Solely on dominant in the era, the Hawk is in, period. That seems to be the current trend among voters so I think that he qualifies. If you never saw Dawson play, then I can understand you reservations, but if you saw the man do his job, he belongs.
Solely on dominant in the era, the Hawk is in, period. That seems to be the current trend among voters so I think that he qualifies. If you never saw Dawson play, then I can understand you reservations, but if you saw the man do his job, he belongs.
Not when you're working the pitcher, and giving a look at what he's got for the day.Originally Posted by HoustonGM
o
When I think "dominant" I think Albert Pujols. Barry Bonds. Dawson's highest OPS+ (157 in 1981, 395 at bats), is just two points higher than Pujols' career low of 155. His career OPS+ was 119.
Compared to some dominant players:
Pujols 171
Bonds 182
Manny Ramirez 157
Alex Rodriguez 145
Ken Griffey Jr 141
Mark McGwire 163
All Star Games don't mean anything when it comes to discussing how good a player's career was, no matter who the player is.All Star games are worthless...
I didn't see it, but sabermetricians have proven time and time again that using those strategies makes it harder to score runs. While there are rare instances when an out can be "good", an out is overwhelmingly a bad outcome. Saying that "tere's a reason that managers liked it" for so long doesn't mean it's the better way. By that logic, slavery was good because our leaders once liked it.There is such a thing as a "good" out, and there is a reason that for years managers liked contact hitters, who didn't strikeout, but didn't necessarily walk a hundred times either. Why? Because in pre-Juiced ball era baseball, pitchers actually PITCHED to hitters/ that's why you didn't see as many 80+_ walk a year guy's. Jeez, forget about 80 walks... the record is over 200 now! Differant eras. I'm guessing you weren't old enough to actually watch 80's baseball, where things like hit and run, speed, base stealing, defense and little ball actually brought strategy to the table.
I'm not trying to. I'm just having a calm debate, and in a debate, I stand hard on my side.Your passion is great, but you can't expect to brow beat the whole board into agreeing with you by sheer force of volume of posts. That's another thing I see in this thread.
Well, I'd really like someone to explain to me how a stat that measures how well a player gets on base, which is the whole point of being at bat, is "overrated." There have been many many studies that prove that OBP/OPS correlate extremely well with runs scored.IMO, you VASTLY overate OBP. IYO I VASTLY underate OBP. That's life.
o
When "working the pitcher", wouldn't a walk be a much better outcome than an out? An out is RARELY EVER good. There are very very few instances when an out ends up increasing a team's run expectancy.
Yes, but not every team has a .600 hitter to give everyone a "look". The best hitters fail 60% of the time remember.
Now, post someone from Dawson's ERA for comparison. McGwire and Bonds are the only guys who played any significant time in it and we all know how they extended/improved their careers. You're now comparing players out of their ERA's really.When I think "dominant" I think Albert Pujols. Barry Bonds. Dawson's highest OPS+ (157 in 1981, 395 at bats), is just two points higher than Pujols' career low of 155. His career OPS+ was 119.
Compared to some dominant players:
Pujols 171
Bonds 182
Manny Ramirez 157
Alex Rodriguez 145
Ken Griffey Jr 141
Mark McGwire 163
o
That doesn't mean that an out wasn't bad...
o
Do you even know what OPS+ is? It adjusts for the league the player is in, and thus is a useful tool for comparing players from different eras.
For example, many people probably think that McGwire's .278/.424/.697 year with 65 HR and 147 RBI is better than Carl Yastrzemski's .329/.452/.592 year with 40 HR and 102 RBI. Using OPS+, they both come out at 178, meaning they had nearly identical seasons when compared to the rest of the league.
It's also park-adjusted./
New User
Outs aren't as important as runs. Sometimes, a batter volunteers an out just to score a run or move up a runner. Are you unaware of sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flies, suicide squeezes, safety squeezes, hitting "behind" the runner, etc? Obviously none of these tactics would be employed and so universally accepted if everyone thought like you did. For that matter, why should pitchers ever give intentional walks by your logic?
That's what all your statistical mumbo-jumbo lacks - the acknowledgement that this is a team game and team players sometimes take an out to get a run. It happens **** near every day for seven months out of the year. I don't know how you could have missed it unless you just don't watch baseball.
BTW, the very stat-based game we are all playing around here gives the managers the options to do all those things that fly in the face of your Holy Grail. Did the programmers f*** up by putting that in?
o
I am aware. However, I am also aware that in the majority of situations, those "tactics" often DECREASE a team's run expectancy - that is, the amount of runs the average team should be expected to score given the situation (runners on base, inning, etc.). Seriously, read up on it, before just automatically assuming that those tactics are always benificial just because it's "conventional wisdom." Baseball Between the Numbers has a chapter or two on such events.
Most of the time, it DOES hurt the team to give an intentional walk to a batter. Obviously, in an extreme case, if Albert Pujols is up with Royce Clayton behind him, walking Pujols is likely the best choice. However, in a lot of the situations that intentional walks are issued, it increases the run expectancy of the opposing team.For that matter, why should pitchers ever give intentional walks by your logic?
And what you're "non statistical mumbo jumbo" lacks is the facts that prove that those strategies often hurt the team more than help. Bottom 9th, tie game, runner on second, no outs, sacrificng the runner to third base is benificial because it increases the run expectancy. Top of the 6th, no outs, runner on first, sacrifice bunt is NOT benificial. Of course, if the pitcher is batting or something, it's a different situation.That's what all your statistical mumbo-jumbo lacks - the acknowledgement that this is a team game and team players sometimes take an out to get a run.
I don't know why you seem to think that I don't think the tactics exist just because I believe the facts that they decrease run expectancy.It happens **** near every day for seven months out of the year. I don't know how you could have missed it unless you just don't watch baseball.
Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth and stop pulling things out of nowhere. These tactics exist in baseball. Please show me where I denied their existance. These tactics, however, more often than not HURT the team, rather than help. Why should a part of the game of baseball be left out of a game about baseball? Nobody ever said that. I've simply stated that such tactics are only sometimes benificial.BTW, the very stat-based game we are all playing around here gives the managers the options to do all those things that fly in the face of your Holy Grail. Did the programmers f*** up by putting that in?
Honestly, read up on the stuff before just flat out denying it and disagreeing with it and ignoring it like it isn't fact. I urge you all to read Baseball Between the Numbers, or similar works, and then debate, rather than just throwing names around and insulting statistical analysis to try and prove your point.
The best managers in baseball look at the stats, acknowledge them, put them on the bench, and then go out and manage the game.
If what you're saying is true, then why haven't we arrived at a baseball season where everyone has an 81-81 record, or even close to it yet?
BTW Houston, ever heard of Slapshot?
I'd take Yaz over Big Mac any day.
New User
You just don't get it. Baseball is more than numbers. Reading your statistical books will only prove statistical points as if numbers are the only entity on which the game of baseball exists. Nine accountants line up again nine other accountants and throw formulas at each other. That seems to be your idea of the sport.
Baseball is a really great game with a lot of interesting strategy and tricky bounces that don't fit nice and neatly on a spreadsheet. Getting the highest OPS+ is not the objective of the sport. The objective is to win games and then win more games than the other teams in the league. Certainly some statistics factor into it but the statistics are not the game. They are an adjunct to the game.
The game is played with balls, bats and gloves, not calculators.
...and how would you calculate home field advantages such as a mound being "a little" off from the visitors 'pen mound height, or softening up the area around first to slow up Henderson and Raines, or "speeding up" the infield to take advantage of a sharp infield? You can't.
Not that your stats are all BS, but they are only half of the story.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote