Tim Kurkjian and the greatest SS's

[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

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.