striking improvements in modern equipment in recent years. What I believe he is saying is that fielders make much fewer errors now, and therefore striking out isn't as bad as it used to be, since it is more unlikely now that a fielder will make an error if the batter puts the ball in play. However, as soon as I read that article I was reminded of the fact that the players in Sisler's day had really primitive gloves, and the infield was kept in much worse condition. As a result there were far far more errors committed (That is why most, if not all, the career leaders in infield fielding percentage are modern players). Therefore, a player like Sisler who kept the ball in play probably reached base hundreds of more times during his career than a player who just struck out. This would count as an out, so Sisler wouldn't get credit for it in his batting average or OPS, however this was a skill that obviously translated into tangible positive results on many occasions. So not only did players like Sisler, who struck out infrequently, help advance runner (s) on base, they also got on base themselves more frequently because of errors they essentially forced by putting the ball in play, and they also advanced any other runner(s) who were on base at the time of the error. No doubt in a number of instances the errors forced by their putting the ball in play also drove in runs for which they did not receive credit. The bias in these "systems" against most of the old time ballplayers of Sisler's era is even greater than I originally thought. Thank you for causing these flaws to be brought to light.

c JRB

[Bill Burgess]

You shouldn't trust what people say more than statistics. You REALLY shouldn't. Have you ever read the book Moneyball? Honestly, call that my #1 reccommendation to you:.
Chris,

The problem is you're trying to persuade some members like me that stats are the main way to go. You fail to realize that I know all about stats and regard them differently than others. No one will change that. Not a book, not a person. I am who I am, as you are who you are.

I like stats, I enjoy them, but only use them as a guiding tool to inform, suggest, but never dictate. I think you allow numbers to command you more than is necessary. And yes, I know all about witness errors. Have known about that since long, long ago. But, I am who I am.

Our realities might brush against each other in a casual way, but will not be taking that long walk to The Light.

Bill

[Mariano_Rivera]

I think we lost several pages

[Bill Burgess]

I just added a poll/survey to this thread. Its multiple choice, so you can select as many choices as you like.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I accidentally cvoted.

[brett]

In responding to the poll, I feel that Bill is too inflexible when it comes the the value proven in certain aspects of the game such as a players TOTAL offensive contribution relative to the offense of their particular era. I also think that he tends to overvalue fielders who were great at a lesser position, and tends to not factor in the league quality aspect of integration.

Bill over-rates Cobb's baserunning COMPARED to the value he gives every other baserunner in history. For him, Cobb is a 10 baserunner and everyone else starts at 8.

I think that Chris probably overvalued walks, steals and league quality in his early rankings and is hesitant to move some guys down like Morgan to mirror more realistic value. I think that if walks and steals are properly weighted then Morgan is in the 15-20 range.

I also feel that Chris uses peak value when it serves him, and uses longevity when that serves him. Morgan needs longevity to rise close to Hornsby in my book, though I can't believe that people around here think that his peak was not among the top 15-20 at least. Ripken needs longevity to rank top 25. Mantle needs peak to be considered above Cobb. Dick Allen gets a big peak advantage, but Dimaggio's peak is not valued as much. I also think that he undervalues second base and centerfield among earlier players because the positions are different than they are now, even though their value may be in-line or even greater than today.

I also think that Chris overrates the quality of hitters in the 70s and 80s. Hitting was low then because players mechanics and approach was not ideal to overall production of both power and contact.

I think that Bill underappreciates the superior athleticism of players from the 90s and on. Physically, they make players from previous eras look like kids. They are taller, bigger, faster, stronger. Also the game has evolved to the point where one player can not statistically dominate as in the past. I also think that the "average joe" player from before 1950 particularly, simply would not be playing if the league was as deep and balanced as after. I think that while there were pitchers who threw 90+ MPH, your typical starter probably had a fastball in the lower 80s, and without the kind of movement that more recently developed pitches have.

[LouGehrig]

Well lets not get started on A-Rod just yet...also Willie Mays hit .247 in the post season...Bonds hit .245, so lets not get ahead of ourselves there.

Value is what a player means to his team
Greatness is how good a player is

I will NOT dispute the above. Willie Mays was greater than Barry Bonds. Period.

[Bill Burgess]

I think that Bill underappreciates the superior athleticism of players from the 90s and on. Physically, they make players from previous eras look like kids. They are taller, bigger, faster, stronger. Also the game has evolved to the point where one player can not statistically dominate as in the past. I also think that the "average joe" player from before 1950 particularly, simply would not be playing if the league was as deep and balanced as after. I think that while there were pitchers who threw 90+ MPH, your typical starter probably had a fastball in the lower 80s, and without the kind of movement that more recently developed pitches have.
Actually, I am in awe of today's guys. When I see Derek Jeter do his spinning aerial pirouettes and throw to first without planting a leg on solid earth, I fall out of my reclining chair. When I see Omar Vizquel go into the hole and still get his man, I am astounded.

I fully realize that if 97% of the ballplayers pre-1950 were time-machined to today, they would not make the MLs.

I accept all of that as obvious and on quite solid grounds. So, why do I rank the early guys as I do? Because I also believe that if they were born later, and were raised with the same advantages, they too would be bigger, stronger, faster, and be able to perform the same marvels.

Conditions often determine how one will perform. A ballgame, like a military battle, a court room trial, etc. is won/lost before it happens, based on who has out-prepared who. Training is the nuts and bolts of good competitive playing. Today's athletes are able to out-train those of yesterday.

Today's guys have all the advantages in terms of knowledge, accumulated wisdom of how to play onfield, nutritional supplements, exercise equipment like Nautilus, better weight-lifting apparatus, deeper training knowledge, etc.

Give all that to the Wagners, Cobbs, Ruths, and they too would do much the same as our heroes today. Have I clarified anything here for you, Brett?

[AstrosFan]

Very true, Bill. However, if the players of the early years were born and raised as ballplayers today, they would not dominate nearly as much as they did, because there are more quality ballplayers now than in, say, Ty Cobb's day. League quality doesn't use a time machine adjustment, because that would be completely unfair. It just asks what would happen if players of the past competed against a deeper pool of talent, like in a fully integrated league.

[brett]

Actually, I am in awe of today's guys. When I see Derek Jeter do his spinning aerial pirouettes and throw to first without planting a leg on solid earth, I fall out of my reclining chair. When I see Omar Vizquel go into the hole and still get his man, I am astounded.

I fully realize that if 97% of the ballplayers pre-1950 were time-machined to today, they would not make the MLs.

I accept all of that as obvious and on quite solid grounds. So, why do I rank the early guys as I do? Because I also believe that if they were born later, and were raised with the same advantages, they too would be bigger, stronger, faster, and be able to perform the same marvels.

Conditions often determine how one will perform. A ballgame, like a military battle, a court room trial, etc. is won/lost before it happens, based on who has out-prepared who. Training is the nuts and bolts of good competitive playing. Today's athletes are able to out-train those of yesterday.

Today's guys have all the advantages in terms of knowledge, accumulated wisdom of how to play onfield, nutritional supplements, exercise equipment like Nautilus, better weight-lifting apparatus, deeper training knowledge, etc.

Give all that to the Wagners, Cobbs, Ruths, and they too would do much the same as our heroes today. Have I clarified anything here for you, Brett?

Yes. I think in response to this, my issue boils down to the fact that trained athleticism actually levels the playing field overall. Mid level players can physically train themselves to compete with more naturally talented guys so it basically gives 2 avenues by which a player can become dominant-natural talent AND training.

I don't think Cobb would have improved his game much if he had added 15 pounds of muscle, but it could have allowed some marginal guys to produce more, and therefore lessen his edge on the league.

Ruth basically maxed out as a slugger, but put the rest of the league on weight training and you might get 50% more home runs league wide, and his edge drops somewhat.

[Bill Burgess]

I don't think Cobb would have improved his game much if he had added 15 pounds of muscle, but it could have allowed some marginal guys to produce more, and therefore lessen his edge on the league.

Ruth basically maxed out as a slugger, but put the rest of the league on weight training and you might get 50% more home runs league wide, and his edge drops somewhat.
Can't disagree. Makes sense. But the best ever have never been the biggest, strongest, fastest. Cobb, Jeter, Wagner, Mays, etc. just had baseball DNA in their cells. Just like in boxing. Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tyson were hardly the biggest or strongest. Just knew how to refine their techniques and had that heart, tenacity. Look at Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods.

[Minstrel]

Can't disagree. Makes sense. But the best ever have never been the biggest, strongest, fastest. Cobb, Jeter, Wagner, Mays, etc. just had baseball DNA in their cells. Just like in boxing. Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tyson were hardly the biggest or strongest. Just knew how to refine their techniques and had that heart, tenacity. Look at Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods.

Mays, Wagner and Jeter were/are all phenomenal athletes. Wasn't alive to see Dempsey or Louis, but Muhammad Ali was an incredible package of speed, power and grace, and Tyson was easily the most powerful puncher in the sport during his day. Jordan is on the shortlist for greatest pure athlete his sport has ever seen.

Tiger Woods is as fine an athlete as golf requires...golf is not really so much an athletic sport as a game of skill. But Woods is the most powerful driver in the game.

The best usually are the best athletes, who also have the innate understanding of the sport and great skill. Of course, the less athletic the sport is, the less athleticism matters. Baseball is the least purely athletic sport among the major US team sports. But even then, the best players are generally either great athletes who play shortstop or center field, or guys with incredible power who can be premier sluggers.

[Bill Burgess]

Very true, Bill. However, if the players of the early years were born and raised as ballplayers today, they would not dominate nearly as much as they did, because there are more quality ballplayers now than in, say, Ty Cobb's day. League quality doesn't use a time machine adjustment, because that would be completely unfair. It just asks what would happen if players of the past competed against a deeper pool of talent, like in a fully integrated league.
I agree with all you say here. No quarrels with me.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Can't disagree. Makes sense. But the best ever have never been the biggest, strongest, fastest. Cobb, Jeter, Wagner, Mays, etc. just had baseball DNA in their cells. Just like in boxing. Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Tyson were hardly the biggest or strongest. Just knew how to refine their techniques and had that heart, tenacity. Look at Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods.


Not to say that size or strength does not play a part in baseball regarding greatness or just plain ability but I think it matters less in baseball than in say basketball or football.

Passing of time, athletes on average bigger and stronger means much more in two sports that involve physical contact and height, football and basketball, not comparable with baseball. You can't just say with a blanket statement that baseball players have to be better today because of size and strength. Baseball is not all hitting home runs.
Now to say that integration and the influx of more players from all over the world has raised the level of the game, that makes sense.

As for Tiger and his great driving if you've watched this guy and some of his fantastic rallies you will see how he can just put away the competition doing all the little things in the game.Tiger may be a great driver but he's the complete package in his sport, he does it all.

[Bill Burgess]

As for Tiger and his great driving if you've watched this guy and some of his fantastic rallies you will see how he can just put away the competition doing all the little things in the game.Tiger may be a great driver but he's the complete package in his sport, he does it all.
One could fill the world with what I will never know about golfing. But from what little I've seen in high-light reels of him, and from what I've read on him, Tiger Woods is the complete package of his sport.

Most powerful driver, best putter on the green too. Like Babe (slugging), / Ty (bunting), all rolled into one superb performer. And a nice man too.

[brett]

SABR MATT:

Thanks for your reply. Sinusitis is caused by a bacterial infection, and commonly occurs after someone has been initially weakend by a viral infection such as a cold or the flu. I've never heard of it being specifically induced by a blunt trauma, however perhaps in the weakened condition following such a trauma a person might become so weakened as to be susceptible to an infection

My wife is a doctor so I posed the question. Sinusitis, in the most general definition simply means an inflamatory respose. It can be bacterial, radiation induced, would induced, drug or drug rebound induced. What is important is that it results in an inflammatory cascade. For example, if he developed scar tissue, that tissue could be chronically susceptible to future inflammatory responses.

[brett]

This is just not statistically true. A million studies have been done about this in every era in baseball history. The perception of the K is that it is much worse than a regular out, the reality is that it is not. In terms of the game situation, a K is the same as a regular out whenever there is no one on base or 2 outs. A K, taking all situations, is actually slightly better than a regular out with a runner on first and less than two outs, because althrough there is the possibility of moving the runner along, in terms of what has happened in actual MLB games and it's effect on the game the possibility of the DP in the regular out is more important. The only times when a K is worse than a regular out is with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both with less than 2 outs. And even then the difference is not pronounced. Outs move runners along sometimes, but it is not a majority of the time.

Here are a few of many studies done on the effect of Ks on run scoring:

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/kfile.html

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617


If you factor out DPs separately a K is very slightly worse than a regular out-a regular out is something like 5% more valuable except that a K on average will advance the pitch count more than an average PA.

Still, I think that we ignore situational hitting sometimes. Advancing a runner to second on a fielder's choice with one out can double a team's chance of scoring.

[Minstrel]

As for Tiger and his great driving if you've watched this guy and some of his fantastic rallies you will see how he can just put away the competition doing all the little things in the game.Tiger may be a great driver but he's the complete package in his sport, he does it all.

Yes, my point was not that Tiger Woods can only drive the ball. Just as Jordan is not merely a great athlete. Both were/are incredibly skilled as well. In fact, that was my whole point: the very best of the best in a sport are the complete package. The best athletes with great skills and understanding of the game.

[yanks0714]

As for Tiger and his great driving if you've watched this guy and some of his fantastic rallies you will see how he can just put away the competition doing all the little things in the game.Tiger may be a great driver but he's the complete package in his sport, he does it all.

I don't care how far Tiger hits the ball on his drives. The best part of his game is his touch on and around the greens. His deft touch on difficult chips and pitch shots never cease to amaze me.

Let's face it it: Tiger hammers the ball like Ruth + has the infinite touch of Ty Cobb.
What kind of baseball player would you have if you could roll Ruth/Cobb together?

[Bill Burgess]

What kind of baseball player would you have if you could roll Ruth/Cobb together?
Some folks used to think that of Oscar Charleston, or Martin Dihigo. I don't know, but it makes one wonder like Stevie.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If you factor out DPs separately a K is very slightly worse than a regular out-a regular out is something like 5% more valuable except that a K on average will advance the pitch count more than an average PA.

Still, I think that we ignore situational hitting sometimes. Advancing a runner to second on a fielder's choice with one out can double a team's chance of scoring.

Again the whole strikeout deal and what the negative effect is, depends on the game situation. I agree.

I'm not buying into that idea that sometimes a strikeout can be advantageous because the pitcher may have thrown more pitches and that could mean something positive in the end. Maybe if your speaking of 10 or 15 strikeouts in a game, maybe.

How many more pitches are we speaking of, how many strikeouts in the game, do we monitor every pitch, every hitter that struck out. How do we know how much of a toll that takes out on the pitcher.

What about strikeouts with no one on base, no chance of a DP. What about strikeouts with runners on base we can't just assume a DP. If you make contact there is a chance of a runner or runners advancing, a hit an error, strikeout and nothing happens.

Not one say that strikeouts are as terrible as some may think, getting back to my beginning, depends on the game situation.

[Minstrel]

What about strikeouts with no one on base, no chance of a DP.

And no chance of advancing a runner with a ball in play.


What about strikeouts with runners on base we can't just assume a DP. If you make contact there is a chance of a runner or runners advancing, a hit an error, strikeout and nothing happens.

You can't "assume" a double-play, but the chance of a double-play cancels out the chance of a positive outcome like runners advancing or an error.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

And no chance of advancing a runner with a ball in play.



You can't "assume" a double-play, but the chance of a double-play cancels out the chance of a positive outcome like runners advancing or an error.


Agreed, no chance of advancing a runner, no one on.

As to your second paragraph, agreed can't assume a double play, really can't assume anything but I know for sure that no one advances on a strikeout.

Contact and there is at least a chance of getting on, advancing runners.... and yes possible DP a rally killer, we just don't know what might have been had the hitter not struck out but rather made contact.

Don't look to me to devalue ( the negative) what the DP means to the team batting, terrible two outs made by one batter.
On the other hand when do we ever see a productive strikeout, runs have even been scored on a DP, not often but a possibility.

Back to the bottom line, depends on the game situation.
I don't recall who the pitcher was that was asked how he would pitch to a certain hitter, the hitter may have been Ted Williams or another great.

The pitcher's answer, give me more info, whats the game situation, how many outs, what inning, are there runners on.

Too simple to just speak in general terms what a strikeout means, how much it hurts or does not hurt, all depends.

[Minstrel]

Agreed, no chance of advancing a runner, no one on.

As to your second paragraph, agreed can't assume a double play, really can't assume anything but I know for sure that no one advances on a strikeout.

And no one ever grounded into a double-play on a strikeout. ;)


Contact and there is at least a chance of getting on, advancing runners.... and yes possible DP a rally killer, we just don't know what might have been had the hitter not struck out but rather made contact.

Right, we don't know. That's why we use probabilities and the (positive or negative) value of advancing runners and hitting into double-plays. Generally, such analysis finds that double-plays are negative enough that the chance of hitting into one cancels out the possible positive value of advancing runners.

Therefore, strikeouts (which will be distributed over situations with runners on and bases empty, just as balls in play will be) really aren't any worse than other types of outs, in general. In specific situations, a strikeout is very bad (like runner on third, one out) and sometimes a grounder is very bad (like first and second, no one out). But those "specific situations" tend to even out over the course of a season.

It's how many outs you make that matters, not the shape of them.

[brett]

Again the whole strikeout deal and what the negative effect is, depends on the game situation. I agree.

I'm not buying into that idea that sometimes a strikeout can be advantageous because the pitcher may have thrown more pitches and that could mean something positive in the end. Maybe if your speaking of 10 or 15 strikeouts in a game, maybe.

How many more pitches are we speaking of, how many strikeouts in the game, do we monitor every pitch, every hitter that struck out. How do we know how much of a toll that takes out on the pitcher.

What about strikeouts with no one on base, no chance of a DP. What about strikeouts with runners on base we can't just assume a DP. If you make contact there is a chance of a runner or runners advancing, a hit an error, strikeout and nothing happens.

Not one say that strikeouts are as terrible as some may think, getting back to my beginning, depends on the game situation.

Well, I'd much rather have a guy strike out than pop up on the first pitch.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Well, I'd much rather have a guy strike out than pop up on the first pitch.

Be great if we knew what lay ahead, wouldn't it. I'd love to have my pitcher retire the first 10 or more batters on the first pitch, I'm dreaming. How about that 120 foot pop, bloop that beat the Yanks in the 2001 World Series. Whats your choice,a Luis Gonzalez strikeout or getting jammed but driving the ball just on the outfield grass.

Look, I stated in my first post that I do agree that strikeouts are not as terrible as some may believe but there are times when making contact is the better choice, not just the situation that I brought up in this post.

There are many different game situations. I keep hearing about extending the pitcher, making him throw more pitches thats fine, there are also times when a hitter is a tough out and does not always end up striking out, some times they still get on and make the pitcher throw and face more batters in that inning.

You can't have it all your way, meet me some where in the middle.

[Minstrel]

Look, I stated in my first post that I do agree that strikeouts are not as terrible as some may believe but there are times when making contact is the better choice

That's obvious, though. In every game situation, there are certain types of outs that are better than others.

The point is not whether a strikeout is ever worse than another out. The point is that a strikeout, on average, is not worse than outs on balls in play. Sometimes it's worse than an out on a ball in play. Sometimes it's better than an out on a ball in play.

In terms of evaluating the value a batter brings, what matters (in terms of out-making) is how many outs the batter makes, not what types of outs they tend to be. I'll take an .800 OPS hitter with 300 strikeouts over a .750 OPS hitter with 0 strikeouts, all else being equal.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That's obvious, though. In every game situation, there are certain types of outs that are better than others.

The point is not whether a strikeout is ever worse than another out. The point is that a strikeout, on average, is not worse than outs on balls in play. Sometimes it's worse than an out on a ball in play. Sometimes it's better than an out on a ball in play.

In terms of evaluating the value a batter brings, what matters (in terms of out-making) is how many outs the batter makes, not what types of outs they tend to be. I'll take an .800 OPS hitter with 300 strikeouts over a .750 OPS hitter with 0 strikeouts, all else being equal.
I'm assuming your tossing out an example with extreme numbers, to make your point. Just an example I think, hard for all else being equal when one hitter strikes out 300 times in a season where he would probably have around 520-550 at bats. He would have to do a lot of hitting in 220 to 250 at bats to stay with the other hitter.

Again I think you just threw out that 300 strike out to 0 strikeouts as a an extreme example.

That aside I do get your point, you choose the higher strikeout hitter with the higher OPS which I am sure could be correct unless one of the hitters strikeouts out far more than the others, there has to be a line drawn.

[Minstrel]

Just an example I think, hard for all else being equal when one hitter strikes out 300 times in a season where he would probably have around 520-550 at bats. He would have to do a lot of hitting in 220 to 250 at bats to stay with the other hitter.

Again I think you just threw out that 300 strike out to 0 strikeouts as a an extreme example.

Yes, definitely, I meant it to be extreme just to show that I don't think strikeouts matter when one hitter is demonstrably more productive than the other.

It would take a whole lot of hitting/walking in his other plate appearances to manage an .800 OPS with 300 strikeouts. ;)

[brett]

Be great if we knew what lay ahead, wouldn't it. I'd love to have my pitcher retire the first 10 or more batters on the first pitch, I'm dreaming. How about that 120 foot pop, bloop that beat the Yanks in the 2001 World Series. Whats your choice,a Luis Gonzalez strikeout or getting jammed but driving the ball just on the outfield grass.

You can't have it all your way, meet me some where in the middle.

Well the bloop still counts as a hit in the stats.

Anyway, I really did meet in the middle in my first post. I said that I would prefer a low strikeout hitter because in certain key situations a ball put in play for a fielder's choice can put a team in position to win a close game, while a strikeout would likely seal their doom.

Nevertheless, we can't even be sure that a 100 strikeout guy couldn't be much harder to K in such situations.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Well the bloop still counts as a hit in the stats.Anyway, I really did meet in the middle in my first post. I said that I would prefer a low strikeout hitter because in certain key situations a ball put in play for a fielder's choice can put a team in position to win a close game, while a strikeout would likely seal their doom.

Nevertheless, we can't even be sure that a 100 strikeout guy couldn't be much harder to K in such situations.
No doubt, anything that falls in is a hit, liner or bloop thats the way the game goes.

[brett]

No doubt, anything that falls in is a hit, liner or bloop thats the way the game goes.


So you shouldn't need to look at strikeouts to tell those guys apart because the one guy with the bloop hit would have better hitting stats.

We are talking about 2 guys with the same hitting stats except that one of them doesn't strike out as much.

Lets just keep it simple. Take two guys who hit .300 say 150 for 500. One of them has 50 strikeouts and one of them has 100 strikeouts.

So the first guy is getting a hit in 150 of the 450 times that he doesn't strike out.

And the other guy is getting a hit in 150 of the 400 times he doesn't strike out.

Who is probably putting more solidly struck balls in play? If guy one has 33% of his balls in play go for hits and guy 2 has 37.5% of his balls put in play go for hits, then odds are player 2 is hitting the ball more sharply, more line drives, fewer pop ups and grounders, AND probably putting more balls in play that would result in an error as well. In other words, the guy with the lower K rate is lacking something in another department that the higher K guy has.

If a guy hits 300 one year with 100 ks and the next year cuts his ks down to 50, and his average doesn't go up, is he a better hitter? Maybe 3-4 times a season he is.