Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jackie Robinson Peak vs other 2nd basemen

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by BigRon View Post

    Time for a history lesson. Rbinson played first base in 47, his rookie season. He had almost no experience at first but acquitted himself well there. He played first because the Dodgers still had Stanky at second, a well established veteran with a good defensive reputation. After the Dodgers traded Stanky Robinson moved to second, his natural position. He played it extremely well. Look at his BBRef defensive WAR numbers. Bill James has him rated as A+ at second base, one of only a figurative handful. By 1953 Jim Gilliam was more than ready to join the Dodgers. He was a second baseman, and a good one. Robinson was now 34, and slowing down just a bit, probably related to his undiagnosed diabetes. He moved to third, displacing Billy Cox, a fabled fielder. Robinson played third excellently, then also began to occasionally play some left field, where his defensive stats are also impressive. Robinson's ability to play multiple positions well to excellently gave Dodgers managers considerable flexibility, much like McDougald for Stengel.

    In the 5 years Robinson played second base he created 8.2 dWAR. Altuve in his 9 year career has created a total of 1.7 dWAR.
    I don't know how wise it is to blindly use WAR's numbers. For instance, Roberto Alomar only has 3.3 dWAR for his career, and he is one of the finest ever to play the position. WAR doesn't like Sandberg much either. I don't think we can really say that Robinson was better in the field than these guys. Assuming that all three were categorized as 'gold glove' caliber' second basemen during their peak seasons, I see their peaks as being extremely similar.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by willshad View Post

      I don't know how wise it is to blindly use WAR's numbers. For instance, Roberto Alomar only has 3.3 dWAR for his career, and he is one of the finest ever to play the position. WAR doesn't like Sandberg much either. I don't think we can really say that Robinson was better in the field than these guys. Assuming that all three were categorized as 'gold glove' caliber' second basemen during their peak seasons, I see their peaks as being extremely similar.
      I agree that one should not "blindly" use defensive WAR numbers. But BB-Ref shows a big discrepancy between Robinson and Altuve, James shows Robinson as a superior defender. Read the attachment to HWR's post #24. What contrary evidence are you providing?
      Last edited by BigRon; 11-05-2019, 06:24 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post

        Thanks Bigron. Yeah alcohol and caffeine mess with my medication and can give me a stroke.
        Hey 1905- hope you're okay, and stay okay. I'll hoist that pint for you.

        Comment


        • #34
          Another thing to consider is that BBRef could be shortchanging Robinson some baserunning value. They give him 35 Rbaser (incl. GIDP runs) while Sean Smith gives him 40, and at BBPro he has 57.5. We're talking around anywhere from about half a win he's due, up to over two wins. Not too big a deal but I just thought it should be noted.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by layson27 View Post
            Another thing to consider is that BBRef could be shortchanging Robinson some baserunning value. They give him 35 Rbaser (incl. GIDP runs) while Sean Smith gives him 40, and at BBPro he has 57.5. We're talking around anywhere from about half a win he's due, up to over two wins. Not too big a deal but I just thought it should be noted.
            Ive never heard anything bad about his baserunning for sure.
            “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

            "I don't care if the guy is yellow or black, or if he has stripes like a ******* zebra. I'm the manager of this team and I say he [Robinson] plays." - Leo Durocher

            Comment


            • #36
              Robinson was LEGENDARY for his baserunning. He was literally compared to Ty Cobb is this regard. Many old timers ranted on and on how Robinson was the new Ty Cobb on the base paths. They called Robinson "Ty Cobb in Technicolor".


              Jackie 1.jpg


              Jackie 2.jpg

              Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by layson27 View Post
                Another thing to consider is that BBRef could be shortchanging Robinson some baserunning value. They give him 35 Rbaser (incl. GIDP runs) while Sean Smith gives him 40, and at BBPro he has 57.5. We're talking around anywhere from about half a win he's due, up to over two wins. Not too big a deal but I just thought it should be noted.
                According to Bill James any given players WAR can typically fluctuate 20-25% either way (the percentage can be even higher) depending on whether or not the team under or over performs their Pythagorean W-L record and when they created their runs.
                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

                  According to Bill James any given players WAR can typically fluctuate 20-25% either way (the percentage can be even higher) depending on whether or not the team under or over performs their Pythagorean W-L record and when they created their runs.
                  This is an important thing to keep in mind. So many posters here- and maybe others- seem to think WAR is a precise measurement of player value. Joe Slobotnik had 7.3 WAR in 1963 while Harry Potatohead was at 7.1. There- that proves Slobotnik had a better season. WAR is a good, but less than precise measurement of performance and value.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by BigRon View Post

                    This is an important thing to keep in mind. So many posters here- and maybe others- seem to think WAR is a precise measurement of player value. Joe Slobotnik had 7.3 WAR in 1963 while Harry Potatohead was at 7.1. There- that proves Slobotnik had a better season. WAR is a good, but less than precise measurement of performance and value.
                    Yea not only is the replacement player not real but neither are the wins.
                    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by bluesky5 View Post

                      According to Bill James any given players WAR can typically fluctuate 20-25% either way (the percentage can be even higher) depending on whether or not the team under or over performs their Pythagorean W-L record and when they created their runs.
                      In some cases, WAR isn't even in the ballpark, so to speak. Nobody in the world believes that Roberto Alomar was a mediocre fielding second baseman, or that Dave Winfield was a historically bad fielding right fielder. WAR certainly thinks so. WAR is way off base often enough that it should not really be any more than a very minor point for or against someone in any argument.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BigRon View Post

                        I agree that one should not "blindly" use defensive WAR numbers. But BB-Ref shows a big discrepancy between Robinson and Altuve, James shows Robinson as a superior defender. Read the attachment to HWR's post #24. What contrary evidence are you providing?
                        I will accept that he was superior to Altuve with the glove, but no way am I buying that he was better than Alomar or Sandberg. I think the best he can hope for in those comparisons is being their equal.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by willshad View Post

                          I will accept that he was superior to Altuve with the glove, but no way am I buying that he was better than Alomar or Sandberg. I think the best he can hope for in those comparisons is being their equal.
                          Who claimed he was better than Alomar or Sandberg with the glove?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by BigRon View Post

                            Who claimed he was better than Alomar or Sandberg with the glove?
                            WAR certainly claims so.

                            Rfield totals

                            Sandberg: 60 in 2061 games
                            Robinson: 81 in 1382 games
                            Almoar: -32 in 2379 games
                            Last edited by willshad; 11-06-2019, 11:59 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Baseball Prospectus has it:

                              Sandberg- 93 FRAA
                              Robinson- 51 FRAA (BPro has no fielding data before 1950)
                              Alomar- 6.5 FRAA

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                It seems kind of strange the Robert Alomar's sublime fielding reputation is so at odds with the defensive metrics. Does anyone know why this is?
                                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X