Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goose Goslin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SABR Steve
    replied
    Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

    Even then his raw OPS+ stats top Gos's. What this basically means is that Simmons was far superior with the bat alone and his BA compared to league average confirms this.
    Batters in the 1920's and '30's were paid on the stats known at that time, not OPS+ which is a ridiculous figure in any case. Today's batters work for walks, homers, and launch angles. They could care less about how many strikeouts they pile up.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Ize19 View Post

    I agree Joe D is very underrated! I would argue that, taking Era into consideration, Cobb was just as dominant at Griffith. Joe had 553 PA there, Cobb had 754, so evening them out to 650 PA each:

    Joe had an equivalent of 129 R, 139 RBI, ~3 SB, and a slash line of .352/.420/.632.

    Cobb had an equivalent of 108 R, 109 RBI, 53 SB, and a slash line of .404/.475/.559

    Two all-time greats that took full advantage of Griffith's spacious outfield!
    Goslin actually hit well at Griffith Stadium...318, .387, .484, which is in line with his overall career stats. The whole 'his home stadium killed him' is overblown. For whatever reason he didn't hit well in Detroit Navin Field.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ize19
    replied
    Originally posted by leagueleader View Post
    In 1924 Goose hit more than 1/2 of his teams Homeruns. He hit 12 the team hit 22. The first year out of Griffith Stadium he hit 30 homeruns in only
    100 games with the St. Louis Browns. He's definitely under rated & Griffith Stadium is one of the reasons. in 1945 the entire Senator team hit exactly
    1 homerun in their home park all year and that was an inside the park homerun. They came in 2nd only 1 game behind the pennant winner they hit
    26 homers on the road compared to only 1 at home. If you look at all great hitters stats in Griffith Stadium only Joe DiMaggio thrived there it's amazing.
    No one not Wlliams nor Ruth produced like Dimag did there. He's underrated also!
    I agree Joe D is very underrated! I would argue that, taking Era into consideration, Cobb was just as dominant at Griffith. Joe had 553 PA there, Cobb had 754, so evening them out to 650 PA each:

    Joe had an equivalent of 129 R, 139 RBI, ~3 SB, and a slash line of .352/.420/.632.

    Cobb had an equivalent of 108 R, 109 RBI, 53 SB, and a slash line of .404/.475/.559

    Two all-time greats that took full advantage of Griffith's spacious outfield!

    Leave a comment:


  • leagueleader
    replied
    In 1924 Goose hit more than 1/2 of his teams Homeruns. He hit 12 the team hit 22. The first year out of Griffith Stadium he hit 30 homeruns in only
    100 games with the St. Louis Browns. He's definitely under rated & Griffith Stadium is one of the reasons. in 1945 the entire Senator team hit exactly
    1 homerun in their home park all year and that was an inside the park homerun. They came in 2nd only 1 game behind the pennant winner they hit
    26 homers on the road compared to only 1 at home. If you look at all great hitters stats in Griffith Stadium only Joe DiMaggio thrived there it's amazing.
    No one not Wlliams nor Ruth produced like Dimag did there. He's underrated also!

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    I like Goslin, but I find no way to rank him above or even with Simmons. His home park may have 'hurt' him, but while it robbed him of HR it also added to his batting average. I would say he is about equal to Medwick, and that the drop from Simmons to Gosin is about the same as the drop from Goslin to Manush.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

    How do you “overrate” a walk? Nobody in the saber-metric community ever thought that a walk was more valuable than a hit. Batting average was never degraded, the only thing that happened was on base percentage was viewed(and correctly viewed) as more important than it was.
    No one ever said the sabermetric community thought a walk was more valuable than a hit. It absolutely was degraded. It was their main talking point and continues to be their prime example of "misguided" or "old" thinking. They can claim to view on base percentage however they want. Once they began to dictate personnel and play style OBP dropped. Hardly evidence of valuing OBP other than lip service.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

    Fact. They also denigrate batting average even though it makes up 2/3 to 3/4 of OBP. The war on batting average was their opening salvo. They understood that getting on base is what was of primary importance and that once their ideas were adopted we would see "more productive" at bats and hitters and thus more exciting offense because they "understood where real value comes from" and "what really wins ballgames." Also a fact that OBP plummeted to historic lows when sabermetricians became the norm in front offices and began dictating lineups and on field strategy. Players used to want to hit .300 and today MLBs OBP stands at .311 so they did the exact opposite of what they said they would do... but we just won't talk about that now will we.
    How do you “overrate” a walk? Nobody in the saber-metric community ever thought that a walk was more valuable than a hit. Batting average was never degraded, the only thing that happened was on base percentage was viewed(and correctly viewed) as more important than it was.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    Advanced stats overrate walks and underrate (in fact most of them totally ignore) actual runs. Mathematically, it is always wrong to walk even prime Ruth or Bonds, but in reality it is smart because if you walk them, there is zero chance they can really hurt you. In reality, a guy who makes more outs than another guy but also drives in many more runs is very valuable, but in advanced stats his extra RBI are ignored. Mathematics can't always mirror reality. The whole idea that we can capture the entire game in a clean, neat formula is very flawed.

    It's kind of like doing a study to see if a product will be popular, or if the stock market will go up. Success isn't measured by how well it does in the study itself, but how it does in reality. In a way, advanced stats are basing success on the mathematical study and ignoring what actually happens.
    Fact. They also denigrate batting average even though it makes up 2/3 to 3/4 of OBP. The war on batting average was their opening salvo. They understood that getting on base is what was of primary importance and that once their ideas were adopted we would see "more productive" at bats and hitters and thus more exciting offense because they "understood where real value comes from" and "what really wins ballgames." Also a fact that OBP plummeted to historic lows when sabermetricians became the norm in front offices and began dictating lineups and on field strategy. Players used to want to hit .300 and today MLBs OBP stands at .311 so they did the exact opposite of what they said they would do... but we just won't talk about that now will we.
    Last edited by bluesky5; 06-05-2022, 03:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post

    Advanced stats overrate walks and underrate (in fact most of them totally ignore) actual runs. Mathematically, it is always wrong to walk even prime Ruth or Bonds, but in reality it is smart because if you walk them, there is zero chance they can really hurt you. In reality, a guy who makes more outs than another guy but also drives in many more runs is very valuable, but in advanced stats his extra RBI are ignored. Mathematics can't always mirror reality. The whole idea that we can capture the entire game in a clean, neat formula is very flawed.

    It's kind of like doing a study to see if a product will be popular, or if the stock market will go up. Success isn't measured by how well it does in the study itself, but how it does in reality. In a way, advanced stats are basing success on the mathematical study and ignoring what actually happens.
    This isn’t a reality based game. You can’t say that Barry Bonds taking a walk and say Johnny Bench taking a walk should mean any less for Bonds and more for Bench due to the vast difference in their skills as hitters.

    To those saying that it’s a win for the pitcher, it really isn’t. Sure it’s better than a home run but the pitcher has still “lost” in the sense that he failed to get the batter out.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post

    Correct. WAR SF doesn't punish not walking. It punishes making outs. If a batter hit .400 every season in all singles and zero walks...he would still have a better WAR based on OB% than a guy with a .370 OB% with tons of them being walks. It's why a light walker from a corner OF position like Gwynn (whose defense was about a net wash given his last half slowdown) still racked-up 70 WAR. Dont believe anyone who says WAR only cares about walks or any such nonsense.
    Advanced stats overrate walks and underrate (in fact most of them totally ignore) actual runs. Mathematically, it is always wrong to walk even prime Ruth or Bonds, but in reality it is smart because if you walk them, there is zero chance they can really hurt you. In reality, a guy who makes more outs than another guy but also drives in many more runs is very valuable, but in advanced stats his extra RBI are ignored. Mathematics can't always mirror reality. The whole idea that we can capture the entire game in a clean, neat formula is very flawed.

    It's kind of like doing a study to see if a product will be popular, or if the stock market will go up. Success isn't measured by how well it does in the study itself, but how it does in reality. In a way, advanced stats are basing success on the mathematical study and ignoring what actually happens.
    Last edited by willshad; 06-05-2022, 10:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Goslin was a VC pick who did terribly in the voting:
    1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
    1949 BBWAA ( 2.6%)
    1950 BBWAA ( 1.2%)
    1954 BBWAA ( 0.4%)
    1955 BBWAA ( 2.8%)
    1956 BBWAA (13.5%)
    1958 BBWAA ( 9.8%)
    1960 BBWAA (11.2%)
    1962 BBWAA ( 8.8%)
    That's Goslin's BBWAA vote record. Not impressive. What pushed Goslin forward as a candidate was a long career and a .316 career BA in an era where the AL Batting Champ hit ..301 and the "vanishing .300 hitter" drove a LOT of discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Bamay22 View Post

    Even then his raw OPS+ stats top Gos's. What this basically means is that Simmons was far superior with the bat alone and his BA compared to league average confirms this.
    Correct. WAR SF doesn't punish not walking. It punishes making outs. If a batter hit .400 every season in all singles and zero walks...he would still have a better WAR based on OB% than a guy with a .370 OB% with tons of them being walks. It's why a light walker from a corner OF position like Gwynn (whose defense was about a net wash given his last half slowdown) still racked-up 70 WAR. Dont believe anyone who says WAR only cares about walks or any such nonsense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bamay22
    replied
    Originally posted by layson27 View Post
    Simmons is hurt in advanced hitting stats (OPS+ & Rbat) and War because his walk rate was so low compared to most other great hitters. Goslin's BB% was close to 10%, while Simmons' was only 6.5%. DiMaggio is known as someone who really didn't walk that much either, though his BB% is similar to Goslin's, about 10%.
    Even then his raw OPS+ stats top Gos's. What this basically means is that Simmons was far superior with the bat alone and his BA compared to league average confirms this.

    Leave a comment:


  • layson27
    replied
    Simmons is hurt in advanced hitting stats (OPS+ & Rbat) and War because his walk rate was so low compared to most other great hitters. Goslin's BB% was close to 10%, while Simmons' was only 6.5%. DiMaggio is known as someone who really didn't walk that much either, though his BB% is similar to Goslin's, about 10%.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluesky5
    replied
    Al Simmons will also quit on the ball club. Not sure Goslin ever had that reputation. Just the normal yearly salary holdouts that came with the reserve clause. He was certainly no great shakes with the glove. They were teammates on the 1938 Senators. On 4/24 they drove in all 3 runs on pinch hits in a 4-3 L at the New York. Goslin hit a tying 2 run HR in the 7th and Simmons had the go ahead sac fly to score Buddy Lewis the next inning. But the bullpen blew it. Looks like they started together on 6/11 with Goose in left and Simmons in center and on 6/22 with Goose in right and Simmons in left.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X