Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You will never convince me that a guy that hits a bunch of singles is better than one of the best home run hitters in baseball history. Why? Again, and I have to keep mentioning this. Griffey Jr was hurt for almost the entire second half of his career. That is why the numbers are close. I give Jeter credit for staying healthy, especially playing shortstop, but at his best, Ken Griffey Jr blows Jeter out of the water.

OPS is the be all, end all of offensive metrics, if you ask me. The game of baseball is about scoring runs. To score runs, and win, people need to get on base, and there needs to be power to score runs. OPS is power + on base percentage. OPS + is a combination of those two things adjusted for the parks the player played in.

The very highest OPS + Jeter has ever had was a 153 in 1999. He was tremendous. He hit .349 with 24 home run (career high), 219 hits, 37 doubles, 9 triples, 19 stolen bases. He scored 134 runs, and for the only time in his career, eclipsed 100 RBI (102).

Ken Griffey's best OPS + was in 1993, 171. He matched that again in 1994. If you look at his highest OPS + seasons, he has 5 seasons above 153. Jeter's second best OPS + is 132 in 2006, the season everybody seems all hot and bothered about him getting cheated out of the MVP. Ken Griffey Jr had 12 seasons that were better than Derek Jeter's second best season.

Now, here's something interesting, and it shows why the numbers are closer than one would think. Look at both players for their lowest OPS + seasons. Jeter had 4 seasons below 100.

You looked at 162 game averages. Well, on a 162 game basis, Jeter's average OPS + is 116. Griffey Jr's is 136.

I ran a report on Baseball Reference for career OPS +. The only parameter I included was careers with over 7,500 at bats. 182 batters between the years 1901-2014 had 7,500 at bats. Ken Griffey Jr's 136 OPS + was 34th highest of all-time. That is his composite, the healthy years and the years with injuries all rolled into one. Derek Jeter's 116 OPS + is 100th on this list. And that seems about right for Jeter. Barry Larkin, who was a comparable player, has the same 116 OPS +. Robin Yount is at 115. Ken Griffey Jr is sandwiched between George Brett, Reggie Jackson, Gary Sheffield, Vlad Guerrero, Al Kaline and Fred McGriff. Steve Garvey, Lou Whitaker, Adrian Beltre, Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg surround Jeter.

Just for giggles, I reran the test again, lowering the at bats requirement to 5,000, and had the list ran for the first ten seasons of a player's career. n other words, when Griffey was actually healthy. Of course, Jeter was also in his first ten seasons. Ten years in, Jeter was a .315 hitter with an .848 OPS, and a 120 OPS +. So, his numbers are a little higher, but not remarkably so.

But look at Griffey Jr. When he is healthy, there is no comparison between him and Jeter. None. On a list of 173 hitters who had at least 5,000 at bats in their first ten seasons, Jeter is 68th. Certainly an improvement. But Griffey Jr jumps all the way up to 13th. The only hitters who had a higher OPS + in the first ten years of their career: Ted Williams, Albert Pujols, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Johnny Mize, Jeff Bagwell, Henry Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Ed Matthews and Miguel Cabrera. Griffey is ahead of Frank Robinson, Ralph Kiner, Chuck Klein, and Al Simmons.

Before the injuries set in and slowed Griffey down, there was absolutely no comparison offensively between Ken Griffey Jr and Derek Jeter. Griffey Jr's 150 OPS + is superstar level.

To put this another way...Derek Jeter's best ever single season OPS + is 153, again in 1999. For the first ten seasons of his career, Griffey's OPS + was 150. For a decade, Griffey Jr's play was at the same level of Jeter's best ever season.

One last thing. 356 stolen bases in 20 years, and 2,707 games hardly qualifies as a crap ton. When you are 170th on the all-time stolen base list, you haven't stolen a crap ton of bases.

I explained above why OPS+ is not an appropriate metric when comparing a slap hitter with a power hitter. Power hitters usually have higher slugging percentages and will generally have higher on base percentages, so their OPS+ will always be higher. If you want to compare Griffey with Bonds, use OPS+. If you want to compare Jeter with Rose, use OPS+. But if you want to compare Griffey with Jeter, OPS+ isn't appropriate.

Proof: If Player A hits 200 singles and then steals second, third and home every time he would probably be considered the greatest player in baseball history, but his OPS+ would be worse than Dan Uggla hitting 30 home runs and batting .230.

You're right, if Griffey was healthy he would have had one of the best careers in the history of the sport! But he didn't remain healthy If Jeter wasn't injured in 2013 and didn't have the burden of playing an extra 158 post season games, maybe he would have had another couple 200 hit seasons. But he won't

Offensive WAR takes into account everything OPS+ takes into account PLUS stolen bases and the position you play. Jeter's best years were marginally better than Griffey's best. Jeter's career numbers were marginally better than Griffey's. They are near identical! I'm not even saying Jeter was the better player (I ranked Jeter lower than Griffey previously in thread!) I'm just saying they are damn near close.

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I explained above why OPS+ is not an appropriate metric when comparing a slap hitter with a power hitter. Power hitters usually have higher slugging percentages and will generally have higher on base percentages, so their OPS+ will always be higher.

Lemme let you in on a dirty little secret. Come up close, don't wanna say it too loud:

Power hitters are a LOT more valuable than slap hitters

The job of slap hitters is to get on base. OBP measures that yet you discount it for sluggers because they "walk more often". So what? Isn't that kind of the job? Get on base? And home runs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more valuable than singles. That's just a fact.

OPS+ is absolutely a fair comparison between guys, regardless of whether they are slap hitters or power hitters.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Lemme let you in on a dirty little secret. Come up close, don't wanna say it too loud:

Power hitters are a LOT more valuable than slap hitters

The job of slap hitters is to get on base. OBP measures that yet you discount it for sluggers because they "walk more often". So what? Isn't that kind of the job? Get on base? And home runs are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more valuable than singles. That's just a fact.

OPS+ is absolutely a fair comparison between guys, regardless of whether they are slap hitters or power hitters.

Ugh. This is painful.

While we're in close and whispering, let me share a little known secret with you.

A hitters job is to help win games.....

If your job is to get a great OPS+, Griffey is a stud.
If your job is to help win games, Jeter is a tad bit better.

It's great that OPS+ measures a players park adjusted OPS (yay?), but I would think a stat that measures overall offensive production would be a bit more relevant.

I provided several examples PROVING OPS+ is a terrible metric! But here's another one!

Player A: Gets 200 singles and no walks in 600 at bats (a.333 batting average, .333 OBP, .333 Slugging%). Player A steals 2nd base, 3rd base and home every single time (so 600 stolen bases that year). Player A is widely considered the greatest baseball player to ever live, because if you can bat .333 and steal 600 bases, you ARE the greatest player who ever lived. Player A should have an OPS+ well below 100 (probably in the 70 to 80 range).

Player B: An average power hitter (I always use Dan Uggla as an example). He has a around 20-25 home runs, a .240 batting average, maybe a .300 OBP and a .450 slugging percentage. He doesn't garner even an all-star selection at how mediocre his year is. His OPS+ would be around 110.

HONESTLY, which player would you take? OPS+ is absolutely useless.

If a metric cannot tell the difference between what would be the greatest baseball player in the history of the sport and some mediocre power hitter, then how useful could it possibly be?

Edited to add: OPS+ is useless comparing two fundamentally different players, but can be a good guide in comparing very similar hitters (such as Jeter vs. Ichiro, or Bonds vs. Griffey).

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Player A: Gets 200 singles and no walks in 600 at bats (a.333 batting average, .333 OBP, .333 Slugging%). Player A steals 2nd base, 3rd base and home every single time (so 600 stolen bases that year). Player A is widely considered the greatest baseball player to ever live, because if you can bat .333 and steal 600 bases, you ARE the greatest player who ever lived. Player A should have an OPS+ well below 100 (probably in the 70 to 80 range).

Player B: An average power hitter (I always use Dan Uggla as an example). He has a around 20-25 home runs, a .240 batting average, maybe a .300 OBP and a .450 slugging percentage. He doesn't garner even an all-star selection at how mediocre his year is. His OPS+ would be around 110.

HONESTLY, which player would you take? OPS+ is absolutely useless.

Honestly, if your counterpoint to a metric is a dumb example like this one (600 stolen bases in a year??!), it kinda invalidates your counterpoint.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Honestly, if your counterpoint to a metric is a dumb example like this one (600 stolen bases in a year??!), it kinda invalidates your counterpoint.

That's an exaggerated scenario to point to OPS+'s flaws. If you want a real world example look at post 127:

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

Because your magical OPS+ number says they're the same must mean those seasons were just as good. I would venture to guess no serious baseball fan would ever compare these two seasons on the same level. I rest my case.

Originally Posted by Tabe

Offensive players have a number of jobs they're supposed to do but their top two are as follows: get on base and do damage in the process of getting on base. Jeter and Griffey get on base at about the same rate (.379 vs .370) but Griffey does a LOT more damage in getting on (SLG = .538 vs .442).

I 100% agree, but Jeter was TWICE as productive on the bases than Griffey was, so as every metric above concludes, it balances overall production out to be about the same.

If you're so attached to Griffey that you are certain he is miles and miles and miles ahead of Jeter then alright; there's no convincing you otherwise. I think it's a very close race though.

Jason

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I 100% agree, but Jeter was TWICE as productive on the bases than Griffey was, so as every metric above concludes, it balances overall production out to be about the same.


Jason

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.

[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

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/

[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.

[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.

[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.