Hodges was pretty good with the leather too. In all but two seasons he was as good or usually better than the league average defensively. One of the sub par seasons was his next to last, when he got into 47 games at first.
Hodges was pretty good with the leather too. In all but two seasons he was as good or usually better than the league average defensively. One of the sub par seasons was his next to last, when he got into 47 games at first.
E=I*R
heheOriginally Posted by dolfanar
They could set up some sort of display about it. Honorable mentions are a good thing.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
......and have Rice, and Dawson, and Raines in to sign cocktail napkins!
Like a midget at a urinal
I don't have an issue with McGriff going in, just that there other players who, IMO, are way ahead of him. The differance with Bagwell ofcourse is the LONG strecth of playing in Houston. That's alot of votes right there. Not saying it's RIGHT, but there you are.
As for Baines, with his numbers if he doesn't go in, then NO player who plays any significant amount of time at DH will ever get in. He was consistently a complete package at the plate. Martinez OTOH would be borderline even if he wasn't a DH, IMO, as a DH there is no way he should be going in.
Ofcourse the thing we ar emissing is how perception will change over the next few years. As fewer and fewer elligible players will have those LONG single team careers, guy's like mcGriff may become more attractive. By the same token, some of the pitchers we consider considerably below par now (David Cone for instance) may just begin to look alot better. I call it the Polished Turd Principle.
Like a midget at a urinal
Grrr.........and have Rice, and Dawson, and Raines in to sign cocktail napkins!
o
Well, the 150 OPS+ in 1970 would be better when compared tio the rest of the player's league than a 140 OPS+ compared to the rest of the league in 2001. Like my Wagner/Pujols example, Pujols had a BETTER season, but when compared to the league, it was the same..
E=I*R
The only way to meaningfully compare OPS+ values for players seasons in differing leagues or years is to adjust the 100 OPS+ value for both (or all) of the players involved. Using your example of Pujols 2005 vs. Yastremski 1970:
Yas 1970: lgOPS .747| 178 OPS+
Pujols 2005: lgOPS .773| 167 OPS+
If you take those values, you can cross multiply and divide them to find the OPS+ of one player in relation to the other... I think.
If you move Yas into Pujol's 2005 world: (.773*178/.747) you get yas's new OPS+ of 184, which is now based on the .773 leage average, vs. the .747 league average of 1970.
I'm not sure I did that right, but I think it is... It illustrates the point well though, that you've gotta be real careful comparing OPS+ values. What's better or worse between seasons and leagues varies, and it's not always obvious which value is better or worse just by looking at them. It's the same thing as asking which value is greater: 3/5ths or 7/12ths.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Here's some more numbers
Stan Musial 2.803
Ted Williams 2.593
Tony Gwynn 2.622
Babe Ruth 1.666
Barry Bonds 1.299
Cal Ripken 1.298
Rod Carew 0.987
Jim Rice 1.019
Dwight Evans 0.815
Fred Lynn 0.995
This is RBI per K's. Basically every out they made at the plate vs. runs driven in.
If they're striking out, they're usually not driving in runs and thus hurting the team.
The ultimate in useless power, Dave Kingman. 0.666 rbi per strikeout.
Bobby Bonds' 0.582 is kinda depressing too.
Like a midget at a urinal
Dawson comes out pretty good though...
1.054 Better than Rice
E=I*R
heh, that's an interesting metric.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
Well, I don't feel like thinking enough to figure out if you did that right or not, but it's besides the point. OPS+ by itself is a simple, quick, decent way to compare two players based on how they fared relative to their league and park. It's by no means definitive, but there IS no definitive stat.
New User
It would have been the same without a strike. Bagwell's hand was broken by a pitch just days before the strike began.
Some even argue that the strike saved his MVP. If Matt Williams had continued on his home run tear or somebody came up big during the September stretch run, an inactive Bagwell might not have won the award.
Admittedly, Bagwell was having one otherworldly season up to that point. He crushed the franchise records for home runs in a season (previously 37), RBIs in a season (previously 108) and batting average (previously .333), all by the first week of AUGUST!
o
Ah didn't know that.
Thanks!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote