I'll add that to the list.

1)  Kenny Lofton is worthy of HOF consideration
2)  Bert Blyleven was a great choice for the HOF
3)  Bernie Williams and Rick Monday had similar offensive abilities

Anything else?

They were similar offensively, relative to their eras, yes. I'm confused on how that's so difficult to comprehend.  

Monday rarely played a full season, for whatever reason.  Maybe he was terrible against left-handed pitching and didn't get many starts against them.  Maybe he was injury-prone.  But during their peak 10 seasons, Bernie averaged 621 plate appearances, and Monday averaged 533, which explains to a decent extent the oWAR difference.

When Monday batted during his era, he had similar value to the team he played for as Bernie did when he played in his era.

Another example: OPS+ argues that Mark Teixeira and Greg Luzinski were similar, relative to their eras.  Who is the better hitter? Tex is.  But sluggers weren't as common in the late 70s/early 80s, so Luzinski brings similar offensive value when he hit during his era, compared to Tex now.  This isn't rocket science.

****.   BL's new baby, JAWS, has BW at 25th in CF and RM at 79th.   Does Ron Jaworski have no clue or is BL about to abandon him?

To chime in one more voice to the conversation, the whole reason that we use stats is that you can't just believe your memory. Your recollection of a player is shaded by a lot of things, and nobody has seen all of every player's at bats. If you asked most people who had more value offensively (per PA), they'd say Bernie. That leads us to two possible conclusions: there's something wrong with OPS+, or Rick Monday was undervalued for his time. Looking as deeply as possible, my feeling is that OPS+ is pretty good, and certainly way better than personal recollection.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2013 9:46:00 AM (view original):
****.   BL's new baby, JAWS, has BW at 25th in CF and RM at 79th.   Does Ron Jaworski have no clue or is BL about to abandon him?

Not surprised that you don't know this, but JAWS is derived from WAR. It makes sense that Monday is farther down on the list than Lofton.

IOW, one can use whatever stat they want to "prove their point" but, if you insist on using whichever one works for this particular argument, you discredit other arguments if said stat disputes your conclusion.   

For instance, if you want to use OPS+ to "prove" Monday and Williams were comparable, you better forget your JAWS and WAR arguments in the future.

Again, Mike, nobody is saying Monday FOR HIS CAREER is as good as Williams. Williams played much more than Monday did. Also, JAWS is basically a WAR aggregator, and I don't trust WAR because of the huge unpredictability of dWAR that's included in the number.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2013 9:54:00 AM (view original):
IOW, one can use whatever stat they want to "prove their point" but, if you insist on using whichever one works for this particular argument, you discredit other arguments if said stat disputes your conclusion.   

For instance, if you want to use OPS+ to "prove" Monday and Williams were comparable, you better forget your JAWS and WAR arguments in the future.

I guess it's the problem having discussion with 2 different people at the same time. I don't trust WAR at all.

And regarding dahsdebater's point that the "better" player is not always the most "valuable" player, on its surface, that assertion is true. Certainly Albert Belle or Barry Bonds or Jeff Kent could make things worse in the clubhouse and perhaps upset the chemistry on a team.

But in general, if you decide that one player is better than the other, then he is more valuable to an arbitrary team. Period.

So if you state that Edgar Martinez is better than Bernie Williams, then he's more valuable. It's not like Bernie was some great clubhouse guy. Everyone knows he was quiet and withdrawn. And since he played on the West Coast, I don't know much about Edgar's personality, but if it was disruptive I imagine we would have heard about it.

I won't disagree with you if you think Bernie was better. From my perspective they are neck-and-neck in terms of overall value. But if you're going to pick one as "better" and the other one as more "valuable", I think that's ridiculous.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2013 9:54:00 AM (view original):
IOW, one can use whatever stat they want to "prove their point" but, if you insist on using whichever one works for this particular argument, you discredit other arguments if said stat disputes your conclusion.   

For instance, if you want to use OPS+ to "prove" Monday and Williams were comparable, you better forget your JAWS and WAR arguments in the future.

Williams provided more value over his career, hence a higher WAR. But, when Monday did play, he was about as effective as Williams with the bat.

The stats aren't telling you the same thing because they aren't measuring the same thing.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/5/2013 10:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2013 9:54:00 AM (view original):
IOW, one can use whatever stat they want to "prove their point" but, if you insist on using whichever one works for this particular argument, you discredit other arguments if said stat disputes your conclusion.   

For instance, if you want to use OPS+ to "prove" Monday and Williams were comparable, you better forget your JAWS and WAR arguments in the future.

Williams provided more value over his career, hence a higher WAR. But, when Monday did play, he was about as effective as Williams with the bat.

The stats aren't telling you the same thing because they aren't measuring the same thing.

If you were a doctor, you'd be sued for malpractice for the way you interpret and attempt to apply your beloved magic numbers.

It's laughable to say that Monday was the equivalent with the bat as Williams, even adjusting for era.  It just isn't so.

BL, me, others: "Tec, here is evidence and reasoning on why Monday was a comparable hitter to Bernie, relative to their eras."
Biz, i mean, tec: "No. You're wrong. Fucktard, lol."

Maybe this is rocket science to tec.  Bernie, for his career, certainly contributed more to his teams than Monday did, largely because he played more often at the level that he did.  When they batted, they were similar players relative to their eras.  

In a similar way, Monday was more valuable than Mike Trout for their full careers, because Monday got more playing time.  But nobody would argue that Monday is a better hitter.

It's hilarious that you think OPS+ is magic. It's on base plus slugging, indexed to league average. No magic.

It's weird that you don't understand that a guy playing in the run depressed 70s could be as effective as a guy playing in the late 90s. Even if your memory of all if Monday's at bats from 40 years ago doesn't back that up.

I won't speak for tec but I think the disconnect, for me at least, is that these stats assign the same value to a walk as a single.   I don't.   "A walk's as good as a hit" is what you yell at guys who can't hit.     

So, for me, you're also assigning the same value to a walk.   Doesn't work for me.