All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ichiro's 3000th Hit - 253 to go! First Ballot HOF!
8/29/2013 11:55 AM
"It's not that we disagree, it's that you're wrong."

Oh.  OK.
8/29/2013 12:10 PM
Finally.
8/29/2013 12:41 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 8/29/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 
There are no multi-year trends for Henderson in CF.   In part because he wasn't a good one and in part because he didn't want to play CF.
Looks like he played about 300 games in CF over his first three years with the Yankees. That's enough to give us an idea.

Regardless, you already conceded that Henderson brought more value with his glove in 1985.
The seasons were 100 games back then?
8/29/2013 12:50 PM
It's weird that such a stellar CF didn't stay out there for his entire career.
8/29/2013 12:53 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 8/29/2013 10:44:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/29/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/29/2013 7:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 11:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Hypothetical: You're starting a team. You have a player who can play CF slightly below average, or 1st base very well. He will put up the same offensive stats regardless of where he plays. Where would you play him?
Are we not answering this question?
It's a loaded question, based on a single player with a single skill set.  The answer to that question should be fairly obvious.

The discussion at hand is about two different players, with two very different skill sets, who put up two very different sets of offensive stats.
re: skill sets - you can still compare 2 players and determine who was more valuable.  Just like you can have a conversation between the .200 AVG/40 HR guy and the .300 AVG/5 HR guy.

Yes, the CFer is more valuable, and obviously I brought it up because I thought Mattingly and Henderson were comparable offensively.  OPS were nearly identical.  When you consider that Rickey got there with a better OBP, and OBP has more value compared to slugging percentage (partially because slugging percentage is a naturally higher number than on base percentage), one should argue that Henderson was a more valuable offensive player.  Regardless of what weight you put on OBP, 2x, 1.7x, 1.1x, Henderson comes out on top here.  Let's not pretend that Henderson couldn't slug, either.  He was 7th in the league. You swap Mattingly and Henderson in the order, and there's a great chance Rickey's driving in 100+ runs, just based on people being on base in front of him that he doesn't see with Bob Meachem and Butch Wynegar batting in front of him.

So considering that Rickey very likely had more offensive value than Mattingly, he was more valuable with his glove, and, oh yea, he stole 80 bases and was a great baserunner, explain again how Mattingly was the better baseball player?
One can argue that OPS "has more value compared to slugging" all they want.  It doesn't necessarily make it true.  It's an opinion, not a fact.

And swapping Mattingly and Henderson in the order is an intellectually flawed exercise, as they both become somewhat different players.  Mattingly is batting with a light-hitting Willie Randolph behind him, so he loses the protection of Dave Winfield.  He gets pitched around more, he draws more walks and most likely hits for less power as he's not going to be challenged in the zone as much.  Rickey would now be batting in the three hole, most likely with runners on base in front of him.  He's not stealing 80 bases, and most likely draws fewer walks (oops, there goes his OBP!).  Sure, he probably gets 100 RBIs, but his season stat line looks VERY different in the three hole than as a leadoff hitter.

Finally . . . my argument this whole time was not that Mattingly was the better player in 1985.  I'm challenging BL's claim (as fact!) that Rickey was better than Mattingly "and it's not even close".  That's retarded.  Arguments can be made for Mattingly.  Arguments can be made for Henderson.  And arguments can be made for Brett.  But to assert that one of those three is so far behind either of the others "and it's not even close" shows a fundamental lack of awareness.
the guy who made this revealing post and accurate commentary should be cyber-applauded for two major things. he loves the game of baseball. he knows how to use his keyboard to effectively communicate with a society in here that also loves the game of baseball. this is the brilliance that sheds light so brightly, that u can never make it dim. proof that there is value in brilliance.

larry bowa or dave concepcion placed in the clean-up fourth spot in the batting order. if rickey bats there, then these guys can too, as well. are u stumped at choosing which one, bowa or concepcion? of course their run production will increase, but nobody here sees that as value. but, u still gotta' choose which is turds and which is manure. whos your choice? once the nausea passes, it will become clear added with brilliance to be grateful that the game has switch-hitters. pitchers are going to kill u anyways. but the simple switch-hitter has better odds. thats value. odds of what can or may occur. nothing predictive. just a chance that concepcion can't hit breaking balls from right-handers. and finally this that u need 2 go f*ck yourself real good, for bringing this rickey-crap into an ichiro thread. no sh*t.
8/29/2013 12:57 PM
What makes a great center fielder?  If you look at baseball reference (and I did) Willie Mays (the defacto greatest center fielder EVER) had seasons where he made 9 errors, and his entire career fielding % in CF was .981.  I certainly don't believe Rickey was a better CF than Mays, but in 1985...statistically...he was on par with him.  Range was there, similar fielding %, etc. 

Why did Rickey not spend his entire career in CF?  I think it's because he was a superstar and complained that he preferred playing LF.  That said, he probably would have be a value out there had he stayed.  I don't understand what comparison we need to make in order to de-value his abilities out there.

8/29/2013 12:58 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/29/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2013 7:53:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/28/2013 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/28/2013 6:25:00 PM (view original):
And thats why i generally ignore defensive metrics. I know Mattingly was a great fielder.
You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

FRAA, for example, rates Mattingly as a great or above average fielder for most of his career. If we assume that  the down years were due to sample size noise and not variances in his actual defensive performance, then it looks like we get a confirmation of what you already knew.

I know I used one year data in the Henderson/Mattingly argument, but we really should be looking at multi-year trends when it comes to defensive metrics. 
There are no multi-year trends for Henderson in CF.   In part because he wasn't a good one and in part because he didn't want to play CF.
Looks like he played about 300 games in CF over his first three years with the Yankees. That's enough to give us an idea.

Regardless, you already conceded that Henderson brought more value with his glove in 1985.
The seasons were 100 games back then?
You can't see a trend in 300 games?
8/29/2013 1:02 PM
Posted by The Taint on 8/29/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
It's weird that such a stellar CF didn't stay out there for his entire career.
Maybe he hated it. Maybe it did take a lot out of him. Maybe he wasn't that good. But it isn't unreasonable to look at the stats we have for his time as a CF in New York and conclude that he was at least average during those seasons.
8/29/2013 1:05 PM
And, as someone who actually watched games, it's easy to conclude he wasn't average.   And a person with an open mind can find all kinds of info that says "Rickey wasn't a good CF".  
8/29/2013 1:06 PM
Posted by winner77 on 8/29/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
What makes a great center fielder?  If you look at baseball reference (and I did) Willie Mays (the defacto greatest center fielder EVER) had seasons where he made 9 errors, and his entire career fielding % in CF was .981.  I certainly don't believe Rickey was a better CF than Mays, but in 1985...statistically...he was on par with him.  Range was there, similar fielding %, etc. 

Why did Rickey not spend his entire career in CF?  I think it's because he was a superstar and complained that he preferred playing LF.  That said, he probably would have be a value out there had he stayed.  I don't understand what comparison we need to make in order to de-value his abilities out there.

Did you watch Rickey play? He was a bad outfielder. I watched his entire career, a huge part of it in person. When you are at 70 games a year, watching a guy live, you get a pretty good idea of what kind of defensive player he is.

Stats lie, they do all the times. It's why there are scouts...who watch games in person.


As for Mays, compare the fields he played on compared to what fields are like now, especially the turf fields of today. Not to mention the changes to how a game is scored these days. It's tough to get an error called on you today, much more than 30 years ago.
8/29/2013 1:14 PM
Posted by The Taint on 8/29/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by winner77 on 8/29/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
What makes a great center fielder?  If you look at baseball reference (and I did) Willie Mays (the defacto greatest center fielder EVER) had seasons where he made 9 errors, and his entire career fielding % in CF was .981.  I certainly don't believe Rickey was a better CF than Mays, but in 1985...statistically...he was on par with him.  Range was there, similar fielding %, etc. 

Why did Rickey not spend his entire career in CF?  I think it's because he was a superstar and complained that he preferred playing LF.  That said, he probably would have be a value out there had he stayed.  I don't understand what comparison we need to make in order to de-value his abilities out there.

Did you watch Rickey play? He was a bad outfielder. I watched his entire career, a huge part of it in person. When you are at 70 games a year, watching a guy live, you get a pretty good idea of what kind of defensive player he is.

Stats lie, they do all the times. It's why there are scouts...who watch games in person.


As for Mays, compare the fields he played on compared to what fields are like now, especially the turf fields of today. Not to mention the changes to how a game is scored these days. It's tough to get an error called on you today, much more than 30 years ago.
Most of what I saw of him was in left field.  In 1985, I was a Yankee fan...but I was only 8 years old.  I don't recall much of the specifics of him playing center field.

When comparing players from different eras, there are a lot of considerations to make.  I agree with you there.  I would say that 1985 fields were still probably not that close to the manicured perfection of what fields are today, so (a guy like Trout) will have an advantage over guys from the 80's, just like Rickey played on fields that were certainly better than Mays did in 1965, and on it goes.  

Left field Rickey (that I saw) was not terrible, but he was certainly not great either.  I think stats have to play SOME role in evaluating defense.  The eye test certainly carries some weight too, but stats at least give us a basis to start with.

Center field Rickey probably had excellent range, a below average arm, and a so-so glove as far as actually catching the ball.  I just think in 1985 specifically, he was probably a tick above average.

8/29/2013 1:29 PM
I was a teenager watching Rickey.....just about everyday. He was a terrible left fielder. Balls in the corner were always an adventure and he loafed like a ************.

Watching him play next to Dwayne Murphy really showed you the difference between a great defensive outfielder and a liability.
8/29/2013 1:32 PM
My guess is the '85 Yanks had a fly ball staff then.  He led league in range factor, so sounds like it's simply because he got more chances to catch some routine fly balls.
8/29/2013 1:34 PM
re-written history. the mvp award for the most VALUABLE player is defunct now. bad_luck demands immediate recognition for the newly accepted BBP award for the better baseball player. four months worth of reprimands from a baseball community in here about re-defining the word value. useless?

typing something totally irrelevant about value is your right, as far as free speech, maybe. if u can type irrelevancy and you have patterns of it, then please figure this as it maintains the theme of irrelevance concerning value. brooks robinson becomes the highest paid player in major league history, shortly after he got the nick-name of hoover. when a floor needs to be swept, a hoover works. electrically, too. none-the-less value is to any society that attaches an object to that value. frank robinson as a teammate of brooks, surpasses him as the highest salaried player in major league history. free-agency still looms. salaries surpass the unthinkable, more than presidential. a salary worthy of babe ruth.

the million dollar salary level became the new unfathomable impossibility. major league baseball will be out of control as far as value is concerned. with irrelevant value, nolan ryan stands atop that plateau as the first player in history to bank such a payday. but patterns of irrelevance as it relates to value ignores bad_luck's approach to the value-less baseball society. those patterns have ozzie smith as the first player in baseball history to eclipse the $2million-dollar annual salary level. imagine ozzie smith as the highest paid player in the game. value to baseball just has that financial money thing attached to it. funny thing, that is. finally your trumpet for rickey sounds, announcing him as the highest paid player in baseball history with a puny, little salary of $3million a year. 

but if there is patterns of irrelevance as the topic of many threads about value is littered with in these forums, then the dirty-nasty floor is all yours, bad_luck. keep maintaining it.
8/29/2013 1:50 PM
"I'm challenging BL's claim (as fact!) that Rickey was better than Mattingly "and it's not even close".  That's retarded."

The main issue where you're butting heads is the idea that you'd prefer SLG over OBP.  People who spend their lives crushing baseball numbers universally agree that OBP is significantly more important.  BL and I going off that idea, which would make Rickey more valuable offensively.  If Rickey is more valuable offensively, then there really isn't any question who is more valuable overall.

That said - baseball IS a situational game.  You'd probably be better off with a team of 5 Rickeys and 4 Mattinglys than 9 Rickeys.  Put sluggers in spots where there are guys on base.  Put guys up who are best at getting on base when there's nobody on base.  So Mattingly does add more value in areas where Rickey doesn't.  Rickey bats leadoff for a reason, Mattingly bats 3rd for a reason.
of 43
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > Ichiro's 3000th Hit - 253 to go! First Ballot HOF!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.