Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

That you keep going back to point out Jeter's stolen bases, and how he was "twice as productive on the bases", is just silly. He stole on average 17-18 bases a season. That's one stolen base every nine games. 48 players in baseball stole 17 bases last season. I would wager to guess that the 17 or 18 bases those guys stole netted maybe 2 or 3 runs more.

So technically, you're right. Jeter was twice as productive every year with those whopping 17 stolen bases. Griffey didn't need to steal a lot of bases because he figured out if he hit the ball into the seats, he could casually stroll around all the bases at once. And Griffey hitting 40 home runs, which he did a lot, that did have a big impact.

I never said he was the world's best base stealer, but combine 350+ stolen bases with 3400+ hits and it's very impressive. Jeter's longevity tarnished his 162 game SB average. Jeter's best five seasons on the bases were 34, 32, 30, 30 and 27 stolen bases, which is very good.

Productivity can come in the way of power or speed, they both end with the same result.

Just look at the Runs Created stat you showed earlier, Griffey has created marginally more runs. If you look at their stats, Griffey has 400 more total bases and Jeter has 170 more SB's. Griffey got out marginally more than Jeter and struck out more than Jeter, when you factor in all of that, Griffey created the 20th most runs compared to Jeter's 27th. Couple that with Jeter's higher oWAR and they are neck and neck in overall offensive production.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

More proof OPS+ is useless!

In 2001 Ichiro won the MVP, ROY and took the country by storm, posting one of the best seasons we have ever seen! He had 242 Hits, 56 Stolen Bases, ONLY 53 Strikeouts, 127 Runs Scored and a .350 Batting Average! Ichiro's OPS+ was 126

In 2008 Dan Uggla had a year that Dan Uggla always has. He had 138 hits, 5 stolen bases, 32 home runs, 171 STRIKEOUTS (HOLY $HIT!) and a .260 batting average Dan Uggla's OPS+ was 126

If you think those two seasons should be compared in any way then this discussion is pointless.

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

This has to be the most absurd thing I have ever read.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I never said he was the world's best base stealer, but combine 350+ stolen bases with 3400+ hits and it's very impressive. Jeter's longevity tarnished his 162 game SB average. Jeter's best five seasons on the bases were 34, 32, 30, 30 and 27 stolen bases, which is very good.

Productivity can come in the way of power or speed, they both end with the same result.

Just look at the Runs Created stat you showed earlier, Griffey has created marginally more runs. If you look at their stats, Griffey has 400 more total bases and Jeter has 170 more SB's. Griffey got out marginally more than Jeter and struck out more than Jeter, when you factor in all of that, Griffey created the 20th most runs compared to Jeter's 27th. Couple that with Jeter's higher oWAR and they are neck and neck in overall offensive production.

LOL, you're completely oblivious to the things we tell you. No, Griffey wasn't just marginally better than Jeter when it came to run production. Remember this?

Originally Posted by Tabe

Jeter had 10% more PAs than Griffey did and still came up 5% short in runs created. The total is relatively close but the accumulation rate is not. Jeter = 1 run per 6.54 PAs, Griffey = 1 per 5.66 PAs. In other words, Griffey created runs 17% faster than Jeter. That's a HUGE difference.

Griffey created runs 17% faster.

Yes, productivity can come in power or speed, or power and speed both. But 3,400 hits and 350 stolen bases is nowhere near as productive as 2,800 hits and 630 home runs. It's not even close.

You know what the most telling stat of all is? Intentional walks.

Jeter has had 39 intentional base on balls in his career.
Ken Griffey Jr had 246 intentional base on balls in his career.

And again, stop bringing the strikeout thing up. Remember where I said that Derek Jeter, a slap hitter shortstop had more strikeouts than any of the other 24 members of the 3,000 hits club?

Hank Aaron hit 755 home runs.
Willie Mays hit 660 home runs.
Rafael Palmeiro hit 569 home runs.
Eddie Murray hit 509 home runs.
Stan Musial hit 475 home runs.
Dave Winfield hit 465 home runs.
Carl Yastrzemski hit 452 home runs.
Cal Ripken Jr hit 431 home runs.

And Derek Jeter, who averages 13 home runs a season, has struck out more than all of them.

You do understand that power hitters, people trying to hit the ball 425-450 feet, and naturally going to strike out more often than somebody just trying to dink the ball into right center field, right? Do you understand the amount of power that is required to hit a home run? Once a power hitter commits to their swing, they can't change it without breaking something. They can't check their swing the way a light hitting shortstop can.

Yet Derek Jeter struck out more than any of them. And he struck out a lot more than the names I mentioned.

Ken Griffey Jr was one of the most dominant offensive forces in the history of Major League Baseball. Between 1993 and 2000, an 8 year period, Griffey hit 351 home runs. His 162 game averages for this 8 year span:

616 at bats, 126 runs, 181 hits, 31 doubles, 4 triples, 52 home runs, 137 RBI, 17 stolen bases, 91 walks, 116 strike outs, 373 total bases. .993 OPS.

And while he was putting up these spectacular numbers, he was also the best center fielder in the game, winning 7 Gold Gloves in 8 seasons.

Derek Jeter was a great player. He showed up every day, and played solid defense. He has been a great pure hitter. He could generate some power, steal some bases. But mostly, Jeter was the mark of consistency. He was even keel. Joe Torre could put him in his lineup every day, and he knew that Jeter was going to be there every day. And I cannot express just how much I respect the man. Living in New York City, where Mother Theresa could have come on vacation and been tempted, he was a choir boy. He came to work, punched the clock, and three hours later, after his team has won, he went home. Then he came back the next day, went three for five, and went home again after another win. Jeter will be a Hall of Famer on the first ballot, and the percentage of people that vote for him will be off the charts.

But while Jeter was human, maybe even super human at times, Ken Griffey Jr was out of this world. He hit the ball to places where very few men have ever hit the ball. Ken Griffey Jr, more than anybody I've seen except for Barry Bonds, could completely take a game over. Both men grew up around baseball. Both men had superstar fathers. Both men have baseball in their DNA. But while Bonds eventually chose to use drugs that were frowned upon, Griffey Jr did not, and his all out play cut his career short. Griffey dove for fly balls more than any other outfielder I remember. He jumped over walls to bring home runs back. And when he hit the ball, it stayed hit. It didn't matter who was in the outfield. Those balls weren't coming back.

And the whole point I'm trying to make, the only point, is that Derek Jeter was simply not in the same universe as Griffey. Jeter is like Paul Molitor. They have the same games. Molitor's nickname was "the Ignitor". He got the rallies started. So did Jeter. If the Yankees were having a big inning, Jeter was in the middle of the scrum. He has remarkable hand eye coordination. But Griffey was otherworldly. He did things that Jeter could only dream of doing. And it shows.

You seem like a nice guy, Jason. And you know your baseball. But I just can't understand how you can't see the difference in production between these two men.

Nothing Jeter did offensively could ever equal Griffey hitting 630 home runs.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

This has to be the most absurd thing I have ever read.

Why, because Ichiro's season didn't end up being the monumental barn burner that you thought it was?

WAR has become a pretty accurate indicator of a player's performance for a season. Do you want to know where Ichiro's 2001 season fell among the greatest individual seasons in Major League history?

110th. There have been 109 individual seasons that were better than Ichiro's 2001 campaign.

Ichiro hit for a really good average. But it's nothing that Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs didn't do on a semi-consistent basis. Tony Gwynn hit better than .350 seven times. Wade Boggs hit better than .350 five times.

Nothing that Ichiro did in 2001 set a new bar. He hit for a high average, and he had a spectacular number of plate appearances. That is why he had so many hits. I'm not knocking him. That's a lot of hits. But of his 242 hits, 50 were for extra bases. He hit 192 singles.

His 127 runs scored, while quite good, is never going to be a legendary figure. It didn't even lead the league in 2001.

And then there's his 56 stolen bases. Good total, but hardly transcendent. There have been 155 seasons of more than 56 stolen bases.

So again, where did Ichiro have one of the greatest seasons of all time? He hit a crap ton of singles. He stole a good deal of bases. He scored a bunch of runs. He played great defense.

Is that better than Ted Williams 1941 season when he hit .406? What about Joe DiMaggio, same season, when he hit in 56 straight? Better than Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown last season?

Is anybody 50 years from now going to bring up Ichiro's 2001 season as one of the greatest seasons of all-time? Maybe. Probably not.

So if my post is that absurd to you, maybe you just need to rethink some of your notions about the history of baseball.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

First of all, why was Ichiro's season "one of the best seasons we have ever seen"?

The only two statistics that were exceptional were his 242 hits, and his 56 stolen bases. 127 runs scored is a nice total, but it's nowhere near the best all-time. In fact, since just 2000, there have been 27 seasons where a player scored 127 or more runs scored.

He had 242 hits. That's a really great figure. But he had a whopping 738 plate appearances. Only 24 players in the last 113 seasons have had more plate appearances in a season. So while he was very good, hitting .350, his hits total wasn't anything Earth shattering, either. It was part the product of a great season, and an even bigger part an incredible number of plate appearances.

So while the number of hits he had was certainly great, again, it's nothing mind blowing. And his 56 stolen bases? He had 70 stolen base attempts. That's a fine total, and it's certainly something we don't see as often as we used to. But again, 56 stolen bases is nowhere near the best individual total ever. In 114 games this season, Dee Gordon has 54 stolen bases. And he's only had 503 plate appearances.

So you'll excuse me if I question your claim that Ichiro had one of the greatest seasons in baseball history. No, he really didn't. For the first 50 games the game was played, there were players that were hitting for averages much higher than .350, scoring much more than 127 runs, and stealing more than 56 bases.

The rest of his numbers are actually quite pedestrian. He only walked 30 times. So while he had a lot of hits, he got on base a total of 280 times, which was good for the 11th best total in 2001. Barry Bonds in 2001 got on base 342 times. He had 156 hits, 177 walks, he was hit by 9 pitches. Jason Giambi got on base 320 times. Luis Gonzalez got on base 312 times. Sammy Sosa got on 311 times, and Todd Helton 300. Lance Berkman, Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Jeff Bagwell and Carlos Delgado all got on base more times than Ichiro, too. And even terrible old Dan Uggla got on base 223 times. He only had 138 hits, but he also had 77 walks, and got hit by 8 pitches.

So, what about the rest of Ichiro's offensive production? 34 doubles, 8 triples, 8 home runs. 69 RBI.He slashed .381/.457/.838.

Dan Uggla scored 97 runs, he had 37 doubles, a triple and 32 home runs. As far as how many times he struck out, 171, so what? An out is an out is an out. One of Ichiro's outs counts the same as one of Uggla's outs. Ichiro made 458 outs in 2001. Uggla only made 396 outs.

So, while Ichiro was having "one of the greatest seasons in MLB history!", he only scored 30 more runs than Uggla. And he drove in 23 fewer runs. That is reflected in runs created:

Runs created (source Baseball America, under more stats)
Ichiro 2001 127
Uggla 2008 100

Runs created per game

Ichiro 7.2
Uggla 6.5

Ichiro, for having one of the greatest seasons ever, wasn't that much more productive than Uggla. Look at the runs created per game. When you consider that Ichiro had 119 more plate appearances than Uggla did, they'd be even closer if with the same number of opportunities.

And one more thing. Dan Uggla is a second baseman. You took a player from what is typically the least productive offensive position in baseball for your comparison.

In summary, not only is Ichiro's 2001 season not one of the greatest of all time, your comparison of Ichiro and Uggla did nothing to show that OPS is a meaningless stat. It is not all encompassing, as it does not take into consideration stolen bases, and there are metrics that do. But OPS is an outstanding metric to determine a player's contributions with the bat. The reason Dan Uggla's OPS 2008 OPS is higher than Ichiro's 2001 OPS is because Uggla thrived in both getting on base, and generating power. Both are vital to team success. Ichiro got on base slightly more often, but his power numbers compared to Uggla's were nowhere close.

You see to get stuck on batting averages, Jason. Batting average is still a good metric. It shows how well a hitter is able to get on base with his bat. But if a player's job is to get on base ahead of the power hitters, which pretty much matches Ichiro's job description, he's only marginally better at that then Uggla. Ichiro hit .350 in 2001, and Uggla hit only .260 in 2008. But Ichiro's OBP of .381 is not a lot better than Uggla's .360. Why? Because Uggla walks a lot. When he's not hitting home runs, he provides value to his team by getting on base. Ichiro's OBP was only 31 points higher than his batting average because he only walked 30 times in 738 trips to the plate. That's actually pretty bad for a leadoff hitter. It wasn't enough to keep him out of the lineup because he was obviously a great hitter at that time. But again, Uggla in 2008 had a higher OPS than Ichiro did in 2001 because he provided more value to his team. Instead of this example your provided showing why OPS is meaningless, it has had the opposite effect. It has done a great job of showing exactly why it is such an accurate metric. You looked at things like batting average and strikeouts while completely ignoring walks. Uggla in 2008 got on base nearly as much as Ichiro, and he provided much more power. So, upon further review, Ichiro's season wasn't as spectacular as you made it out to be, and Uggla's 2008 season wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.

Ichiro's WAR was only 7.7. That's a very good figure, but hardly indicative of a monumental season.

I would add that Ichiro was not even the best player on his own team that year and that the tremendous hype surrounding him helped vault him to the MVP award. Bret Boone, IMO, was the best Mariner that year and should have been the MVP. He may have been using PEDs but that was not an issue to MVP voters in 2001.

[Peter_Spaeth]

ichiro hit .350 and had on OBP of .381. That has to be one of the lowest differentials ever. The same year, same team, Olerud and Martinez were higher, at .401 and .423.

[Mountaineer]

Love him or hate him, Arod has to be considered in the top 3 of all-time (ignoring his PED use). He was a machine and if he wouldn't have been injured a lot here over the years and if he didn't test positive for PED's, he could have made a very strong argument as being the best SS of all-time.

I am a Yankees fan, but I do not have Jeter in my top 5. He has been consistent through the multitude of playing years just like Ripken was. The longevity factor has helped increase Ripken's and Jeter's places on top SS lists. Jeter is a top 10 SS though.

[the 'stache]

Jeter has been a very productive shortstop, and he's been a productive shortstop for a long time. There haven't been a lot of shortstops in the game's history that hit .330 or .340. Jeter could do that for you. He could hit the occasional home run. He could steal the occasional base. It just seemed to me, anyway, that when Jeter was doing these things, it was always at the most critical moment. So while Jeter may not have hit a lot of home runs, I can think of a few that he hit that were absolutely huge, and so important to his team's success.

But one thing that gets overlooked. Jeter had some pretty exceptional talent around him throughout his career. He wasn't winning those games alone. Put it this way. Since 1995, Derek Jeter's first season, through 2014, the New York Yankees have done this:

1,877 wins
1,299 losses
3 ties
.591 winning percentage, or 96 wins a season for 20 years
5 World Series titles

When we're looking at how Derek Jeter has been as a player, let's not forget the absolutely spectacular talent that has surrounded him. To his left, he's had probably the best second baseman in the game, Robinson Cano, since 2005. He's had Alex Rodriguez to his right at third base. He's had talent everywhere. He has been a great player, of course, but he's scored 2,000 runs because he's had some of the biggest bats in the game behind him. He's gotten on base, and ya, he's stolen a few bases. But he's scored a lot of runs, and the Yankees have won a lot of games because they've had a roster filled with stars.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

ichiro hit .350 and had on OBP of .381. That has to be one of the lowest differentials ever. The same year, same team, Olerud and Martinez were higher, at .401 and .423.

It's actually not. Rob Picciolo, believe it or not, once had a season with a LOWER OBP than batting average. Who cares if it was just 14 games? He was so impressed with that feat he did it again the next year in 87 games. Picciolo walked just 25 times in 1720 PAs.

Here's a great page on this topic:

http://www.captainsblog.info/2012/05...average/15300/

[sago]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

ichiro hit .350 and had on OBP of .381. That has to be one of the lowest differentials ever. The same year, same team, Olerud and Martinez were higher, at .401 and .423.

Pretty sure it helped that Ichiro was already on base and was a major stealing threat.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It's actually not. Rob Picciolo, believe it or not, once had a season with a LOWER OBP than batting average. Who cares if it was just 14 games? He was so impressed with that feat he did it again the next year in 87 games. Picciolo walked just 25 times in 1720 PAs.

Here's a great page on this topic:

http://www.captainsblog.info/2012/05...average/15300/

How is that mathematically possible, if you start with BA and then add the same number to the numerator and denominator (walks plus hit by pitch, right?) you necessarily come up with a higher number, no?

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How is that mathematically possible, if you start with BA and then add the same number to the numerator and denominator (walks plus hit by pitch, right?) you necessarily come up with a higher number, no?

Sacrifice flies count as plate appearances when calculating OBP.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by howard38

Sacrifice flies count as plate appearances when calculating OBP.

Ah. Thank you.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It's actually not. Rob Picciolo, believe it or not, once had a season with a LOWER OBP than batting average. Who cares if it was just 14 games? He was so impressed with that feat he did it again the next year in 87 games. Picciolo walked just 25 times in 1720 PAs.

Here's a great page on this topic:

http://www.captainsblog.info/2012/05...average/15300/

I thought that name rang a bell. The Brewers acquired him in '82 to back up Yount at shortstop.

I have no idea how he was able to stick around as long as he did. I don't remember him having any special defensive skills, and he was deplorable with a bat in his hands. He was a lifetime .234 hitter. His career slash line was, are you ready? .246/.312/.558. Yet somehow he was able to remain in the Majors for 9 seasons. He played in 730 games, and totaled 1,720 plate appearances. I guess he was able to play a lot of defensive positions. But would that explain how somebody with a -1.8 career WAR was able to hang around for nine years?

[Tabe]

Picciolo is the first modern player I've seen that challenges Ray Oyler for worst hitter of all-time. Oyler as a lot worse but he at least walked once in awhile. Oyler was also an elite defender.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Picciolo is the first modern player I've seen that challenges Ray Oyler for worst hitter of all-time. Oyler as a lot worse but he at least walked once in awhile. Oyler was also an elite defender.

Chris,

If we're talking the worst hitter of all-time, we need to include the originator of "the Mendoza line". Mario Mendoza ended his career with a .215 career batting average. As terrible as Picciolo was, he did hit 17 home runs in 1,618 ABs. Mendoza managed a mere 4 in 1,337. Ironic that he end his career with 1,337 at bats. The kids today like to use those numbers to spell the word "leet". There was nothing elite about Mendoza.

Picciolo's extra base hits: 1,628 ABs, 56 doubles, 10 triples, 17 home runs
Mendoza's extra base hits: 1,337 ABs, 33 doubles, 9 triples, 4 home runs

Picciolo's slash line: .246/.312/.558
Mendoza's slash line: .245/.262/.507

Picciolo's career OPS +: 56
Mendoza's career OPS +: 41

If Picciolo was terrible with a career -1.8 WAR, what does that make Mendoza, he of the -2.5 WAR.

Surprisingly, Mendoza had a 4.0 dWAR his career. He played short, third base and second base for Pittsburgh, Texas and Seattle in his 9 year career. Picciolo's dWAR was a 1.9.

Again, the question begs asking. How do Picciolo and Mendoza last 9 years each in the Majors? Mendoza from '74 to '82, Picciolo from '77 to '85.

They're both pretty awful, but only Mendoza's name is brought up when a player threatens to fall below the .200 batting average.

He might just be the worst hitter ever.

[the 'stache]

Ok, I had to run a report. It turns out that Mendoza is almost the worst ever. I ran a report for the modern era (1919 was the end of the dead ball era, so 1920 to current day). Mendoza has the second worst career OPS of non pitchers who have had 1,000 or more at bats. The winner? Luis Gomez, he of the career .500 OPS. His OBP of .261 is better than the other guys. Gomez walked 86 times in his career. But his slugging percentage was downright embarrassing. In 1,251 at bats, Gomez hit 26 doubles, 5 triples and no home runs. His career slugging percentage? .239. I didn't know a percentage could get that low.

Here is the wall of shame: