Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arky Vaughn, a GREAT offensive player

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

  • #16
    Becuase you are a new fnagled stat guy

    Us traditional types think of great as an all around player...so an all around offensive player like a Mays, a Williams, A Ruth, A Cobb

    As a former player...you guys value OBP way too much...without realizing that ALL players fail a vast majority of the time, thus ok HE didn't make an out, but you are letting his colleagues be the scapgoat

    What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.

    I think he did ok by not making an out, but it is not a good thing...winning is good...stats mean very little

    And you guys are still not saying if he was a great offensive PLAYER

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Imapotato
      Ahhh so here is the kicker

      Would you say he got in the HOF and has more accolades BECAUSE he was a SS with very good to great defensive (aside from his 1st 2 years) SS with some pop

      Or he got into the HOF because he was an offensive SS juggernaught?
      I believe he got into the HOF because there aren't more than 1 or 2 SSs who can claim they were better than Vaughan and have a case.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Imapotato
        Becuase you are a new fnagled stat guy

        Us traditional types think of great as an all around player...so an all around offensive player like a Mays, a Williams, A Ruth, A Cobb
        All those guys walked a lot and hit for power, and hit for average. They excelled at all aspects of hitting. They're the greatest players ever. Vaughan doesn't have to be as good as them to be great. The stats people and the traditionalists are in agreement those are the greatest players ever.

        As a former player...you guys value OBP way too much...without realizing that ALL players fail a vast majority of the time, thus ok HE didn't make an out, but you are letting his colleagues be the scapgoat

        What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.
        That is a hypothetical situation where a single is much better than a walk. But, a walk is still much better than making an out. Vaughan makes an out, the game is over. By walking he at least prolongs the game and gives the next guy a chance.

        Comment


        • #19
          Whether or not that's really a good thing depends on who the next guy is.
          THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

          In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by digglahhh
            Whether or not that's really a good thing depends on who the next guy is.
            In examining a career, no, it doesn't.

            THere are two ways of thinking about this:

            1) OBP is on a scale of 0-1, while SLG is on a scale of 0-4. Thus, every point of OBP is almost by default worth more than 1 point of SLG.

            2) Thought experiment. Would you rather have a player who hit .500 with a .500 OBP and 1.000 SLG, or who hit .500 with a 1.000 OBP and a .500 OBP.

            Any roster made up of the first guy would score a ton of runs - but any roster made up of the 2nd guy would score infinite runs! He's never make an out. That's what a higher OBP does - creates more bases per out. You can't ask for more.
            Now it is done. The story ends, and there is no way to tell it. The art of fiction is dead. Reality has strangled invention. Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic can ever be plausible again.

            -Red Smith, New York Herald Tribune, October 4th, 1951

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Imapotato
              I am talking overall...not just SS

              Alot of the talent was in the AL, not the NL...thus Arky finished higher in the leaderboards as a result...would he have done so as an AL player?

              538280,

              His walked ALOT, and sometimes that is not a good thing...look at Joe Morgan...Most of Arky's OPS came from his OBP...not his SLG

              That is a lopsided player, and lopsided to me does not equat a "Great" offensive player, a good one yes because he got on base, but not great, because if someone was on base and they needed a run, would you want Arky to have the bat in his hands?
              The guy was a SS. He did not need to finish first in the leaderboard to be considered great. Simply putting up numbers close to what he did as a SS would make him great.
              Secondly most ARky's OPS is not OBP nor even if it was is that bad. The guy had a career BA of .318 and a career OBP of .406. Its not like we are talking about a guy with a BA of .220 and an OBP of .420. We are talking about a high batting average hitter that walked some. Arky's OPS is largely based on his BA and the hits it produced, just like everybody else out there. And yes if someone was on base and we needed a run I would want a gap-hitting high batting average low strikeout with some pop disciplined hitter like Arky. Arky was not Rob Deer, he was a hitter who walked who didn't K a lot who hit doubles and triples and had a high batting average, that is good not bad.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Imapotato

                What if you lose by 1 run, a man on second and he walks, next player makes an out...that's a positive? Hell, I'd Sac him to third and get a better probability of the player at the plate knowing he just has to hit a seeing eye single.

                I think he did ok by not making an out, but it is not a good thing...winning is good...stats mean very little

                And you guys are still not saying if he was a great offensive PLAYER

                This is extreme and a strawman argument. You picking a scenario in which everything is in your favor and then forcing those who do not agree with you to try and defend the opposite of your view on this one scenario. The problem is your scenario is an extreme it is not a scenario that happens with great regularity. It is not the average scenario yet you make it the battleground, it's a bunch of what-ifs.

                Yes Arky in his day was a great offensive player, was he an all-time great in the top 5 or inner circle great? No, but he was still a great offensive player. If all I had was Arky's stat line and no defensive position I would still want him on my team, granted he wouldn't in my top ten but if we had a fantasy draft he would be on my draft board.

                Comment


                • #23
                  We could do the scenario's all day.

                  Playing at Coors Field man on seconnd down by 6, player B sacs the runner to third the next hits a seeing eye grounder and scores the runner the next squibs outs. You lose by 5. In that scenario its better to walk then to give up the out just to move the base runner over. On top of that even in your scenario its better to walk then simply give up the out to move the runner over. In your scenario the second hitter comes up to the plate with two men on and if he hits his seeing eye grounder the runner on second still has a chance of scoring and even if he doesn't take it the bases are now loaded and there is either one or no outs in the inning. Now all that is needed is the third batter to elevate the ball and the run is going to score and the base situation will still be highly favorable. In your scenario one run scores but after that the base situation is not favorable to scoring another run, while with the walk the run scores to tie the game and it puts the team in a very favorable situation to take the lead.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Dodger Green
                    2) Thought experiment. Would you rather have a player who hit .500 with a .500 OBP and 1.000 SLG, or who hit .500 with a 1.000 OBP and a .500 OBP.
                    The second guy can't exist. You can't hit .500 and have a 1.000 OBP. if you have 100 PAs, go 1-2 with 98 walks, your OBP is .990. Making one out bars you from the 1.000 OBP. The first player never walks, only singles, and does it exactly half of the times he gets up.

                    Anyway, your hypotheticals remove all context, the game is played by humans of different skill sets and organized into teams, it is not simulated via a computer.

                    Allen Iverson could drive to the basket in the closing seconds of a game down by one and dish the ball of b/c the center begins to close him out, he could throw a crisp, textbook pass to set up a wide open shooter from 18 feet. If that open guy is Samuel Dalembert...who cares! Iverson did the right thing, the efficient thing, statistically speaking, passing up a contested shot for an open one. But what did he really do- he passed the buck and set up an inferior player to fail. Iverson can say- hey I did the right thing, but that statistical truth is mitigated by the fact that he is an NBA great and a future HOFer, while the other guy can't shoot beyond 5 feet.

                    The guy who you give the chance to matters- it matters big time. 20 years later you can just say he didn't make an out, or he made a good pass. But if you are the superstar, sometimes you have to take the game in your own hands.

                    Overall you are correct, but there are certain ABs that are more important than other based on this situation and the outcome that single AB can determine the game. You don't want an all time great hitter passing the bat to some journeyman hitting behind him.

                    All walks are not equal. If it doesn't matter who is gettign the next chance, why do light hitting NL middle IFs in the eigth slot get intentionally walked- it matters who hits next- big time!
                    Last edited by digglahhh; 02-14-2006, 10:00 AM.
                    THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                    In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I agree with the view but at the same time see as a bit of a over simplification.

                      Yes you want your best hitter to hit, but the the point of the defense and opposing pitching is to keep him from hitting. Swinging at bad pitches will turn a great hitter into a bad hitter real quick

                      Its like the AI example. If AI doesn't pass and instead he himself takes the shot he might have a 20% chance of making the basket. By passing even to a bad player he might increase the chance of the score to say 28%. So even if the shot doesn't go in the better shot was being taken regardless of the name on the back of the jersey.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        But when we evaluate how great a player is, in total, we don't ask "how did he do in his 3rd AB of his 2695th game." We look at his totals.

                        Hank Aaron hit 755 HR. We sort of assume that some of them mattered. We could say "well, if he hit his HR's always when down by 5, then who cares?" But we can safely assume that although some of his HR surely didn't do much, his career numbers tell us he was impactful.

                        It's the same with walks and OBP. Sure, some didn't do much. But in total, over the course of an entire career, being on base more often is what makes the difference in scoring more than anything else.
                        Now it is done. The story ends, and there is no way to tell it. The art of fiction is dead. Reality has strangled invention. Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic can ever be plausible again.

                        -Red Smith, New York Herald Tribune, October 4th, 1951

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dodger Green
                          We could say "well, if he hit his HR's always when down by 5, then who cares?" But we can safely assume that although some of his HR surely didn't do much, his career numbers tell us he was impactful.

                          Tell that to the Sosa-bashers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Ubiquitous
                            The guy was a SS. He did not need to finish first in the leaderboard to be considered great. Simply putting up numbers close to what he did as a SS would make him great.
                            Secondly most ARky's OPS is not OBP nor even if it was is that bad. The guy had a career BA of .318 and a career OBP of .406. Its not like we are talking about a guy with a BA of .220 and an OBP of .420. We are talking about a high batting average hitter that walked some. Arky's OPS is largely based on his BA and the hits it produced, just like everybody else out there. And yes if someone was on base and we needed a run I would want a gap-hitting high batting average low strikeout with some pop disciplined hitter like Arky. Arky was not Rob Deer, he was a hitter who walked who didn't K a lot who hit doubles and triples and had a high batting average, that is good not bad.

                            OPS=OBP+SLG

                            So how are you not agreeing with me here?

                            I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

                            4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

                            Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

                            Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Imapotato
                              OPS=OBP+SLG

                              So how are you not agreeing with me here?

                              I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

                              4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year

                              Also take Stan Hack...Stan usually was top 10 in hits, singles, stolen bases and BBs

                              Yet no one considers Stan Hack a GREAT offensive player...but Vaughn is??
                              1) Stan Hack was a third baseman, and more offense is expected of 3B (after 1920, that is)

                              2) Hack's slugging percentage is 56 points lower than Vaughan's, and they played in pretty much identical conditions. That's huge.

                              3) Hack's OBP is a little lower, albeit not too much.

                              4) Stan Hack has a legitimate case as one of the 10 best 3B ever.

                              So, I think Hack is pretty damn good - but not nearly as good as Vaughan.
                              Now it is done. The story ends, and there is no way to tell it. The art of fiction is dead. Reality has strangled invention. Only the utterly impossible, the inexpressibly fantastic can ever be plausible again.

                              -Red Smith, New York Herald Tribune, October 4th, 1951

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Imapotato
                                OPS=OBP+SLG

                                So how are you not agreeing with me here?

                                I said most of his OPS was OBP...which is hits+walks

                                4 times Arky was top 10 in SLG% never finishing higher then 5th except his 1935 year
                                I don't agree with you because your conclusion is wrong. You say that Arky is an unbalanced player because his OBP is high. For some reason you think that means he wasn't doing anything besides walking. I say this because you basically ignore how the high OBP was attained and even chastise Arky for walking in your first post.

                                Again I'll say almost every single player in baseball history has his OPS decided by hits and what he does in them. Walks don't decide OPS nor do they make up a large majority of OPS. Its the hits and what you with them that decides your OPS. Arky had a good OPS because he had a high batting average and he hit a good chunk of XBH as well.

                                Nor was he an unbalanced player, whatever that means. This isn't a Eddie Stanky or Eddie Yost. Again this was high average hitter who didn't strike out, took a walk and hit doubles and triples. That isn't an unbalanced hitter that is a very good all-around hitter.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X