doh! caught me before the edit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJay
Printable View
doh! caught me before the edit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJay
He's had more bad series than good ones as a Yankee though ;).
Has anyone else noticed that Jeter has a full season's worth of postseason stats and they're essentially at his career numbers (.314/.384/.479 vs. .317/.388/.463)?
Good point. Now that you mention it, i've seen that sort of thing reported on in the past... I think the last time that I remember seeing something like this was Rickey Henderson?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJay
Anyway, i'll have to look around for more players with statistically significant career payoff stats.
It makes sense statistically that postseason stats across time will look like career averages. One problem is defining a "significant" sample of post-season at bats. It's easier for modern players because there are three rounds. It's hard to find guys with a lot of postseason at bats the further back you go in history. Ruth only had 129, Gehrig 119, Mays 89, Jackie Robinson 137 and so on.
For the A-Rod thing, I think it's interesting to look at Manny Ramirez. Man-Ram (seriously, do people call him this or is baseball-reference making it up?) had a few terrible postseasons and then did well, bringing his postseason numbers more in line with his career ones (though still quite low). Who's to say A-Rod won't have a similar path? Another fun guy to look at is Mickey Mantle.
Other players with similar postseason vs. career numbers (minimum 200 postseason ABs, arbitrary yet effective):
Code:Javy Lopez (205 postseason AB) .278/.324/.493 vs. .287/.337/.491
Yogi Berra (259) .274/.359/.452 vs. .285/.348/.482
Bernie Williams (465) .275/.371/.480 vs. .297/.381/.477
Chipper Jones (333) .288/.411/.459 vs. .304/.402/.542
Andruw Jones (238) .273/.364/.433 vs. .267/.345/.505
Omar Vizquel (228) .250/.327/.316 vs. .276/.342/.360
Reggie Jackson (281) .278/.358/.527 vs. .262/.356/.490
Pete Rose (268) .321/.388/.440 vs. .303/.375/.409
Paul O'Neill (299) .284/.363/.465 vs. .288/.363/.470
Rickey Henderson (222) .284/.389/.441 vs. .279/.401/.419
Roberto Alomar (230) .313/.381/.448 vs. .300/.371/.443
Lonnie Smith (205) .278/.341/.424 vs. .288/.371/.420
Mark Lemke (232) .272/.335/.353 vs. .246/.317/.324
Derek Jeter (478) .314/.384/.479 vs. .317/.388/.463
Sorry if the list's slanted towards more recent players but they have more AB's and they're who I thought of off the top of my head.
Other things I noticed:
There were a few players who consistently underperformed in the postseason including Kenny Lofton, Reggie Sanders, Tino Martinez, David Justice, Joe Morgan and Terry Pendleton.
There were also a couple players who overperformed, namely, Steve Garvey and Marquis Grissom.
I know there's more in the top category and probably also in the bottom but I wouldn't know where to start looking.
To conclude, there's a number of players who underperform and possibly an equal amount who overperform over 200+ ABs but I couldn't find as many. It seems that the more postseason AB you get, the more in line your postseason averages get with your career averages though one or two good series could change it one way or another (see Lemke).
From a statistical viewpoint, I believe (doing this from something Lichtman said, not actually figuring out the numbers) one standard deviation of BA due to luck alone is more than 40 points in a full season worth of AB.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJay
From a fan's point of view, I think that having rate numbers for the post season (given that many ABs) that are about the same as regular season is pretty impressive given that you are probably facing some of the best pitching and defense in the league in the playoffs.
That's a good point about the quality of pitching and defense.
By the way, every time I see that Rick Wise quote I think of the Kent Mercker rhetorical question about the DH: "When I start to lose my fastball, will they let me pitch from 50 feet?"
ooooooo, I might have to add that one, I like it!
blah, blah, blah... DH bashing is sooo last century.
;)
Well, I haven't much cared for this century...
lol
7 years ago....was the last century *joke*:pQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
lol
But the Dh is here to stay as NO AL team has "complained" or asked for its removal.Funny thing is - is it cheaper "on average" to carry a DH(AL) or a "utility man"/extra pitcher(NL) ?
I think that the general consesus has always been that the DH costs money. It does add some offense though, which sells tickets, so I think that in the end the effect of the DH is a wash.
I don't remember seeing any actual studies on the subject though.
your correct though that noone in the AL, or even the NL for that matter complains about the DH. Most sportswriters don't complain about it these days either (which is where most of the critisism was from originally).
I've always been a proponent of the DH though. Not for the "added offense" aspect so much as the added strategic possibilities. When you can consider the batting lineup separately from your pitching, it opens up opportunities for managers.
Actually I am not so sure it does actually cost more - ok the Ortizes,Thomes' do play DH but in the NL they would simply play,badly it is true,1B but other teams fill out the position with their TOP reserve OF or INF where as the NL have to load up with "expensive" UTIL eg AndersonO/Lugo ETCQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
"It's 30 years down the DH highway, and this rule makes even less sense now than it did in 1973 — if that's possible. Here are five reasons baseball should abolish this abomination now :
1. Once, it was at least slightly intriguing to have two leagues playing the same sport using different rules. Now, with interleague play, it's not intriguing anymore. It's absurd.
2. Let's take that one step further. The DH rule may have cost the Giants the World Series. This was a team constructed around its bullpen, not its spare bench parts. So Dusty Baker essentially had no DH. In fact, his Game 7 DH — Pedro Feliz — was a guy who had made it through the first six games without an at-bat. No other sport would tolerate a situation this farcical.
3. The idea 30 years ago was that the DH would allow some beloved older hitters to extend their careers once they could no longer play the field. Whatever happened to that brainstorm? All these beloved older hitters DH'd Opening Day: Ken Harvey, Al Martin, Jeremy Giambi, Matt LeCroy and Josh Phelps. Face it: The DH is now just an excuse to be one-dimensional.
4. The only reason to have a DH rule is that fans allegedly like more offense. Obviously, DHs are better hitters than pitchers. But how much more offense does this rule really generate? The average AL team scored one more run every three games than the average NL team last year — and got one more hit every four games. So we're talking about two extra runs a week. That'll pack 'em in, all right.
5. Finally, the game is simply way more interesting without the DH than with it. Period. Ask any manager which is more strategically challenging — managing a game under NL rules or AL rules. It's no contest. It's baseball's cerebral side that separates it from all the other games ever invented. And the game is way more cerebral with no DH than with it. That's one thing that hasn't changed in 30 years — and never will.
(by Jayson Stark in ESPN.com on April 4, 2003)
"I grew up with the DH. I grew up with Hal McRae, the best DH (before Edgar Martinez, that is). And I can't stand watching pitchers hit. Or rather, trying to hit. Or trying to bunt. All that said, I'm starting to wonder if it's time, after 30 years, for the designated hitter to go the way of the Federal League, flannel uniforms, and multi-purpose stadiums. The DH was originally installed because American League owners thought attendance needed a boost — actually, what the American League needed was better owners — and they thought that more runs would lead to more fans. Did it work? Attendance went up 17 percent in 1973, the first season of the DH. This was proof enough for the owners, and so we've had the DH ever since. But there's a lot more to attendance than scoring tons of runs, as any number of National League teams have proved since 1973. And perhaps more to the point, nobody needs help scoring runs any more; there are plenty of hitters with power and plate discipline to go around, and there are plenty of teams that don't care much whether their sluggers can actually play in the field without embarrassing themselves. So while it's been fun, and we'll always remember Hal McRae and Edgar Martinez fondly, 30 years is long enough." - Rob Neyer on ESPN.com (April 4, 2003)
"Some changes in baseball — such as interleague play on a limited basis, or a thoughtful realignment — make perfect sense. Others — artificial turf, wild-card teams in the playoffs — make sense only to the baseball-impaired. Then, there is the designated hitter. It's an idea not without merit and one which used to make sense — for the American League, at least. In the early 1970s, baseball faced a crisis of popularity. The American League was especially hurting because of the disappearance of the Yankee dynasty and its slowness in signing black and Latin stars. That left the National League with a disproportionate number of the game's best and most exciting players. In addition, offense was at its lowest point in generations. In 1968, the entire American League hit .230. Carl Yastrzemski won the batting title with a .301 average. Some 20% of all games in the major leagues that year were shutouts. Clearly, something had to be done to juice the offense and to distinguish the American League from the National in an interesting way. The designated hitter was a logical response and it had some real benefits. It helped increase run production — the league batting average jumped from .239 in 1972 (pre-DH) to .259 in 1973 (first year of DH) — and it extended the careers of some popular players. Now, except for enabling veterans such as Minnesota's Paul Molitor to continue playing, none of the other conditions apply any more. Everyone knows the offense has gone through the roof in every measurable way. If anything, the balance needs to be tipped back in the other direction. With its new ballparks and exciting young stars, the American League no longer needs gimmickry to distinguish itself from the senior circuit. The disadvantages that were always present with the DH now tip the balance the other way. One of those disadvantages was highlighted recently by the ugly beanball incidents at Yankee Stadium and in Kansas City. Almost to a man, baseball people believe these situations would occur less frequently if the pitcher had to bat and face the prospect of retaliation. More importantly, the loss of strategy and the over-emphasis on power at the expense of some of the game's subtleties is simply too great a price to pay for the advantages of the DH. Beside, anyone who has so short an attention span and so little appreciation for baseball that he can't bear to watch a pitcher bat is probably beyond hope, anyway. The fact is the National League plays a more interesting game. The American League should try it, too." - Bob Costas in USA Today Baseball Weekly
"The DH has worn out its welcome in my book. In 1973, the new rule was embraced by the AL in an effort to generate more offense. Well, the last time I looked (11 teams scored seven or more runs on Wednesday alone), run production in the majors was doing just fine. Thanks to the DH, the Junior Circuit has adopted a swing-for-the-fences mentality which precludes half the country from enjoying that added dimension of the game called strategy. I'm not talking about calling a pitchout or if a pitcher should throw a fastball down 2-0 in the count and runners on base. I mean real decisions - only seen in the NL. The moves which have you arguing with your buddies the next day. Should the manager have ordered that sacrifice bunt? What was he thinking pulling that double-switch when there was still plenty of time to come back? To me, the only people who benefit from the DH are those 14 or so high-paid, aging superstars who grace us with their presence every couple of innings. Let's go back to playing the game the right way - sans DH." - Howard Kamen in USA Today (June 10, 1999)
ah, i remember reading that article when it was published. great read. I don't agree with him at all, but it's still a fun read. (the Jayson Stark one)
:)
yeah, what does everyone have against me anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
:cool:
lol :D took me 5 minutes to understand ....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by disposablehero
Looking at the numbers, the average DH cost an AL team about $5,200,000 for the season. That said, 8 teams actually paid less than that. The White Sox and Yankees skewed the number upwards with their $12M and $13M, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Those numbers reflect the average salary per game paid to the players the team started at DH times 162. Ask if you care for more clarification than that.Code:Name DH Full Season
New York Yankees 12,976,147
Chicago White Sox 12,092,333
Boston Red Sox 6,674,183
LA Angels of Anaheim 5,780,745
Baltimore Orioles 5,595,000
Kansas City Royals 5,259,405
Texas Rangers 4,938,082
Detroit Tigers 3,813,471
Seattle Mariners 3,739,363
Toronto Blue Jays 3,676,098
Oakland Athletics 3,115,987
Minnesota Twins 2,315,255
Cleveland Indians 2,251,340
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 543,090
Total 5,197,893
Making it up. Totally and completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJay
I really, really hope(d) so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey59
From the page that TheJay linked in his sig:
That's awasome!Quote:
Do you hear me, Angels/Astros/Cubs/Dodgers/Phillies/Padres/Giants? A-Rod is a clubhouse bogeyman with zero character, negative scrappiness, no pine tar on his helmet, a horrendous joy-fun quotient, and he refuses to eat dirt. He cannot join a team with too much talent because he will put them over the Overabundance of Talent Barrier and guys will just stop trying. He will certainly lower your team's sweatiness and you can forget about your all-important fear of failure. He might ruin your pitching like Jim Thome did with the White Sox. Be careful. Trust your gut. Whatever you do, do not trade two grinders and a firebrand for him. This has been John Rolfe, Expert Hindpsychologist.
:D
...not that it has anything to do with the original topic here. I loved that article though.
I like that site. They're usually pretty funny.
Let's everybody line up against the DH, again. Yawn. Frankly, I like the AL having it and the NL not, because it makes for more variety watching the game. Maybe they should switch for a season and have the AL not use it and the NL use it.
Oh, and Jayson Stark shouldn't commentate on anything more complicated than toast. Everytime I read what that man has to say, I can feel brain cells dying, and I don't get any pleasure out of the act like I do with drinking beer.
ARod's offseason didn't start off too well either...
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6059372
yea, I don't think any 2006 Yankees players ought to be on anything other than a commercial airliner for the next several months now...
:rolleyes:
I think Steinbrenner is in this somewhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law