Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arky Vaughn, a GREAT offensive player

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

  • Appling
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

    For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.
    I agree. Even as late as 1945-1950 era Floyd Baker held a job as the starting third-baseman for the White Sox with a .251 lifetime batting average and no power. (.297 career slugging average!) Floyd ("Home Run") Baker was able to stay in the major leagues for 13 years -- without a bat!
    Last edited by Appling; 02-18-2006, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Originally posted by Imapotato
    Isn't that what everyone does...put the arguement into the context of their favor?

    You have never done so on these boards? Others have not used their stat du jour to say so and so...is better, worse then advertised
    Uh no because you are purposefully slanting the evidence your way even when the evidence doesn't point your way. You explain away Arky's high batting average but saying it was caused by the walks. That isn't putting anything in any kind of real context. That is simply manipulating the data and coming up with a false conclusion.

    So Arky wasn't Ted Williams with the bat, so what? Only Ted Williams was Ted Williams with the bat. Arky hit doubles and triples, took a walk, did not strike out, and had a high batting average. That is what you want in a great hitter. So he isn't a top 5 hitter of all time, again so what? Not everybody can be top 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

    For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.

    If someone tried to prove that Reggie Jackson isn't a HOFer, then they wouldn't be able to prove it, they would just be able to present evidence. The evidence would probably be heavily based on the fact that he struck out a real lot and his BA was bad. I would reply with the same things I always say, that strikeouts really aren't much worse than regular outs and that Reggie was actually a good contact hitter before his decline phase.
    Statistical studies?

    I have know that fact since 1980...all you have to do is know the type of baseball that was played back then, the bunts, the hit and runs...the double steals and could get that assesment from common sense

    Much less the overall opinion that early baseball documents...i.e. The Sporting News and Al spauldin's Baseball guide, told you what a 3rd baseman should have in reagrds to tools

    and like I stated...if someone had a 'proven' system to prove Strikeouts were worse then regular outs...you'd flip flop on your perception of Reggie Jackson

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    So many of these threads are starting to overlap, I can't keep track of what discussion is going on. I originally opened this to make a reply about Heinie Groh, then realized this was the Arky Vaughan thread, but only after I thought it might be the Chipper Jones thread. Well at least I didn't it confuse it for one of four Jeter/Larkin threads.

    Seriously, throw the Jeff Kent thread into the mix as well, and I feel like we're having nearly identical discussions in like a half dozen threads.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Imapotato
    So what you ar saying is that your whole outlook on baseball depends on what someone else writes at the time?

    So if someone came out and said Reggie Jackson should not be in the HOF fo so and so reasons and it looks good and adds up...your whole outlook would change on your avatar?

    No wonder you and I disagree all the time...sometimes you have to take those experts with a grain of salt

    I have been eating eggs for 30 years, during that time they have said eggs are bad then good, then bad, now good again

    All the time I have eaten my eggs...
    Potato! You're missing the point. It's not like these people just presented a theory. They proved it. They actually showed that third basemen did, indeed, not hit as well until 1940.

    For example (not actual numbers), this is the sort of thing that they showed. They said that in the 1920s the average 3B's hitting line was .270/.340/.400, and the league average was .290/.360/.420. How do you dispute that? How can you argue with that? Unless the numbers are false, then there is no disputing it. That proves definitetively that 3B was indeed a weaker offensive position in that era.

    If someone tried to prove that Reggie Jackson isn't a HOFer, then they wouldn't be able to prove it, they would just be able to present evidence. The evidence would probably be heavily based on the fact that he struck out a real lot and his BA was bad. I would reply with the same things I always say, that strikeouts really aren't much worse than regular outs and that Reggie was actually a good contact hitter before his decline phase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Potato, there have been numerous statistical studies that have came out in the last few years documenting that early 3B like Baker and Collins should not be compared straight up offensively to modern 3B like Schmidt. It has been statistically proven that 3B was more of a defese oriented positoin until about 1940.

    It has been those statistical studies that have radically changed my rankings of many players, particularly Collins and Heinie Groh. Before I looked at them against guys like Schmidt and Mathews and figured they weren't that great offensively, now I realize that they were playing a defensive position that compares more with second base today.

    So what you ar saying is that your whole outlook on baseball depends on what someone else writes at the time?

    So if someone came out and said Reggie Jackson should not be in the HOF fo so and so reasons and it looks good and adds up...your whole outlook would change on your avatar?

    No wonder you and I disagree all the time...sometimes you have to take those experts with a grain of salt

    I have been eating eggs for 30 years, during that time they have said eggs are bad then good, then bad, now good again

    All the time I have eaten my eggs...

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Imapotato
    HR Baker and Jimmy Collins go to great players to above avaerage just because Mike Schmidt revolutionizes the 3rd base evaluation

    No one else sees something wrong with that?
    Potato, there have been numerous statistical studies that have came out in the last few years documenting that early 3B like Baker and Collins should not be compared straight up offensively to modern 3B like Schmidt. It has been statistically proven that 3B was more of a defese oriented positoin until about 1940.

    It has been those statistical studies that have radically changed my rankings of many players, particularly Collins and Heinie Groh. Before I looked at them against guys like Schmidt and Mathews and figured they weren't that great offensively, now I realize that they were playing a defensive position that compares more with second base today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by SABR Matt
    Uh...actually, I consider Stan a very very good offensive player. Not quite as great as Vaughan but still very good. The limiting factor is Hack's position and the fact that he was not a great fielder.

    Again, I hate the fact that nowadays its what positon one plays

    HR Baker and Jimmy Collins go to great players to above avaerage just because Mike Schmidt revolutionizes the 3rd base evaluation

    No one else sees something wrong with that?

    and I don't think highly of Stan Hack like you do...but just for giggles, swap Arky's 1935 for Stan's 1944

    Wow, don't they just because polar opposites in who is better

    that is what I hate about over using purely stat analysis...one season for good or bad can skew a players value

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    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.

    Isn't that what everyone does...put the arguement into the context of their favor?

    You have never done so on these boards? Others have not used their stat du jour to say so and so...is better, worse then advertised

    I am giving an example on how a player like Arky Vaughn might be a disadvantage rather then an advantage...but Moneyball and OBP is really the new testement in player evaluation nowadays so people disagree...I say too many walks with not alot of power is not a good thing..ted Williams is GREAT because he walked alot and hit HRS, Ruth same thing, Cobb got on base and stole...Arky just got on base, mostly 1st or 2nd....that relies on others alot more then the 3 I mentioned

    I am stating my opinion on what a GREAT offensive player, regardless of position should be...

    a guy that can get on base, can slug them in, can hit for high average, total bases, and have great defense

    Arky was great on getting on base...his slugging is expanded by a career year in 1935 and Stan Hack for example is marred by a horrible 1944 in which he played 90 somethign games

    Now Arky is great in someones opinion because in his career he did what he did as a SS

    Hack is ok, because he did what he did as a 3rd baseman

    I don't share that assesment

    Now, I am not saying Hack is great or Vaughn is slightly above average

    But I think they are closer then just looking at career numbers

    and I think just because Vaughn is a SS, does not make him a GREAT offensive player

    Is he top 5 in SS, yes

    But is he top 50 overall, no I don't believe so

    and 53280

    AGAIN...I am reiterating This is as a PLAYER, not a SS...I don't care if he is a C or LF...so what? Positions change and it should not make someone great or avaergae because of the position he played

    You just wanna thorw out WARP or black ink, or whatever stat you want...yet have not read the point that is most relevant...was he a great offensive PLAYER...was one astronomical year the difference between greatness and above average?

    Is OBP so important to your analysis that nothing else matters?
    Last edited by Imapotato; 02-17-2006, 01:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    Bill James in his initial Abstract in 1988 had Luke Appling as the 10th highest peak in SS history and 2nd best career. It would looking at the list make him around 5th or so best SS of all time for Bill James. Then over a decade later he ranks them again. Now then some of the players that were playing 1988 had a full career so I can naturally understand that some would move ahead of Luke. Players like Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, Trammell, and Barry Larkin. But in the new rankings he moves players that were not playing in that decade ahead of Luke and he does so not because his Win shares tells him so but because of the subjective element.

    For instance Pee Wee Reese is ranked ahead of Luke yet he trails Luke in all the categories that Bill usese to setup the ranking system. Career WS, Top 3, Top 5, and per 162. Pee Wee gets a 1.1 point boost for being born 11 years later but that is it. Alan Trammell doesn't do as well in every category either yet he ranks ahead of Appling. Ozzie Smith as well and even Ernie Banks doesn't do well against Luke yet Luke slips all the way down to 11th. While Arky moves to second.

    Leave a comment:


  • Appling
    replied
    Originally posted by Ubiquitous
    We then have Luke Appling. Which is a tough one. Good batting average, good OBP not much power, good with the glove and played forever. In terms of offense it is hard to find decline years for Luke. For instance at the age of 41 and 42 Luke in 1000 PA better his career average in batting average and OBP. So Luke playing in a superior league was gave you roughly the same defense as Arky maybe a little less but gave you just as good offense as Arky. I think one would have to put Luke Appling in front Arky, because of league and time spent on the ballfield.
    Luke should get special credit for his great hitting when he batted in a lineup with no other good hitters: No high average hitters, and certainly no POWER hitters, in that Chicago batting order.

    Seeing Luke bat was the only reason some of us went to White Sox games.
    "Come-onnnn, Luke!"

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    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??
    Potato, you're not making any sense. Stan Hack wasn't near the offensive player Vaughan was. Don't have to look past the OPS+, or even the raw OPS, to see that. Vaughan had a 136 OPS+, Hack was at 119. Hack wasn't too far behind in OBP, but he wasn't a slugger at all, while Vaughan did have good power. Arky was 16% better than league in SLG, Hack was 3% better. That's the difference in offense.

    And if you walk to talk about league leads or top 10s, it's still not that close. Vaughan scored 29 on the Black Ink Test, and has 156 Gray Ink. Both are truly outstanding totals for a shortstop. Hack scored 11 on Black Ink, 125 on Gray Ink. He wasn't near the hitter. He was a very good offensive player though, but Vaughan was significantly better.

    Going by your definition, Hack was actually an extremely imbalanced offensive player. His SLG is only three points higher than his OBP. At least Arky's is 47 points higher.
    Last edited by 538280; 02-14-2006, 03:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SABR Matt
    replied
    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??
    Uh...actually, I consider Stan a very very good offensive player. Not quite as great as Vaughan but still very good. The limiting factor is Hack's position and the fact that he was not a great fielder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dodger Green
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X