USAF1 All-Time Discussion Thread [Archive]

Windy City Fan

04-16-2007, 10:54 PM

We're getting ready to start the 10th round, and I was wondering who you guys thought were some of the biggest steals of the draft thus far. A few stuck out to me ...

Hoyt Wilhelm. He was drafted in the 9th, which is when closers usually start to go, but four other closers had been taken ahead of him (Rivera, Sutter, Hoffman, Wagner). I consider Wilhelm to be the top reliver on the board. Rivera has a case, but Hoyt is almost a bullpen unto himself.

Johnny Bench/Yogi Berra. These guys are the concensus 1 and 2 guys at their position. Most people just argue over the order, and they were 3rd and 4th taken at their position. I was shocked when Piazza and Rodriguez went ahead fo them. Berra sliding two rounds after the initial catcher run surprised me even more.

Tom Seaver. Seaver is a top ten pitcher (7th all time in my book) who fell to the 15th pitcher taken overall.
worst collection of sports owners ever to be in the same city?

Steals..

Mantle going 20th.
Cy Young going after Bob Gibson.
Speaker going 27th, A-Rod going 28th, Musial going 29th.
Berra in the 8th round (59th overall)
Mathews going 67th.

All of these were great picks, I was surprised to see them available so late.

Figured, I'd move the discussion here.

I really agree with you on Musial and probably Speaker. Both are arguably top ten position players, and there weren't that many pitchers taken.

Young going after Koufax, Martinez, and Gibson was nice for me. (I also rank Young ahead of Alexander, Mathewson, and Grove, but these guys at least have a case to be taken ahead of Young)

Windy City Fan

04-16-2007, 10:55 PM

Other then the mentioned names from the signup thread here are a few more steals...

Ted Williams-9th overall
-Not a huge steal but from a hitting standpoint id take him over everyone but Ruth.

Steve Carlton-23rd starter taken
-I generally put lefty in the 12-15 range when ranking pitchers all-time so i was thrilled he fell like he did.

Warren Spahn-7th rd
-Another Carlton-like pick. He's a top 15 pitcher all-time imo and represented great value.

Spahn still irks me that I somehow overlooked him when drafting Feller and Hubbell. Good pick.

Carlton might have slipped a little, but I don't rank him quite that high. I think Marichal slid further than Carlton for example.

Minstrel

04-16-2007, 11:16 PM

Johnny Bench/Yogi Berra. These guys are the concensus 1 and 2 guys at their position. Most people just argue over the order, and they were 3rd and 4th taken at their position. I was shocked when Piazza and Rodriguez went ahead fo them. Berra sliding two rounds after the initial catcher run surprised me even more.

I'd add Schmidt to that. I expected Schmidt to go quite a bit sooner, as the consensus #1 at a position where there aren't a lot of inner circle Hall of Famers (four by my count).

Tom Seaver. Seaver is a top ten pitcher (7th all time in my book) who fell to the 15th pitcher taken overall.

I was pleasantly surprised that he dropped.

My list of so-far-unmentioned steals:

Barry Bonds at pick #12
Mike Schmidt at #33
Joe Jackson at #34

Wade8813

04-17-2007, 12:57 PM

Yeah, people in these drafts keep late picking Bonds. In the AL draft, he went at 9, in the NL draft, he went at 11, and he went 12 here. Heck, the Giants went as the 3rd pick in the franchise draft, and I'm pretty sure they should have been the 1st pick.

USAF1

04-17-2007, 01:06 PM

Yeah my plan was to start off with dominant pitching but when Bonds started to slip down into rd 2 i wouldnt have thought twice about picking him up.....

Dont get me wrong, i definately believe he is a steriod guy and greatly benifited from the usage but he was a HOF'er before that mess. I dont think he's as good a HR hitter as the #'s indicate but there is no denying he's a top 5 hitter/player all-time.

Wade8813

04-17-2007, 01:14 PM

Yeah my plan was to start off with dominant pitching Yeah, you and Sockeye have gone bananers with taking pitching.

Minstrel

04-17-2007, 01:19 PM

Yeah, you and Sockeye have gone bananers with taking pitching.

I'd like to note my three all-time top-ten aces...!

USAF1

04-17-2007, 04:07 PM

Yeah, you and Sockeye have gone bananers with taking pitching.

While Sockeye has definately gone the pitching route to start off :eek: i think his 3 pre-1900 starters hurts him a little. Thats all i'll say as i seriously dont want to start a riot (not until after the draft)

Anyway, on a different note, what players did you have targeted only to have them plucked away right before your picks? Always like to see this....

Minstrel

04-17-2007, 04:20 PM

Anyway, on a different note, what players did you have targeted only to have them plucked away right before your picks? Always like to see this....

Johnny Bench.

Wade8813

04-17-2007, 04:37 PM

I was going to take Foxx the pick after he was taken, but I'm ok with ending up with McGwire.

Windy City Fan

04-17-2007, 05:24 PM

Warren Spahn and Hank Greenburg were taken in a round I would've drafted either one of them (I took Dazzy Vance instead once they were both gone).

Hoyt Wilhelm and Juan Marichal went in the same round and I was left taking Goose Gossage.

USAF1

04-18-2007, 05:57 AM

*just in case you missed the post in the selection thread....

Ok, here's the deal. I originally wanted to allow NeL'ers in this draft but because i messed up (didnt clarify) ill swallow the pill and take Paige and Gibson off the board.

So that leaves us back at Wade. He picked Rob Nen which is a good pick.

Wade is OTC as of 10 AM EST w/ 1 pick.

USAF1

04-20-2007, 07:45 AM

Minstrel

04-20-2007, 08:47 AM

Got a question for everyone.

Given that i orginally wanted to include NeLer's in this draft but didnt clarify i was wondering if everyone would be up for supplemental draft after this concludes.

Same format as before, although the order would change (random) and we could say have 2 rds (keep it short). That way we all have a shot at picking up some of the better non-MLers to bolster our teams.

Let me know if you'd be interested in this.

I'd prefer not. For most people (me, definitely), knowledge of NeL'ers is limited to 4-5 superstars. While that's fine mixed in with the MLB stars, I think it would create an unbalanced supplemental draft, where the first few picks would yield the "big names" and everyone else would be trying to figure out who to select among the relatively unknown ones. Even for those who know the Negro Leagues well, they're at a disadvantage in the opinion poll since many voters may not know the NeL'ers beyond the 4-5 superstars.

Wade8813

04-20-2007, 01:09 PM

I agree with Minstrel, for the reasons he stated, plus the fact that ANY sort of supplemental draft like you suggested seems awkward at best to make balanced. Sorry.

USAF1

04-20-2007, 02:29 PM

Thats cool, i just wanted to ask you guys before i went ahead and finalized anything....

Minstrel

04-22-2007, 01:34 PM

You know, my team is shaping up to be a rather fearsome defensive team.

Mickey Cochrane, Albert Pujols, Joe Morgan, Arky Vaughan, Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays are all excellent to great defenders.

Eddie Mathews was at least good, often very good.

Windy City Fan

04-22-2007, 10:45 PM

Berra, Baggs, and Collins form a good if not great start on my infield. In the outfield, I'm easily the best. Tris Speaker is the greatest defensive centerfielder ever. Ditto for Kaline in right (apologies to Clemente). Ty Cobb was a good centerfielder, a very good right fielder, and in my outfield an excellent left fielder. Not mention, they can all pound the ball.

Minstrel

04-22-2007, 11:11 PM

In the outfield, I'm easily the best.

Defensively, I'd challenge that. Mays has as many or more supporters as the greatest defensive CF of all-time. Clemente is often considered the best defensive right fielder ever.

Cobb was a good left fielder, but Jackson was also a good corner outfielder and (obviously) has a right fielder's arm.

At worst, I'd say our outfields are toss-ups defensively.

Offensively, yours is better. Mays is better than Speaker, Clemente and Kaline are almost exact offensive equals. But Cobb is obviously much better than Jackson offensively.

My infield, though, is top-notch offensively and defensively. :D

The Splendid Splinter

04-22-2007, 11:42 PM

I don't know... I really like Westlake's OFs. Mantle, DiMaggio, and Musial... that's really scary offensively. Defensively, it's not as good as some others but they can hold their own though.

Windy City Fan

04-23-2007, 01:42 AM

Defensively, I'd challenge that. Mays has as many or more supporters as the greatest defensive CF of all-time. Clemente is often considered the best defensive right fielder ever.

Cobb was a good left fielder, but Jackson was also a good corner outfielder and (obviously) has a right fielder's arm.

At worst, I'd say our outfields are toss-ups defensively.

Offensively, yours is better. Mays is better than Speaker, Clemente and Kaline are almost exact offensive equals. But Cobb is obviously much better than Jackson offensively.

My infield, though, is top-notch offensively and defensively. :D

As said above, Cobb was not a leftfielder in RL. He had a good enough arm to play right and range to play to center. I'd say he's easily better than Jackson, who often gets overrated defensively because of a poetic piece of writing, ala "where triples go to die." Mays and Clemente vs Speaker and Kaline is probably as close to a tie as you can get. At both spots, both guys have their supporters. Though I'd personally take my guys over yours with the glove.

And offensively, Kaline trumps Clemente in my book by a fair margin. As well as Cobb over Jackson.

Minstrel

04-23-2007, 02:37 PM

As said above, Cobb was not a leftfielder in RL. He had a good enough arm to play right and range to play to center.

Well, neither was Jackson a left fielder in real life. In his youth (the point in his career that I'd want him most), he had a lot of range and a fantastic arm.

And offensively, Kaline trumps Clemente in my book by a fair margin. As well as Cobb over Jackson.

Again, no arguments for Cobb v. Jackson, offensively. But according to era-neutral numbers, Clemente and Kaline were virtual clones of one another offensively. By EQA (adjusted for all-time), they may as well be the same guy.

Minstrel

04-23-2007, 02:37 PM

Westlake

04-23-2007, 02:42 PM

Wade8813

04-23-2007, 02:45 PM

I don't know... I really like Westlake's OFs. Mantle, DiMaggio, and Musial... that's really scary offensively. Defensively, it's not as good as some others but they can hold their own though.Offensively, that's definitely the best OF.
DMF has basically the same OPS+ from his OF, and I have more (although we probably do have a bit less speed, Mantle/Musial/DiMaggio aren't super speedsters either).

If you say so...

I don't see how Speaker, Mays, and Kaline are easily better than Mantle, DiMaggio, and Musial. I think they were talking about defensively.

Westlake

04-23-2007, 02:49 PM

DMF has basically the same OPS+ from his OF, and I have more (although we probably do have a bit less speed, Mantle/Musial/DiMaggio aren't super speedsters either).

I think they were talking about defensively.

Then that makes more sense.

You obviously have the edge with Ruth over Mantle... but I'll take Musial and DiMaggio over Edmonds and Robinson any day of the week. Same with DMF, he has Williams and then Ott and Snider dont compare to Musial and DiMaggio.

Minstrel

04-23-2007, 03:07 PM

DMF has basically the same OPS+ from his OF, and I have more (although we probably do have a bit less speed, Mantle/Musial/DiMaggio aren't super speedsters either).

Ruth and Williams do tend to distort things. But in terms of three top-tier threats, Mantle, DiMaggio and Musial can't be beaten. You can work around Ruth or Splinter. You can't work around three hitting superstars.

USAF1

04-23-2007, 03:22 PM

I think dominating pitching will outdue dominating hitting 8 or 9 times out of ten.

Just look at the yankees lineup over the past 5 years. Its been filled with all-star talent, damn near top to bottom and where has that gotten them? You look at most of the successful teams in the history of the game and most will have a dominate rotation/bullpen.

Dont get me wrong. Westlake has a DAMN GOOD offense but i think if you were to put sockeye's, minstrel's or my rotation against them we'd win out more then we'd lose.

Its the same thing in football. Defense wins championships and the same can be said about pitching in baseball IMO.

But of course not everyone will agree with me :)

Edit:
And you also have to figure in/account for playoff statistics because we essentially are having a playoff to determine the "winner". Obviously we're using career statistics but postseason play has to be included.

And I kinda like having a couple of starters with sub 1 ERA's in the postseason/WS.

The Splendid Splinter

04-23-2007, 04:58 PM

I think dominating pitching will outdue dominating hitting 8 or 9 times out of ten.

Just look at the yankees lineup over the past 5 years. Its been filled with all-star talent, damn near top to bottom and where has that gotten them? You look at most of the successful teams in the history of the game and most will have a dominate rotation/bullpen.

Dont get me wrong. Westlake has a DAMN GOOD offense but i think if you were to put sockeye's, minstrel's or my rotation against them we'd win out more then we'd lose.

Its the same thing in football. Defense wins championships and the same can be said about pitching in baseball IMO.

But of course not everyone will agree with me :)

i agree about the pitching. but the yankees have been still successful in the past several years. still going to the playoffs. sure, they're not winning WS, but they still have winning and successful seasons (in terms of win-loss record). offense will help you over a seasons to gather more wins and get into the playoffs, but come playoff time pitching becomes more important and whoever is on a hot streak.

well football is different i think. look at colts this year, they are all offense and no defense during the season. then in the playoffs, their defense finally clicked at the right time, but they are offense. whereas the bears are all defense.

USAF1

04-23-2007, 05:23 PM

well football is different i think. look at colts this year, they are all offense and no defense during the season. then in the playoffs, their defense finally clicked at the right time, but they are offense. whereas the bears are all defense.

Yeah but it was the defense that carried them in crunch time not the offense. Peyton and comp. didnt extactly light it up at all during the playoffs, yet the D (of all things) stood up and made the difference. Offense is great, but it takes great D (or pitching in bball) to get over the hump and win big.

Ive always maintained the thinking that what good does it do to cruise through a regular season and dominate only to routinely get bounced in the playoffs/WS (ie. Yankees since 2000). The big problem was the offense dissapeared for the most part and the pitching wasnt stellar.

Westlake

04-23-2007, 05:27 PM

It takes both offense and defense, hitting, fielding, and pitching to win. Did the cardinals have great pitchers this year? No. The team that pitches better on that day wins, of course, because if you give up less runs than you score you will win. The team that pitches better will always (minus unearned runs) win, because thats how the game is played. The team that hits better will always win too.

Wade8813

04-23-2007, 05:27 PM

The big problem was the offense dissapeared for the most part and the pitching wasnt stellar. Which is what makes it an unfair comparison. If the offense disappeared, then you're not comparing offense to defense - you're comparing defense to nothing.

It takes both offense and defense, hitting, fielding, and pitching to win. Oh, you mean like my team? :waving :clapping :cap: :gt

USAF1

04-23-2007, 06:12 PM

Its a perfectly good comparision. You are taking a great hitting team (yankees) that had done so much damage in the regular season and then regressed in crunch time.

Why did they lose to the D-Backs in the WS? It certainly wasnt because Arizona out-hit them to death, it was due to the fact, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling absolutely dominated them.

Like i said, great pitching, most of the time, will win out over great hitting. There is a reason even the best players dont hit .500 in a season. Pitchers, even against top hitters (.300+ guys) win the battle 7-10 times or do better. Now imagine what some of the greatest pitchers (W. Johnson, Grove, Matthewson, Clemens) will do to hitters?

If you want to start arguing balanced teams (something id like to avoid) i can easily throw my hat into the ring. My team outside of westlake, will probably have the best OBP, one of the best TBA's, and I eeeeeeasily have the best base-running team.

Personally when putting together great teams like these ill take BA and OBP over SLUG any day of the week. Especially if you have players that can snag extra bases after getting on.

Ive got 6 players in the lineup with .400+ OBP (Henderson, Jackson, Foxx, Boggs, Robinson, Mauer). The top of my order is scary w/ Henderson and Jackson (both who get on base A LOT and will steal a TON of bases) followed by my 2 thumpers in the middle of the lineup (Foxx/Griffey). I then go back to guys who hit well and get on-base.

Robinson and Boggs wont knock the ball out of the park a lot, but they will hit for average/get on base and drive in runs. Robinson gives me a big base stealing threat in the middle of my lineup as well.

Ozzie Smith is my weakest hitter, but i didnt bring him in to hit. However, when he's on base, he gives me a scary threat on the bases in the bottom of my order.

Joe Mauer is very young, but i think we can all agree that he is well on his way to becoming one of the greatest catchers of all-time. Its pretty premature to say that but as good as he has been at such a young age the sky is the limit. Plus hes a damn fine defensive C as well.

So balanced team?

1.Henderson-great OBP, obviously he can run
2.Jackson-great BA/OBP, runs very well
3.Foxx-great BA/OBP/power
4.Griffey-solid BA/OBP/great power, can also run
5.Robinson-great BA/OBP, runs very well
6.Boggs-great BA/OBP, doesnt run, oh well
7.Smith-average hitter, great on bases
8.Mauer-great hitter, there to drive in Smith

Notice ive also patterned my lineup to be alternating right-left-right-left the whole way down which creates matchup problems for pitching staffs.

And the base-running bit gives me the ability to not rely soley on hitting to move runners. Henderson can get on, steal 2nd and a simple single from Jackson results in a run. Ive got great baserunners followed by great hitters (BA/OBP) to move/drive them in the whole way down.

Ive got as good a defense up the middle as anyone with Smith/Robinson/Griffey. Robinson has a better FP then anyone not named Joe Morgan and he didnt start his career until 29, which, IMO caused him to miss his best years hitting and fielding. Ozzie is Ozzie. Griffey's got 10 straight GG's to his name and even though he's lost a step he still is very realiable today and as a defensive CF'er he ranks very high on my list. Boggs isnt a great defensive 3B, but he's very solid and even has a pair of GG. Jimmie Foxx is in a similar boat to Boggs. Not super, but damn good, plus he was versatile. Mauer is young but is solid and will only get better. Henderson/Jackson were both solid on the corners.

Pitching?
Im not even going to explain myself here. I'll leave, ive got the best pitching staff (im not even finished yet) argument for later.

So there.....i didnt want to type all that, but yeah i think im pretty balanced :waving

Minstrel

04-23-2007, 07:30 PM

Oh, you mean like my team? :waving :clapping :cap: :gt

Maybe after my team. ;) As mentioned, my team is a fantastic fielding team, a ton of fantastic hitters and perhaps the best rotation.

I have some of the best hitters at their positions at every position except RF and LF (and those two aren't bad).

I have good to all-time great fielders at every position.

My rotation features three all-time top ten pitchers plus Johan Santana and Kevin Brown (who had a ridiculous peak).

It literally has no weakness and is pretty fantastic all-around.

Windy City Fan

04-23-2007, 08:20 PM

Speaking of pitching, I like my team a lot. I don't have the best staff in the sim, but I have one of the deepest. I think I have the best 4 and 5 starters in the sim in Dazzy Vance and Robin Roberts - two guys who are better than their ERA+ numbers might indicate (even though they are very solid there) due their playing on horrible, horrible teams most of their careers.

Vance was first his league in K/BB ratio for 8 straight years! While also being tough to hit the ball out of the park. If you think DIPs is even remotely on to something, you can see that Vance excelled the 3 events solely controled by the pitcher vs batter matchup. And oh yeah, he didn't get to pitch till he was 31 because of the minor league system.

Robin Roberts has 5 K/BB titles, 4 more 2nd place finishes, two 3rd places and 2 fourths. That's 13 years as one of the top KK/BB guys in the game. Roberts was also a horse, boasting 5 consecutive IP titles.

And the top of my rotation is very solid too. Cy Young is a top 5 pitcher who certainly has a case for the claim greatest pitcher ever. Feller was a terrific fireballer who lost his best years to WW II. And Hubbell is one the best lefties ever.

In the pen, Goose Gossage is one the greatest firemen the game has ever known. I personally rank him 3rd all time among relievers, behind only Wilhelm and Rivera. Hiller just may be the best left handed reliever not named Billy Wagner. And Eckersley is just a shade behind Gossage in my all-time rankings.

Wade8813

04-24-2007, 02:11 AM

Ruth and Williams do tend to distort things. But in terms of three top-tier threats, Mantle, DiMaggio and Musial can't be beaten. You can work around Ruth or Splinter. You can't work around three hitting superstars. Right, because all those teams that actually played against Ruth and Williams managed to work around them so well... :rolleyes:

Its a perfectly good comparision. You are taking a great hitting team (yankees) that had done so much damage in the regular season and then regressed in crunch time. Teams randomly regress (or go on a tear) all the time. It has nothing to do with hitting beating pitching or vice versa.

Like i said, great pitching, most of the time, will win out over great hitting. There is a reason even the best players dont hit .500 in a season. Pitchers, even against top hitters (.300+ guys) win the battle 7-10 times or do better. Now imagine what some of the greatest pitchers (W. Johnson, Grove, Matthewson, Clemens) will do to hitters? Yet despite the fact that no one's hitting .500 in a season, there are still a lot of high scoring games.

And while having great pitching will bring down our batters stats, if they did'nt, we'd probably have 12 runs scored by one team in a game all the time. Also, going against lineups like these will bring down the pitcher's stats too.

Maybe after my team. As mentioned, my team is a fantastic fielding team, a ton of fantastic hitters and perhaps the best rotation. I have very good fielding, a rotation that might not be quite as good as yours, but is amazing and can certainly hold its own against anyone, and WAY more hitting. Hitting is half the ballgame; pitching and defense the other half. Are your pitching and defense so much better than my hitting, to make up for it? I doubt it...

And what's with all these modern players who haven't played even 8 years yet? Pujols? Santana? MAUER?!?!? How the heck are we supposed to rate them fairly on their career, when they've barely started it?

USAF1

04-24-2007, 07:55 AM

Wade your lineup is way overrated outside of Ruth, for the simple fact you obviously value power over actually being able to hit for average which when facing the great pitching rotations in this thing is much more valuable imo.

McGwire-.263 AVE .394 OBP .217 postseason BA
-anyone will pitch to him because all he represent is a home-run threat. and if you put him behind ruth, ruth will NEVER see a pitch to hit.

Nap Lajoie-.338 AVE .380 OBP
-Nappy can hit, no doubt, but someone with a .338 career average ought to have a much better OBP.

Ernie Banks-.274 AVE .330 OBP
-Another guy who can drive the ball, but his BA is only decent and his OBP is terrible. Again, if you have a Walter Johnson or Roger Clemens you'll get him out 9 times out of ten.

Mike Schmidt-.267 AVE .380 OBP .236 postseason BA
-Another big bat, who will suffer because he'll be facing strickly great pitchers in this thing.

Bill Dickey-.313 AVE .382 OBP .245 postseason BA
-I like Dickey as he is a more balanced hitter. He has some pop but can also hit the single/double and is not soley a power hitter.

Frank Robinson-.294 AVE .389 OBP .238 postseason BA
Another good pick. More balanced power/average.

Jim Edmonds-.289 AVE .382 OBP .277 postseason BA
-Solid hitter, but thats about it.

The problem i have with your lineup is this. You have a ton of power but are really lacking in the balanced part of the hitting dep. You have a couple of solid baserunners but nobody who will really get the hair up on your neck. All your power are righthanded bats (outside of Ruth). And the thing that kills me is your huge drops in production from your guys during the postseason which is essentially what we'll have when teams are being graded. Its like a regular 7 game series.

Wade8813

04-24-2007, 08:51 AM

Wade your lineup is way overrated outside of Ruth, for the simple fact you obviously value power over actually being able to hit for average which when facing the great pitching rotations in this thing is much more valuable imo. Actually, I value adjusted OB plus power (OPS+) more than I value almost any other hitting measurement. And I'm not convinced that average suddenly gets an advantage over SLG, just because we're using elite players.

McGwire-.263 AVE .394 OBP .217 postseason BA
-anyone will pitch to him because all he represent is a home-run threat. and if you put him behind ruth, ruth will NEVER see a pitch to hit. You talk about OB being good, then conveniently overlook Big Mac's numbers.

And postseason BA doesn't mean didly. Unless you're picking someone from a team that's made the playoffs year after year, the sample size is woefully small. And you never said we were picking players based on playoff stats.

The problem i have with your lineup is this. You have a ton of power but are really lacking in the balanced part of the hitting dep. You have a couple of solid baserunners but nobody who will really get the hair up on your neck. All your power are righthanded bats (outside of Ruth). And the thing that kills me is your huge drops in production from your guys during the postseason which is essentially what we'll have when teams are being graded. Its like a regular 7 game series. Baserunning is certainly nice, but not nearly as important as other areas. Baserunning is basically just an alternative method of having power - taking more bases on a hit. It does have the advantage that you can steal a base after a walk, but it also has the huge disadvantage that it doesn't advance the runners ahead of you, it's often much harder to steal third, and basically impossible to steal home. Also, you're much more likely to be thrown out when the catcher has the ball instead of someone sitting in the RF seats.

Why should it matter if Ruth is my only left-handed power hitter, unless power really does matter a good amount?

And again, it's really unfair to not tell us we should look at postseason stats until after we've already selected almost our entire teams. You said career stats. You didn't say career playoff stats. Don't change the rules in midstream.

USAF1

04-24-2007, 09:28 AM

Im not changing rules....career stats include just that career, whether regular or playoff variety.

It wouldnt be a career if you neglect what a player does in the most important part of the season. And for the record most of your guys have over 100 AB in the postseason.

And im not overlooking Mac's OB numbers. They are quite good but the the downside is he's strictly a home-run hitter. He offers very little outside of that. The only reason his OB numers are that high (and they're not exactly through the roof) is due the high number of IBB and him being pitched around, which i dont get because he was a low-average hitter and a SO liability.

What im saying is your 500+ HR guys like McGwire, Banks, and Schmidt will be OWNED by the likes of Johnson, Clemens, and other top pitchers of all-time. Your lineup isnt facing mid-level talent in pitching.

Now the reason my lineup is tougher to pitch against is because i have high average/OB guys. Id much rather have a guy who will hit .320 and get OB at a .400+ rate then somebody like Mac who wont hit for average, especially against top pitchers and only provide occasional power.

And i disagree somewhat about baserunning. I already explained why the top of my order is so deadly with Henderson and Jackson. Henderson only hits .279 for his career, but he got OB at a .401 clip. Obviously he can run and run very well so i dont need anything more then singles/walks and the occasional extra base hit. He gets on first and 9-10 he's taking second before Jacksons at bat is over. Now with Henderson on 2nd, you have Jackson who oh, i dont know only has the 4th highest BA ever, and has an OPS+ of 170 (averages 37 doubles/20 triples a year). Henderson scores on any hit, which will be more frequent then not with Jackson and again, Jackson gives me a great baserunner, who is then followed by Foxx/Griffey.
That same process occurs the entire way down my lineup. Ive got outstanding baserunning, followed by great hitting. Its an added bonus to not relying soley on hitting, sacrifices to move runners. I still have those but the 3rd option which most of the other teams dont have....

Minstrel

04-24-2007, 12:12 PM

[I have] WAY more hitting. Hitting is half the ballgame

No, you don't. Not hardly. As I said, I have one of the few best hitters ever at their positions at each position except RF and LF (and Clemente/Jackson aren't bad, even in this setting).

At C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS and CF I have one of the three or four best hitters ever for their position. You may have the single-best hitter in Ruth, but you don't have a far superior offense to mine. Arguable whether your offense is even better at all.

Going down the positions, I'll take my player, offensively, at C, 1B, SS and CF. I'd take your player at RF and LF. And I'd say 2B and 3B are virtual ties.

Of course, I grant that Ruth over Clemente is a ridiculous difference, which makes up for my having the edge offensively at more positions.

Wade8813

04-24-2007, 01:46 PM

Im not changing rules....career stats include just that career, whether regular or playoff variety. Fine, as long as you understand that playoff stats have little meaning in any objective analysis. We're looking at careers that span decades - playoffs don't even add on the equivalent of one season to that. (Also, you should have still clarified that - many times, playoffs aren't included).

It wouldnt be a career if you neglect what a player does in the most important part of the season. And for the record most of your guys have over 100 AB in the postseason. It's the most important to their team, but not when looking at the player's abilities. And 100 AB isn't a big deal when compared to 8000 AB over a career.

And im not overlooking Mac's OB numbers. They are quite good but the the downside is he's strictly a home-run hitter. He offers very little outside of that. The only reason his OB numers are that high (and they're not exactly through the roof) is due the high number of IBB and him being pitched around, which i dont get because he was a low-average hitter and a SO liability. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he can do more damage with one swing than three batters getting a single and two walks.

And SO aren't a big deal. At the end of the day, an out is an out.

What im saying is your 500+ HR guys like McGwire, Banks, and Schmidt will be OWNED by the likes of Johnson, Clemens, and other top pitchers of all-time. Your lineup isnt facing mid-level talent in pitching. First of all, I'm fairly sure that these will be fairly high scoring games, but that's another argument. You still haven't explained why my team will get owned by pitchers, and your team will do just fine. ALL batters will do worse against these pitchers. Your lineup won't be facing mid-level talent either. In fact, one could argue that if you're going to do significantly worse against pitchers, SLG might be the way to do it, since you won't get stranded on base when you hit a HR.

Now the reason my lineup is tougher to pitch against is because i have high average/OB guys. Id much rather have a guy who will hit .320 and get OB at a .400+ rate then somebody like Mac who wont hit for average, especially against top pitchers and only provide occasional power.
Ok, so you've convinced me what YOU'D rather have, but haven't explained why anyone should agree with you.

And i disagree somewhat about baserunning. I already explained why the top of my order is so deadly with Henderson and Jackson. Henderson only hits .279 for his career, but he got OB at a .401 clip. Obviously he can run and run very well so i dont need anything more then singles/walks and the occasional extra base hit. He gets on first and 9-10 he's taking second before Jacksons at bat is over. Now with Henderson on 2nd, you have Jackson who oh, i dont know only has the 4th highest BA ever, and has an OPS+ of 170 (averages 37 doubles/20 triples a year). Henderson scores on any hit, which will be more frequent then not with Jackson You seem to be living in a dream world where everything works like a charm for you, and falls apart for everyone else. As you said yourself, even the best hitters fail to get a hit more than half the time. And now we're facing elite pitching. There's NO WAY that Jackson will even come close to hitting in Henderson more often than not. Against normal pitching, he'd fail at least 60% of the time. Against elite pitching, he'll fail more than that.

Going down the positions, I'll take my player, offensively, at C, 1B, SS and CF. I'd take your player at RF and LF. And I'd say 2B and 3B are virtual ties. At C, I'd say it's about a wash.

Yeah, you win at 1B, but it seems kind of unfair, since Pujols has only played 6 seasons, and obviously hasn't gone through a decline yet. Give him a decline, and it's closer (although probably still in your favor).

I'll definitely grant you SS and CF (although SS not by a lot).

If you look at EQA, Morgan and Lajoie are tied, although Lajoie is ahead if you look at OPS+.

I think if you give Pujols a decline, the edge you have at 1B would be about the same as the edge Robinson gives me over Jackson. Your OPS+ at SS and CF is about 30 over mine - Ruth's OPS+ over Clemente is about 70. That puts me about 40 OPS+ over you - a fairly large chunk.

You're right, it's not quite as high as I was making it out to be earlier, but it's definitely noticable.

USAF1

04-24-2007, 02:39 PM

What im saying is i have a lineup full of guys well over .300 BA and 6 guys with .400+ OBP.

Your lineup is full of big power guys who hit .260-.280. My team can run, Foxx/Griffey can provide great power. Ive got lethal base-stealers at the top, middle and bottom of the order so, again, i dont have to rely on one swing of the bat soley to move/score runners as you will have to.

Why do you need a bunch of guys that have 500+ HR totals? From a power standpoint im probably near the bottom of our group, but from an overall hitting standpoint im near the top. Getting on base, hitting for average, getting hits with runners in scoring position and baserunning is much better balance then a team with a bunch of lumberjacks.

And if you are relying on one swing of the bat with guys like McGwire, Schmidt, or Banks vs. Walter Johnson (etc) you'll be losing a ton of games.

Wade8813

04-24-2007, 03:04 PM

The difference between .280 BA and .320 BA is 40 hits out of a thousand AB. That means if you have 500 AB in a season, that's 20 more hits. I'd glady trade 20 hits in for 20 home runs.

Disgruntaledmarinerfan

04-24-2007, 03:29 PM

career stats include just that career, whether regular or playoff variety.

It wouldnt be a career if you neglect what a player does in the most important part of the season.

you have to take what a player does in the post season with a grain of salt. The numbers put up in the playoffs when compared to a players career number is a minute sample size.

Take Babe Ruth for example- he had 129 career post season At bats. What he did in those 129 ABs mean virtually nothing compared to what he did during his 8398 At bat regular season career. Ruth had more the 65 times more non- post season ABs then post season ABs.

Also when looking at post season stats you must rember that Some of the players that we have picked played when the post season consisted of only world series. this meaning for years only the players that were lucky enough to be on the best team in the league got to play in the post season, the majority of all player got very few if not any post season experience, the skews the statistics.

Even in todays playoff system only 200 hunderend player go to the post season a year, and often the same teams go back to the playoffs year after year, meaning the number of new player to the playoff is decreased.

The playoffs is: 1) A very small sample size. and 2) a sample size that only an exclusive amount get any significant playing time.

Minstrel

04-24-2007, 05:39 PM

I think if you give Pujols a decline, the edge you have at 1B would be about the same as the edge Robinson gives me over Jackson. Your OPS+ at SS and CF is about 30 over mine - Ruth's OPS+ over Clemente is about 70. That puts me about 40 OPS+ over you - a fairly large chunk.

You're right, it's not quite as high as I was making it out to be earlier, but it's definitely noticable.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of OPS+ for cross-era comparisons. I think it's a nice quick tool for players in the same era, but it doesn't factor in league quality. For example, Ruth definitely played in a weaker league than post-integration players, due to lack of blacks and Latinos. Also, I think league quality rises with salary, as the more money one can make motivates more people to train from an earlier age to be the best they can.

I think if you give Ruth and Lajoie a bit of a drop due to league quality (Cochrane is my only pre-integration player, but that's evened out by Dickey being essentially pre-integration as well), our offenses come out a lot closer.

Westlake

04-24-2007, 06:22 PM

The difference between .280 BA and .320 BA is 40 hits out of a thousand AB. That means if you have 500 AB in a season, that's 20 more hits. I'd glady trade 20 hits in for 20 home runs.

20 HRs is 20 hits.

USAF1

04-24-2007, 06:30 PM

you have to take what a player does in the post season with a grain of salt. The numbers put up in the playoffs when compared to a players career number is a minute sample size.

Take Babe Ruth for example- he had 129 career post season At bats. What he did in those 129 ABs mean virtually nothing compared to what he did during his 8398 At bat regular season career. Ruth had more the 65 times more non- post season ABs then post season ABs.

Also when looking at post season stats you must rember that Some of the players that we have picked played when the post season consisted of only world series. this meaning for years only the players that were lucky enough to be on the best team in the league got to play in the post season, the majority of all player got very few if not any post season experience, the skews the statistics.

Even in todays playoff system only 200 hunderend player go to the post season a year, and often the same teams go back to the playoffs year after year, meaning the number of new player to the playoff is decreased.

The playoffs is: 1) A very small sample size. and 2) a sample size that only an exclusive amount get any significant playing time.

I agree but only to a certain point. Here is the reason. We will be randomly pitting each team vs another here. When team A, matches up with team B its like an individual WS. You're agruing the fact that if "my team played that team, id win". Playoff stats while minimal when compared to regular season stats do show trends.

If a player is a .300 career hitter but only hits .240 in the playoffs over say 150-200 AB's does that not show a regression in play? Why didnt he hit .300 or even better, why didnt he elevate his game due to the importance???

Bob Gibson is argued by some as the greatest postseason starter in the history of the game, however almost nobody ranks him top 10 all-time? He does however benefit in such rankings because of his stellar postseason play.

Im not saying playoff stats should be on the same level but people that completely or nearly so disregard those stats have some tunnel vision IMO.

Wade8813

04-24-2007, 06:54 PM

Personally, I'm not a big fan of OPS+ for cross-era comparisons. I think it's a nice quick tool for players in the same era, but it doesn't factor in league quality. For example, Ruth definitely played in a weaker league than post-integration players, due to lack of blacks and Latinos. Also, I think league quality rises with salary, as the more money one can make motivates more people to train from an earlier age to be the best they can.

I think if you give Ruth and Lajoie a bit of a drop due to league quality (Cochrane is my only pre-integration player, but that's evened out by Dickey being essentially pre-integration as well), our offenses come out a lot closer. I thought the whole point of OPS+ was that it WAS adjusted - hence the reason people with seemingly much worse stats have better OPS+ (like Joe Morgan).

20 HRs is 20 hits. I meant if the player had 20 less hits, and of the remaining hits, 20 more were home runs.

I agree but only to a certain point. Here is the reason. We will be randomly pitting each team vs another here. When team A, matches up with team B its like an individual WS. You're agruing the fact that if "my team played that team, id win". Playoff stats while minimal when compared to regular season stats do show trends.

If a player is a .300 career hitter but only hits .240 in the playoffs over say 150-200 AB's does that not show a regression in play? Why didnt he hit .300 or even better, why didnt he elevate his game due to the importance???

Bob Gibson is argued by some as the greatest postseason starter in the history of the game, however almost nobody ranks him top 10 all-time? He does however benefit in such rankings because of his stellar postseason play.

Im not saying playoff stats should be on the same level but people that completely or nearly so disregard those stats have some tunnel vision IMO. If I take a random sampling of a bunch of players during the regular season, we'd find some who regressed, and some who elevated their game during those games. Does that mean that the ones who did better are better players? No. It just means that they were doing better for a short period of time.

Minstrel

04-24-2007, 07:15 PM

I thought the whole point of OPS+ was that it WAS adjusted - hence the reason people with seemingly much worse stats have better OPS+ (like Joe Morgan).

It's adjusted by league average...so if the average offensive output is higher, the player's numbers will be downgraded.

But that assumes that league talent remains constant. So, an increase in offense means that pitching has dropped off, etc.

But league talent can also increase (or decrease). To illustrate what I mean by extremes: Suppose I participate in the local beer league and put up a .400 AVG / .600 OBP / .800 SLG line. Even if you adjust it to league averages, will that make my OPS+ for that beer league comparable to a major league player's OPS+? Obviously not, since I put up my numbers in a far weaker league. Similarly, a minor leaguer's OPS+ in AA is not directly equivalent to a major leaguer's OPS+.

Obviously the differences in major leagues, by era, are not so drastic, but they can be significant.