Murphy should get more votes than Dawson - Page 3

Triad · 10-24-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Now, if you want to debate an ultra-elite HoF where the very good are totally forgotten, you'll have a HoF that's largely empty and better-suited as an echo chamber. Ashburn would not belong in THAT Hall, but neither would Yaz, Tony Gwynn or Al Kaline.

However, Murphy doesn't even belong in the Hall as it's presently composed. Even in that democratic setting, he just plan, flat-out was not good enough.

We'd probably all agree that there are some questionable Veterans Committee selections in the Hall of Fame, so which CF who've been elected are legitimate Hall of Famers?

In my estimation...

YES:
Willie Mays
Ty Cobb
Mickey Mantle
Tris Speaker
Joe DiMaggio
Duke Snider

BORDERLINE:
Kirby Puckett
Richie Ashburn
Earl Averill
Billy Hamilton
Larry Doby

NO:
Edd Roush
Elmer Flick
Zack Wheat
Max Carey
Hack Wilson
Earle Combs
Hugh Duffy
Lloyd Waner

Murphy has got to be considered better than all those I have in the 'NO' group. Wouldn't you agree? And he's in the upper half of the borderliners (I'd say the best). Should the Hall of Fame have only six center fielders?

nanwynnfan · 10-24-2007, 06:19 PM

Triad wrote:

NO:
Edd Roush
Elmer Flick
Zack Wheat
Max Carey
Hack Wilson
Earle Combs
Hugh Duffy
Lloyd Waner

... the asked,

"Murphy has got to be considered better than all those I have in the 'NO' group. Wouldn't you agree? And he's in the upper half of the borderliners (I'd say the best). Should the Hall of Fame have only six center fielders?"

IMVO Murphy doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, much less NO category, with ANY of the above.

Was going to make an exception of Wilson, but on second look, no go.

Triad · 10-24-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

IMVO Murphy doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, much less NO category, with ANY of the above.

Was going to make an exception of Wilson, but on second look, no go.

That's surprising you would say that. How many of them had two MVPs, and then 7th, 9th, 11th 12th and 21st-place finishes as well?

Lloyd Waner had a 5th, 6th, 13th, 15th and 21st.

Earle Combs had a 6th and 18th.

Hack Wilson had a 5th, 7th, 8th, 12th and 13th.

Max Carey had an 11th, 18th and 20th.

What criteria are you going by? Shouldn't a player's group of seasons where they made the most impact be given the most consideration? Shouldn't those 5-7 seasons be more important than a comparable timespan elsewhere in their career when they were more near the average or substandard? It would seem a half dozen MVP-eligible seasons would give us more information about someone's ability than even ten other seasons in their career that were closer to ordinary.

nanwynnfan · 10-27-2007, 08:15 PM

To a point, these exchanges are interesting and productive; but when each considered response gets another challenge, from yet more perspectives, then it gets wearisome.

Rather than let the HoF players listed as "NO" by Triad just go without a response, I'll toss in this last reply, since the the measures I would use are diverese, some unique to a particular player.

First, these men played in different eras, different field layouts, different liveleness of the baseballs used [and their shelf-liives wiytin a game], different batting roles and expectations in the lineup, etc.

For example, Max Carey brought defense to a new standard on the OF when he played, was a very fast man on the bases, a superb base stealer, bunter and hit-and-run man, etc. He was NOT expected to be a slugger, but rather to save runs on the OF and make things happen, which he did, to HoF standards.

Of the men listed as NO by Triad, the Carey profile might well suit all, with the exception of Hack Wilson, who did he best to die young with monumental drinking, yet put together a tremendously productive offensive prime (1926-1932), one that had all the promise of being longer and better had his personal habits not so tragically curtailed it.

Hugh Duffy was a mighty-mite, a compact defensive whiz with pop in his bat, a small man who happened once to bat .440 for an entire season. Since his prime was totally in the 19th Century (1889-1897), I don't feel qualified to water-down his records, only rely on what my father and grandfather had to say about him [ballplayers both].

No, we take a look at these men [NOT power guys, except Wilson] and I'll select one metric for comparison with Dale Murphy. That metric, in Baseball-Reference is Runs Created per Game. I've explained this before but here goes again: B-R takes RC and derives a run production quotient for every 27 outs made, presenting that number as the Runs a team of THAT player in every batting order slot would score.

I've aso tossed in OB% and SLG% for each, unfair to these men [except Wilson] because they were NOT sluggers. The whole exercise is really skewed for a slugger, since I also toss in the number of seasons the player's RC/G exceded 6.0 Runs.

Player...............RC/Game......>6.0 Seasons.........OB%..........SLG%

Carey...................5.1.................4..... ............ .361......... .386
*Combs................6.9.................9....... .......... .397......... .462
Duffy....................6.6................6..... ........... .384......... .449
L. Waner...............5.3................5.......... ...... .353........ .393
Roush...................6.0...............10...... ......... .369........ .446
Flick.....................6.3................6.... ............ .389........ .445
Wilson..................8.0.................7..... ........... .395........ .565

Murphy.................5.7.................6...... .......... .346......... .469

Loading the deck with RC and RC/G, which would favor guys with power [if they produced at reasonable averages or OB%, only Carey and Lloyd Waner are overshadowed by Murphy. Carey was a premiere CF and base stealer; and Waner was the defensive, high-average CF of the Big Poison/Lil Poison Pirate OF. Career-wise [bad sesons tossed in] ALL beat Murphy in OB%; and all but Carey and L. Waner very nearly match him in SLG.

The only slugger in the bunch buries Murphy in OB% and SLG%; and despite a career abbreviated by booze, Hack Wilson beats Murphy in > 6.0 RC seasons, 7 to 6.

*Combs suffered a fractured skull crashing into a wall after a fly ball in 1934, which shortened his career, but no before he put up some impressive numbers over many years. [A young kid named Joe DiMaggio was in San Francisco, soon to be called up as his replacement].

They belong. Murphy does not.

Triad · 10-29-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

First, these men played in different eras, different field layouts, different liveleness of the baseballs used [and their shelf-liives wiytin a game], different batting roles and expectations in the lineup, etc.

The expectation has always been to get on base and score runs, while the middle of the order also tries to drive in those ahead of them.

Also, a slugging batter is more valuable overall than a non-slugging batter. Look at the greatest of all time:

Slugging
Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, Musial, Foxx, Hornsby, Mantle, DiMaggio, F. Robinson, Schmidt, A. Rodriguez, Brett, Murray, Bench, Mathews, McGwire, Ott.

Non-Slugging
Cobb, Speaker, Wagner, Henderson, Morgan, Collins, Lajoie, Gwynn, Rose, Boggs.

I've listed what might be considered 20 of the best slugging batters, and 10 of the best non-slugging batters. Go ahead and name 10 more of them, and then compare the two lists.

You can perform the same exercise with active players. The most productive players are going to be the sluggers, like Ortiz, Fielder, Howard, Bonds, Pujols, A. Rodriguez, Holliday, Ordonez, Guerrero, Wright, Cabrera, C. Lee. Now try to form a non-slugging contingent and see what it looks like against that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

For example, Max Carey brought defense to a new standard on the OF when he played, was a very fast man on the bases, a superb base stealer, bunter and hit-and-run man, etc. He was NOT expected to be a slugger, but rather to save runs on the OF and make things happen, which he did, to HoF standards.

But he would have had greater potential to be more productive if he had been a slugger. That's like saying that Maury Wills wasn't expected to be a slugger. And why? Because he lacked the skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I've aso tossed in OB% and SLG% for each, unfair to these men [except Wilson] because they were NOT sluggers. The whole exercise is really skewed for a slugger, since I also toss in the number of seasons the player's RC/G exceded 6.0 Runs.

Run production is the name of the game, which includes baserunning. At some point, no amount of fielding prowess can offset great offensive numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

They belong. Murphy does not.

nanwynnfan, why would you completely disregard MVP voting, as if it doesn't exist? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses why these players didn't do well in MVP voting.

I'm wondering if RC is adjusted for league norms. Playing in the '20s and '30s would give a huge advantage to a player using raw stats.

nanwynnfan · 10-29-2007, 04:22 PM

"nanwynnfan, why would you completely disregard MVP voting, as if it doesn't exist? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses why these players didn't do well in MVP voting."

Triad, I admire your forensic footwork: You conquer the opposition simply by planting the flag and pronouncing, "I've won. Slugging is better than non-sluggeing + defense. Next case."

1. I disregard MVP voting because it has, over the years, lost its credibility, with writers leaving contenders off ballots completely, or relegating them to 10th place votes when any baboon would know they deserved much higher placements. While generally, it goes to a deserving player, too often it gets tagged onto a favoriye, in a big market, on good terms with the press corps.

2. I have to admire as well your apparent dismissal of baseball being a team effort, with those big sluggers standing on Mount Olympus while the guys who got on were the ones who padded their RBI totals. To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because:

-he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to generate runs;

-his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them;

-a smart, heads-up, base stealer can turn single into doubles, as Max Carey did at an 89% success rate [for those seasons when records were kept]; and the Total Bases stat totally discounts the offensive contributions of these players;

-I have even less confidence in Gold Glove Awards than I do for MVP as a monitor of player peak: it's become an ole boys' club where default winners are often repeated, deserving or not, with the prime case being an award to rafeael Palmeiro as a 1B, when he was, in reality, a DH, who played only 27 games at first;

-YET I have the utmost respect for great glove men, who can save a team 20-40 defense runs, 2-4 game equivalents per season, which complements whatever contributions they make with the bat.

I make no excuses for players NOT faring well in MVP voting. Would an Earl Combs get huge press support on a team like the Murderers' Row Yankees? I doubt it; but that doesn't DISCOUNT Combs' contribution to the team effort.

Look, for example, to the Minnesota Twins during the hitting slump years of the 1060s. With some decent pitching + slugginh Harmon Killebrew, they stalled until 1965, when a fellow named Tony Oliva came along [.321/.378/.491], later joined in 1967 by a 21 year old named Rod Carew. In 1065, 1969 and 1970 the Twins won their division; but the MVP voting was dominated by Harmon Killebrew [who put up some good numbers]. The real cahrge was put into the Twins by the Oliva-Carew duo plus some strong pitching.

Back in the 1920's, it's interesting to look at the impact a second baseman with an eagle eye had on the A's franchise. In his rookie year, the A's were 71-81, in 5th place of an 8 team League. Then he became a full time player at 2B and the A's fortunes changed [2nd. 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st + WC, 1st + WC, 1st, lost WS, 2nd, 3rd]. Max Bishop ended up his career with the 1934-35 Bosox, and he has a CAREER OB% of .423. [Talk about INVISIBLE value].

Anyone not familiar with Max Bishop could look him up on Baseball-Reference - it's an eye-opener to underappreciated value.

Bishop shared the glory of his power teammates [who wouldn't have produced as much without him always being on base. Less fortunate was another on-base machine, Eddie Yost, whose teams never had the power and consistency to knock in the guy on base.

nanwynnfan · 10-30-2007, 10:45 AM

Triad has put a considerable emphasis on MVP placements throughout a career, so I decided to look at the the 2 MVPs [back-to-back, 1982 and 1983] that Dale Murphy did win.

Here are some players/considerations for readers here to consider as to whether the awars were well placed.

1982

Player.............BA/OB%/SLG%............TB.........RC.......HR.........OPS +

Murphy......... .281/.378/.507...........303........118......36..........142
P. Guerrero.... .304/.378/.536...........308........120......32..........156
Schmidt........ .280/.403/.597...........281.........118.....35...........16 1
Oliver........... .331/.392/.514...........317.........125......23..........15 9
G. Carter....... .293/.381/.510...........284.........107......29.........146
Ja. Thompson. .284/.391/.511..........281..........117.....31..........147

In addition, ATL winning the East, was greatly spurred by two bullpwn aces, Steve Bedrosian and Steve Garber. Garber appeared in 69 games, had 30 saves and rqacked up an ERA+ of 161.

PHI Steve Carlton goes 23-11 with 19 CG and 6 ShO with an ERA+ of 119. MON Steve Rogers is 19-8, with 14 CG, 4 ShO and an ERA+ of 152.

The Braves take the N.L. East, lose the NLCS to St. Louis, a team with no single player outstanding contributions, more a balanced team effort.

1983

The L.A. Dodgers and PHI take divisions and PHI advances to WS. Murphy and ATL finish 2nd in division.

Murphy..............281/.378/.507.........318.......131........36........142
P. Guerrero........298/.373/.531..........310.......118........32........150
Raines...............298/.393/.429..........264......120........11........129

In PGH, Kent Tekulve appears in 76 games in relief and racks up an ERA+of 227.

Tim Raines steals 90 bases in 104 attempts for MON. If we take just the nat bases [90-14=76] and add the 76 to Raines' TB, we get an enhanced appreciation of his offensive contribution. His TB rises to 340.

In 1983, although there are some worthy competitors for MVP, I have no quarrel with Murphy winning it. The 1982 Award is more questionable.

NOTE: As a post script to the 1982 MVP race [position players only], here's how the named players fare in RC/PA and RC/G [the 27 out run production projection]:

Player.................RC/G...................RC/PA%

Murphy.................7.0....................16.9 1%
P. Guerrero............7.8....................18.40
Schmidt................8.1....................18.7 0
Oliver....................7.8...................18 .20
Carter...................6.8....................16 .39
Ja. Thompson.........7.6....................17.67

ALL outproduced Murphy in 1982. The next season, Murphy's numbers top all comers, so the 1983 Award is far less debatable.

WilsonC · 10-30-2007, 11:42 AM

Keep in mind that only Schmidt and Carter compared favorably to Murphy in defensive value, and Schmidt appeared in 148 games to Murphy's 162. I'd pick Carter, who was the top defender of the big hitters and appeared in 154 games - which for a catcher is tremendous durability. I don't think Murphy was the top choice in 1982, but I also don't think it was an embarassing selection.

To me, it's less important whether he was deserving of the award those years, as there certainly wasn't much separating him from anyone who may have been better. Rather, I see a certain irony in taking the results an award voted on by baseball writers as a key point in a debate to suggest that baseball writers are wrong in their voting on a different honor. If anything, his MVP award placements suggest that the people doing the voting did appreciate the quality of his peak performance - but just don't feel his career on a whole measures up.

nanwynnfan · 10-30-2007, 03:57 PM

"Keep in mind that only Schmidt and Carter compared favorably to Murphy in defensive value, and Schmidt appeared in 148 games to Murphy's 162. I'd pick Carter, who was the top defender of the big hitters and appeared in 154 games - which for a catcher is tremendous durability. I don't think Murphy was the top choice in 1982, but I also don't think it was an embarassing selection."

I do keep defensive play very much in mind; and the above is very debatable, especially considering the 2 years Murphy won the MVP Awards [1982, 1983].

Murphy had also started a string of Gold Glove Awards that stretched from 1982 through 1986, a stretch of awards of which, by my own metric, he deserved "0."

My own metric attempts to distill all fielding inputs into a familiar format in that it RESEMBLES the Fielding %. For each season between 1901 through 2007, input formulas are tewaked to reflect game rule & equipment changes; & each position has a set of expectations against which players are measured.

The rating [which resembles fielding %] can then be translated into +/- Defense Runs [DR]. To kkep it brief, during thr years 1982-1986, CF average would have been @ .940.

Below are the leading NL CF ratings I have for each of those Murphy GG years:

1982

Andre Dawson .981 @ +15 DR
Chili Davis .963 @ +8.70 DR
Omar Moreno .952 @ +4.54 DR
Garry Maddox .936 @ 0.3 DR
Dale Murphy .932 @ -1.14 DR

Baseball Prospectus has Murphy @ 102, wit 100 being average.

1983

Willie McGee .981 @ +16.6 DR
Andre Dawson .970 @ +11.3 DR
Omar Moreno .960 @ +7.6 DR
Dale Murphy .928 @ -4.5 DR

B-P for Murphy = 93

1984

Kevin McReynolds .996 @ +21.2 DR
Mookie Wilson .976 @ +13.6 DR
Willie McGee .968 @ +10.6 DR
Bob Dernier .949 @ +3.4 DR
Dale Murphy .926 @ -5.3 DR

B-P, Murphy = 94

1985

Kevin McReynolds .993 @ +20.0 DR
Bob Dernier .953 @ +4.9 DR
Willie McGee .952 @ +4.5 DR
Dale Murphy .906 @ -12.9 DR

B-P, Murphy = 86

1986

Barry Bonds .956 @ +6.0 DR
Dale Murphy .885 @ -20.8 DR

Now there are 2 seasons where I would have Murphy on top of the N.L., by position; and those seasons were 1987 and 1988, when Murphy played RF. However, given the GG Award penchant for distributing awards predominantly among CF-ers, he would have been overlooked [ironically] in two seasons where he truly deserved some recognition on defense.

WilsonC · 10-30-2007, 04:51 PM

Oh, make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that Murphy was a great defensive centerfielder during those years, but rather that most of the hitters on that list were hitters who were not particularly good defensively at less challenging position. I'd consider Carter the best defender of the bunch easily, both in positional difficulty and individual ability, followed by Schmidt who was very good at a relatively challenging position, followed by Murphy who held his own at a relatively challenging position. Based on BP's metrics, Schmidt has an off year defensively and Murphy had one of his better defensive years - which if accurate closes the gap between those two.

Per game, I'd rate him third in value behind Carter and Schmidt in 1982. I think a reasonable argument can be made for Murphy to be rated second, based on his playing-time advantage over Schmidt. It's definitely not one of those cases where there were several unambiguously better players who he beat out for seemingly arbitrary - particularly if we take into account the fact that his defense was percieved as excellent, whether it was or not.

Triad · 10-30-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I disregard MVP voting because it has, over the years, lost its credibility, with writers leaving contenders off ballots completely, or relegating them to 10th place votes when any baboon would know they deserved much higher placements. While generally, it goes to a deserving player, too often it gets tagged onto a favoriye, in a big market, on good terms with the press corps.

I'd agree that it's nowhere near an exact science, but I think it's a very good indicator. Even if a guy gets snubbed, he's going to show up high on the list if he had a very good year. And what we see is that Combs, Waner and Carey didn't have hardly any of those years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because:

-he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to generate runs;

-his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them;

This works for bit players, but not for the best players, and certainly not for Hall of Famers. Ultimately for the star players, we have to see some evidence that they are scoring and/or driving in runs, depending on their role. Leadoff hitters and #2 hitters don't have as much impact on the lineup as the #3 and cleanup hitters do. That's partially why the most productive hitter on a team doesn't usually bat first or second.

My philosophy is that if whatever offensive contributions a player is making don't result in substantial personal R and/or RBI totals (taken in the context of the player's team), then there's an underlying reason why he's not producing the runs, and he should be held accountable for this. I think table-setting is mostly a myth. Getting on base and moving other runners along (without directly driving them in) isn't all that valuable or common on its own. It may raise the value of a bit player, but it doesn't seem to fit into the equation of a star player, let alone a Hall of Famer. The bottom line is that if a player isn't producing runs, then his offense is lacking. Catchers and middle infielders can make up the most for that with fielding value, but if a superstar is generating 150 runs on offense and 10 on defense, and slap hitter is generating 100 runs on offense, it's a little difficult to close the gap through fielding.

I see you didn't offer at my comparisons with the all-time best players being mostly sluggers, or even the best active players. I'm trying to use real examples here, and I think it supports my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Look, for example, to the Minnesota Twins during the hitting slump years of the 1060s. With some decent pitching + slugginh Harmon Killebrew, they stalled until 1965, when a fellow named Tony Oliva came along [.321/.378/.491], later joined in 1967 by a 21 year old named Rod Carew. In 1065, 1969 and 1970 the Twins won their division; but the MVP voting was dominated by Harmon Killebrew [who put up some good numbers]. The real cahrge was put into the Twins by the Oliva-Carew duo plus some strong pitching.

I think these are good examples you've brought up of how having more well-rounded offensive players can be helpful to a team. A team isn't going to consist of very many All-Stars, and rarely a Hall of Fame type player.

This is also why the RC/27 metric is probably not a good tool, because it takes the player out of the real world and places them in a vacuum. Knowing what a team of nine Ashburns would do isn't what we're after. We want instead to know how much 1 Ashburn would affect the average lineup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Anyone not familiar with Max Bishop could look him up on Baseball-Reference - it's an eye-opener to underappreciated value.

I'm not denying that Bishop was a fine player, and had high walk totals. However, his batting average was 25 points BELOW the park-adjusted league average. Dale Murphy's was only 3 points below the park-adjusted league average.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilsonC

I see a certain irony in taking the results an award voted on by baseball writers as a key point in a debate to suggest that baseball writers are wrong in their voting on a different honor. If anything, his MVP award placements suggest that the people doing the voting did appreciate the quality of his peak performance - but just don't feel his career on a whole measures up.

I think it's fairly easy for the baseball writers to analyze individual seasons, but not so easy to analyze an entire career. Unfortunately, they mistakenly try to do it the same way, mainly by raw totals. Within a season, you don't have to deal with the phenomenon of dominant periods, but in the context of a career, this can be very instructive.

nanwynnfan · 10-30-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanwynnfan
"To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because:

"-he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to "generate runs;

"-his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them;"

Triad's response:

"This works for bit players, but not for the best players, and certainly not for Hall of Famers. Ultimately for the star players, we have to see some evidence that they are scoring and/or driving in runs, depending on their role. Leadoff hitters and #2 hitters don't have as much impact on the lineup as the #3 and cleanup hitters do. That's partially why the most productive hitter on a team doesn't usually bat first or second."

The relating of leadoff men and number 2 slot hitters as "bit" players is a dismissive assumption that AGAIN completely overlooks the essential fact that baseball is a team sport.

A considerable number of such players have, or undoubtably will, attain HoF recognition [Combs, Slaughter, Henderson]; and there are a few who batted in those slots who one way or another disqualified themselves from consideration [Joe Jackson, Pete Rose].

I won't debate the contact, average, on-base, speed qualifications of players against their base-clearing power mates beyond what I've already said, because most serious fans of the game recognize the distinct, yet critical roles, different types of players fulfill on ball clubs.

These are not "bit" players, but rather key players who indeed set the table for others. Such a player in a Murderers' Row lineup may get HoF recognition; but a guy with the same talents and skill levels, with a poor, losing franchise, and/or less productive mates in the 3. 4, 5, and 6 slots will not score because they are left stranded [along with their reputations].

Triad · 11-01-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

The relating of leadoff men and number 2 slot hitters as "bit" players is a dismissive assumption that AGAIN completely overlooks the essential fact that baseball is a team sport.

A considerable number of such players have, or undoubtably will, attain HoF recognition [Combs, Slaughter, Henderson]; and there are a few who batted in those slots who one way or another disqualified themselves from consideration [Joe Jackson, Pete Rose].

I won't debate the contact, average, on-base, speed qualifications of players against their base-clearing power mates beyond what I've already said, because most serious fans of the game recognize the distinct, yet critical roles, different types of players fulfill on ball clubs.

I didn't mean to use bit player as necessariliy a derogatory term, but only to distinguish your basic singles hitter from your basic slugging run producer. Players who hit lots of doubles and home runs also tend to score quite a bit of runs.

I'll be the first to say that Rickey Henderson had incredible value, even greater than Stan Musial. I also think Pete Rose is vastly underrated. And Tim Raines belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I'm a huge Rod Carew fan, rating him the 6th best 2nd baseman of all-time. But I would still tend to favor Dave Winfield over Tony Gwynn (barely). Or Jeff Kent over Lou Whitaker, Willie Randolph or Nellie Fox.

Actually, Rickey Henderson was a good run producer in his own right, so he's not really a singles-type hitter.

And like I listed before, there are more great slugging players throughout history and currently than there are singles hitters. Listing off the names should make it obvious. If you dispute that, then you should tell me exactly where I'm wrong, and list other players who you feel are more deserving, and then we can discuss them.

I do agree that singles hitters perform a critical role, however that role isn't usually as valuable as the roles of the third or fourth hitters. Likewise, catchers fulfill a vital role, but overall their value combined with batting is still less than outfielders or first basemen. I'm arguing that the different roles are to be given different values.

I recognize that catchers and middle infielders have increased defensive value over other positions, but the studies I've seen show that this advantage in fielding doesn't tend to make up for the offensive shortcomings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

These are not "bit" players, but rather key players who indeed set the table for others. Such a player in a Murderers' Row lineup may get HoF recognition; but a guy with the same talents and skill levels, with a poor, losing franchise, and/or less productive mates in the 3. 4, 5, and 6 slots will not score because they are left stranded [along with their reputations].

This speaks directly to the shortcomings of singles hitters. They often need to rely too much on help from their team, whereas sluggers are more in control of their own destiny.

nanwynnfan · 11-01-2007, 06:03 PM

"This speaks directly to the shortcomings of singles hitters. They often need to rely too much on help from their team, whereas sluggers are more in control of their own destiny."

Herein there lies a basic flaw: HRs, for the very best slugging hitters in the game, may occur once in every 12-15 ABs, or considering pitching around them. once in every 16-18 plate appearances. Even then, there are NO guarantees that they will come just when you need them most.

I don't believe either yat there is such a breed as "singles hitters," although there are weak hitters who hit only singles; but they are "banjo hitters" and don't last very long.

The core of the talent I'm getting at is the guy who gets on base a high % of the time and a part of that is due to contact and decent average. Those players are the ones I'm discussing, maybe only 5-12 HRs, but 25+ doubles, more than a handful of 3B-ers and more BB than K's in the repertoire.

They generate action on the bases.

Triad · 11-02-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Herein there lies a basic flaw: HRs, for the very best slugging hitters in the game, may occur once in every 12-15 ABs, or considering pitching around them. once in every 16-18 plate appearances. Even then, there are NO guarantees that they will come just when you need them most.

I don't believe either yat there is such a breed as "singles hitters," although there are weak hitters who hit only singles; but they are "banjo hitters" and don't last very long.

The core of the talent I'm getting at is the guy who gets on base a high % of the time and a part of that is due to contact and decent average. Those players are the ones I'm discussing, maybe only 5-12 HRs, but 25+ doubles, more than a handful of 3B-ers and more BB than K's in the repertoire.

We can use Richie Ashburn as the perfect example of more of a non-slugging type hitter. Ashburn averaged 23 doubles per 162 games, 8 triples and 2 home runs. For a slugging counterpart, we can look at Dale Murphy, who averaged 26 doubles, 3 triples and 30 home runs. The extra 28 home runs Murphy had are guaranteed runs, and they always knock in a runner from first or second, whereas a single almost never knocks in a runner from first, and does from second roughly about half the time. If this all happens with two outs, then the odds of those runners still scoring are low. With one out, it's a little more doable, but nowhere near guaranteed.

Of the 398 home runs in Murphy's career, 199 were solo shots, and of the other 199, he got 466 RBI's, meaning in his non-solo home runs, there was an average of 1.34 runners on base.

Murphy was not a big doubles hitter, but many sluggers are, so they're not necessarily relying on the home run.

10-29-2007, 04:22 PM	#36 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"nanwynnfan, why would you completely disregard MVP voting, as if it doesn't exist? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses why these players didn't do well in MVP voting." Triad, I admire your forensic footwork: You conquer the opposition simply by planting the flag and pronouncing, "I've won. Slugging is better than non-sluggeing + defense. Next case." 1. I disregard MVP voting because it has, over the years, lost its credibility, with writers leaving contenders off ballots completely, or relegating them to 10th place votes when any baboon would know they deserved much higher placements. While generally, it goes to a deserving player, too often it gets tagged onto a favoriye, in a big market, on good terms with the press corps. 2. I have to admire as well your apparent dismissal of baseball being a team effort, with those big sluggers standing on Mount Olympus while the guys who got on were the ones who padded their RBI totals. To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because: -he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to generate runs; -his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them; -a smart, heads-up, base stealer can turn single into doubles, as Max Carey did at an 89% success rate [for those seasons when records were kept]; and the Total Bases stat totally discounts the offensive contributions of these players; -I have even less confidence in Gold Glove Awards than I do for MVP as a monitor of player peak: it's become an ole boys' club where default winners are often repeated, deserving or not, with the prime case being an award to rafeael Palmeiro as a 1B, when he was, in reality, a DH, who played only 27 games at first; -YET I have the utmost respect for great glove men, who can save a team 20-40 defense runs, 2-4 game equivalents per season, which complements whatever contributions they make with the bat. I make no excuses for players NOT faring well in MVP voting. Would an Earl Combs get huge press support on a team like the Murderers' Row Yankees? I doubt it; but that doesn't DISCOUNT Combs' contribution to the team effort. Look, for example, to the Minnesota Twins during the hitting slump years of the 1060s. With some decent pitching + slugginh Harmon Killebrew, they stalled until 1965, when a fellow named Tony Oliva came along [.321/.378/.491], later joined in 1967 by a 21 year old named Rod Carew. In 1065, 1969 and 1970 the Twins won their division; but the MVP voting was dominated by Harmon Killebrew [who put up some good numbers]. The real cahrge was put into the Twins by the Oliva-Carew duo plus some strong pitching. Back in the 1920's, it's interesting to look at the impact a second baseman with an eagle eye had on the A's franchise. In his rookie year, the A's were 71-81, in 5th place of an 8 team League. Then he became a full time player at 2B and the A's fortunes changed [2nd. 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st + WC, 1st + WC, 1st, lost WS, 2nd, 3rd]. Max Bishop ended up his career with the 1934-35 Bosox, and he has a CAREER OB% of .423. [Talk about INVISIBLE value]. Anyone not familiar with Max Bishop could look him up on Baseball-Reference - it's an eye-opener to underappreciated value. Bishop shared the glory of his power teammates [who wouldn't have produced as much without him always being on base. Less fortunate was another on-base machine, Eddie Yost, whose teams never had the power and consistency to knock in the guy on base. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-29-2007 at 08:27 PM.

10-30-2007, 10:45 AM	#37 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	Triad has put a considerable emphasis on MVP placements throughout a career, so I decided to look at the the 2 MVPs [back-to-back, 1982 and 1983] that Dale Murphy did win. Here are some players/considerations for readers here to consider as to whether the awars were well placed. 1982 Player.............BA/OB%/SLG%............TB.........RC.......HR.........OPS + Murphy......... .281/.378/.507...........303........118......36..........142 P. Guerrero.... .304/.378/.536...........308........120......32..........156 Schmidt........ .280/.403/.597...........281.........118.....35...........16 1 Oliver........... .331/.392/.514...........317.........125......23..........15 9 G. Carter....... .293/.381/.510...........284.........107......29.........146 Ja. Thompson. .284/.391/.511..........281..........117.....31..........147 In addition, ATL winning the East, was greatly spurred by two bullpwn aces, Steve Bedrosian and Steve Garber. Garber appeared in 69 games, had 30 saves and rqacked up an ERA+ of 161. PHI Steve Carlton goes 23-11 with 19 CG and 6 ShO with an ERA+ of 119. MON Steve Rogers is 19-8, with 14 CG, 4 ShO and an ERA+ of 152. The Braves take the N.L. East, lose the NLCS to St. Louis, a team with no single player outstanding contributions, more a balanced team effort. 1983 The L.A. Dodgers and PHI take divisions and PHI advances to WS. Murphy and ATL finish 2nd in division. Murphy..............281/.378/.507.........318.......131........36........142 P. Guerrero........298/.373/.531..........310.......118........32........150 Raines...............298/.393/.429..........264......120........11........129 In PGH, Kent Tekulve appears in 76 games in relief and racks up an ERA+of 227. Tim Raines steals 90 bases in 104 attempts for MON. If we take just the nat bases [90-14=76] and add the 76 to Raines' TB, we get an enhanced appreciation of his offensive contribution. His TB rises to 340. In 1983, although there are some worthy competitors for MVP, I have no quarrel with Murphy winning it. The 1982 Award is more questionable. NOTE: As a post script to the 1982 MVP race [position players only], here's how the named players fare in RC/PA and RC/G [the 27 out run production projection]: Player.................RC/G...................RC/PA% Murphy.................7.0....................16.9 1% P. Guerrero............7.8....................18.40 Schmidt................8.1....................18.7 0 Oliver....................7.8...................18 .20 Carter...................6.8....................16 .39 Ja. Thompson.........7.6....................17.67 ALL outproduced Murphy in 1982. The next season, Murphy's numbers top all comers, so the 1983 Award is far less debatable. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-30-2007 at 11:07 AM.

10-30-2007, 03:57 PM	#39 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"Keep in mind that only Schmidt and Carter compared favorably to Murphy in defensive value, and Schmidt appeared in 148 games to Murphy's 162. I'd pick Carter, who was the top defender of the big hitters and appeared in 154 games - which for a catcher is tremendous durability. I don't think Murphy was the top choice in 1982, but I also don't think it was an embarassing selection." I do keep defensive play very much in mind; and the above is very debatable, especially considering the 2 years Murphy won the MVP Awards [1982, 1983]. Murphy had also started a string of Gold Glove Awards that stretched from 1982 through 1986, a stretch of awards of which, by my own metric, he deserved "0." My own metric attempts to distill all fielding inputs into a familiar format in that it RESEMBLES the Fielding %. For each season between 1901 through 2007, input formulas are tewaked to reflect game rule & equipment changes; & each position has a set of expectations against which players are measured. The rating [which resembles fielding %] can then be translated into +/- Defense Runs [DR]. To kkep it brief, during thr years 1982-1986, CF average would have been @ .940. Below are the leading NL CF ratings I have for each of those Murphy GG years: 1982 Andre Dawson .981 @ +15 DR Chili Davis .963 @ +8.70 DR Omar Moreno .952 @ +4.54 DR Garry Maddox .936 @ 0.3 DR Dale Murphy .932 @ -1.14 DR Baseball Prospectus has Murphy @ 102, wit 100 being average. 1983 Willie McGee .981 @ +16.6 DR Andre Dawson .970 @ +11.3 DR Omar Moreno .960 @ +7.6 DR Dale Murphy .928 @ -4.5 DR B-P for Murphy = 93 1984 Kevin McReynolds .996 @ +21.2 DR Mookie Wilson .976 @ +13.6 DR Willie McGee .968 @ +10.6 DR Bob Dernier .949 @ +3.4 DR Dale Murphy .926 @ -5.3 DR B-P, Murphy = 94 1985 Kevin McReynolds .993 @ +20.0 DR Bob Dernier .953 @ +4.9 DR Willie McGee .952 @ +4.5 DR Dale Murphy .906 @ -12.9 DR B-P, Murphy = 86 1986 Barry Bonds .956 @ +6.0 DR Dale Murphy .885 @ -20.8 DR Now there are 2 seasons where I would have Murphy on top of the N.L., by position; and those seasons were 1987 and 1988, when Murphy played RF. However, given the GG Award penchant for distributing awards predominantly among CF-ers, he would have been overlooked [ironically] in two seasons where he truly deserved some recognition on defense. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 10-30-2007 at 04:39 PM.

10-24-2007, 06:19 PM	#32 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	Triad wrote: NO: Edd Roush Elmer Flick Zack Wheat Max Carey Hack Wilson Earle Combs Hugh Duffy Lloyd Waner ... the asked, "Murphy has got to be considered better than all those I have in the 'NO' group. Wouldn't you agree? And he's in the upper half of the borderliners (I'd say the best). Should the Hall of Fame have only six center fielders?" IMVO Murphy doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, much less NO category, with ANY of the above. Was going to make an exception of Wilson, but on second look, no go.

10-27-2007, 08:15 PM	#34 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	To a point, these exchanges are interesting and productive; but when each considered response gets another challenge, from yet more perspectives, then it gets wearisome. Rather than let the HoF players listed as "NO" by Triad just go without a response, I'll toss in this last reply, since the the measures I would use are diverese, some unique to a particular player. First, these men played in different eras, different field layouts, different liveleness of the baseballs used [and their shelf-liives wiytin a game], different batting roles and expectations in the lineup, etc. For example, Max Carey brought defense to a new standard on the OF when he played, was a very fast man on the bases, a superb base stealer, bunter and hit-and-run man, etc. He was NOT expected to be a slugger, but rather to save runs on the OF and make things happen, which he did, to HoF standards. Of the men listed as NO by Triad, the Carey profile might well suit all, with the exception of Hack Wilson, who did he best to die young with monumental drinking, yet put together a tremendously productive offensive prime (1926-1932), one that had all the promise of being longer and better had his personal habits not so tragically curtailed it. Hugh Duffy was a mighty-mite, a compact defensive whiz with pop in his bat, a small man who happened once to bat .440 for an entire season. Since his prime was totally in the 19th Century (1889-1897), I don't feel qualified to water-down his records, only rely on what my father and grandfather had to say about him [ballplayers both]. No, we take a look at these men [NOT power guys, except Wilson] and I'll select one metric for comparison with Dale Murphy. That metric, in Baseball-Reference is Runs Created per Game. I've explained this before but here goes again: B-R takes RC and derives a run production quotient for every 27 outs made, presenting that number as the Runs a team of THAT player in every batting order slot would score. I've aso tossed in OB% and SLG% for each, unfair to these men [except Wilson] because they were NOT sluggers. The whole exercise is really skewed for a slugger, since I also toss in the number of seasons the player's RC/G exceded 6.0 Runs. Player...............RC/Game......>6.0 Seasons.........OB%..........SLG% Carey...................5.1.................4..... ............ .361......... .386 Combs................6.9.................9....... .......... .397......... .462 Duffy....................6.6................6..... ........... .384......... .449 L. Waner...............5.3................5.......... ...... .353........ .393 Roush...................6.0...............10...... ......... .369........ .446 Flick.....................6.3................6.... ............ .389........ .445 Wilson..................8.0.................7..... ........... .395........ .565 Murphy.................5.7.................6...... .......... .346......... .469 Loading the deck with RC and RC/G, which would favor guys with power [if they produced at reasonable averages or OB%, only Carey and Lloyd Waner are overshadowed by Murphy. Carey was a premiere CF and base stealer; and Waner was the defensive, high-average CF of the Big Poison/Lil Poison Pirate OF. Career-wise [bad sesons tossed in] ALL beat Murphy in OB%; and all but Carey and L. Waner very nearly match him in SLG. The only slugger in the bunch buries Murphy in OB% and SLG%; and despite a career abbreviated by booze, Hack Wilson beats Murphy in > 6.0 RC seasons, 7 to 6. Combs suffered a fractured skull crashing into a wall after a fly ball in 1934, which shortened his career, but no before he put up some impressive numbers over many years. [A young kid named Joe DiMaggio was in San Francisco, soon to be called up as his replacement]. They belong. Murphy does not.

10-30-2007, 11:42 AM	#38 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	Keep in mind that only Schmidt and Carter compared favorably to Murphy in defensive value, and Schmidt appeared in 148 games to Murphy's 162. I'd pick Carter, who was the top defender of the big hitters and appeared in 154 games - which for a catcher is tremendous durability. I don't think Murphy was the top choice in 1982, but I also don't think it was an embarassing selection. To me, it's less important whether he was deserving of the award those years, as there certainly wasn't much separating him from anyone who may have been better. Rather, I see a certain irony in taking the results an award voted on by baseball writers as a key point in a debate to suggest that baseball writers are wrong in their voting on a different honor. If anything, his MVP award placements suggest that the people doing the voting did appreciate the quality of his peak performance - but just don't feel his career on a whole measures up.

10-30-2007, 04:51 PM	#40 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	Oh, make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that Murphy was a great defensive centerfielder during those years, but rather that most of the hitters on that list were hitters who were not particularly good defensively at less challenging position. I'd consider Carter the best defender of the bunch easily, both in positional difficulty and individual ability, followed by Schmidt who was very good at a relatively challenging position, followed by Murphy who held his own at a relatively challenging position. Based on BP's metrics, Schmidt has an off year defensively and Murphy had one of his better defensive years - which if accurate closes the gap between those two. Per game, I'd rate him third in value behind Carter and Schmidt in 1982. I think a reasonable argument can be made for Murphy to be rated second, based on his playing-time advantage over Schmidt. It's definitely not one of those cases where there were several unambiguously better players who he beat out for seemingly arbitrary - particularly if we take into account the fact that his defense was percieved as excellent, whether it was or not.

10-30-2007, 08:31 PM	#42 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	Quote: Originally Posted by nanwynnfan "To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because: "-he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to "generate runs; "-his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them;" Triad's response: "This works for bit players, but not for the best players, and certainly not for Hall of Famers. Ultimately for the star players, we have to see some evidence that they are scoring and/or driving in runs, depending on their role. Leadoff hitters and #2 hitters don't have as much impact on the lineup as the #3 and cleanup hitters do. That's partially why the most productive hitter on a team doesn't usually bat first or second." The relating of leadoff men and number 2 slot hitters as "bit" players is a dismissive assumption that AGAIN completely overlooks the essential fact that baseball is a team sport. A considerable number of such players have, or undoubtably will, attain HoF recognition [Combs, Slaughter, Henderson]; and there are a few who batted in those slots who one way or another disqualified themselves from consideration [Joe Jackson, Pete Rose]. I won't debate the contact, average, on-base, speed qualifications of players against their base-clearing power mates beyond what I've already said, because most serious fans of the game recognize the distinct, yet critical roles, different types of players fulfill on ball clubs. These are not "bit" players, but rather key players who indeed set the table for others. Such a player in a Murderers' Row lineup may get HoF recognition; but a guy with the same talents and skill levels, with a poor, losing franchise, and/or less productive mates in the 3. 4, 5, and 6 slots will not score because they are left stranded [along with their reputations].

11-01-2007, 06:03 PM	#44 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"This speaks directly to the shortcomings of singles hitters. They often need to rely too much on help from their team, whereas sluggers are more in control of their own destiny." Herein there lies a basic flaw: HRs, for the very best slugging hitters in the game, may occur once in every 12-15 ABs, or considering pitching around them. once in every 16-18 plate appearances. Even then, there are NO guarantees that they will come just when you need them most. I don't believe either yat there is such a breed as "singles hitters," although there are weak hitters who hit only singles; but they are "banjo hitters" and don't last very long. The core of the talent I'm getting at is the guy who gets on base a high % of the time and a part of that is due to contact and decent average. Those players are the ones I'm discussing, maybe only 5-12 HRs, but 25+ doubles, more than a handful of 3B-ers and more BB than K's in the repertoire. They generate action on the bases.