The 10 commandments of card collecting

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by tschock

To be a noodge, you are using specific qualifying stats for a 'type' of hitting (as it relates to run production) to prove somewhat of a generalization. Taken to the extreme, would you continue to use those same stats to 'prove' someone as a worse hitter if that someone came to bat 5000 time, had 5000 hits, but drove in no runs? I would argue that someone batting 1.000 over their entire career (assuming that career lasted more that a handful of plate appearances) would be the better 'hitter'.

I get what you are driving at, but I don't think one came claim to determine the best 'hitter' in the game without providing the qualifications as to what they mean by 'best hitter'. With that in mind, Kahn may still have been correct without understanding the qualifying characteristics of his claim.

Sort of like your dismissal of Mays defensive skills and merely focusing on 'hitting' as the qualifications of an overall 'player'. I'm not claiming you are right or wrong in who was the better player. Just that it isn't enough for proof in order to claim "cased closed".

Incorporating my entire previous post herein as though fully set forth, I can only truthfully and accurately say once more, "case closed." Games are won by determining who scored the most runs--hence, run production irrefutably, indisputably rises to the forefront--the "best" hitter has nothing whatsoever to do with any "hitting type". He who is the best is the one who produces the most runs relative to the league average under the conditions of his era (OPS+ is really shorthand for that, while Bill James formula for runs created, which led to offensive win shares, takes into account other factors and thus carries a higher degree of accuracy). You are free to believe whatever you choose. However, until they start counting up hits or some other figure instead of runs, the actual fact remains that the best hitter is the one producing the most runs. My comment on Mays vs. Mantle was limited to offensive value during the period they both played, without taking into account Mays' undisputed superior fielding ability. As to what I was alluding to, however, there is no room for any factually supportable dispute. If you say Mays was a better hitter when they were both playing, all you are really saying is that you like Mays better, because all of the factual evidence is to the contrary. I am speaking with reference to quality, of course, rather than quantity. Did Mays produce more runs in the course of a significantly longer career? Of course, and that was simply due to better longevity. At the risk of redundancy, once more, case closed.

Regards,

Larry

[JTysver]

Incorporating my entire previous post herein as though fully set forth, I can only truthfully and accurately say once more, "case closed." Games are won by determining who scored the most runs--hence, run production irrefutably, indisputably rises to the forefront.

Regards,

Larry

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

Also, the object of productive outs is not really quantified. A guy getting 25 of his RBIs on sacrifice flies matters. A guy hitting a groundball to second with less than two outs and a guy on third matters. A guy pushing a runner up from first to second or from second to third matters as well. A guy moving a runner over by a base on ball matters.
Setting the table for scoring all matters. Likewise so does defense.

When Mays played, guys were not prone to start running on a gapper. They would take a few steps and freeze to make sure the ball wasn't caught. Pretty much the same way a guy freezes on a line drive. Hence, on a double in the gap and a man on first, the guy on first just might not have scored as often if Mays were manning centerfield. All of those things are not quantified.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by JTysver

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

Also, the object of productive outs is not really quantified. A guy getting 25 of his RBIs on sacrifice flies matters. A guy hitting a groundball to second with less than two outs and a guy on third matters. A guy pushing a runner up from first to second or from second to third matters as well. A guy moving a runner over by a base on ball matters.
Setting the table for scoring all matters. Likewise so does defense.

When Mays played, guys were not prone to start running on a gapper. They would take a few steps and freeze to make sure the ball wasn't caught. Pretty much the same way a guy freezes on a line drive. Hence, on a double in the gap and a man on first, the guy on first just might not have scored as often if Mays were manning centerfield. All of those things are not quantified.

The sabermetric formulas referred to above have beyond a shadow of a doubt been proven to be highly accurate run production indicators. James' formulas, when placing various factors into a rather intuitive (or minimally, a very reasonable) equation, have proven astonishingly accurate in predicting the number of runs teams scored. Hence, the application of the same factors/formulas to individual players. The events you mention, in contrast to the mathematical factors taking into account many thousands of at bats, usually vary from season to season, and are not significant in any rational discussion of players regarding their relative run-producing abilities. As well as having played in two different summer leagues every year, high school, more recently in over 30 fast pitch hardball in my early '40's, and studiously and devotedly watched literally thousands of games (much to the wife's chagrin), I watched Mays and Mantle play in their primes, and the significant differences in the game that have taken place since then are these: greater emphasis on pitch counts and accordingly, relief specialists; five man starting rotations rather than four; pitchers figuring out that one grip (two seam) produces a sinking fastball, while another (four seam) a fastball that does not sink; emphasis on the "circle change," which produces a screwball type of movement but without the stress on the elbow; development of the split-finger fastball; various changes in the strike zone (with the biggest coming into effect in 1969); and the number of pitchers versus bench players carried on the roster.

As I said, if you like Mays better, that's fine--just don't claim he was a better hitter during the time both he and Mantle were each playing because ALL of the evidence is to the contrary. You wouldn't think that this would take three times, but once more,

Case closed,

Larry

[bravos4evr]

On the surface that is correct. But stats alone do not quantify that. Tony Lazzeri hitting in front of the Babe scores a lot more runs than he would if he were hitting in front of John Milner who was cleanup often on the '73 Mets. He also drives in more runs because people pitch to him instead of Ruth whereas they could pitch to Milner if they chose.

true, which is why stats like weighted runs created and weighted on base avg (wRC+ and wOBA) don't concern themselves with those things. They only focus on the things that the batter can control directly. Mantle has an edge in hitting. But as a total player Mays was better because base running and defense matter, But with the bat? Mantle was a fair bit better.

[Billy5858]

Thou shalt not hijack fun threads to use for long winded discussions about the abilities of two Major League Baseball stars.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Billy5858

Thou shalt not hijack fun threads to use for long winded discussions about the abilities of two Major League Baseball stars.

lo, I have failed.......


thou shalt not claim in thine auction that a 1989 Griffey Rookie is "rare"

[Billy5858]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

lo, i have failed.......


Thou shalt not claim in thine auction that a 1989 griffey rookie is "rare"

i j/k