Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carl Yastrzemski's odd career

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

  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Most seasons with 157+ games played and 170 OPS+

    Willie Mays 3
    Carl Yastrzemski 3
    Barry Bonds 3
    Albert Pujols 3

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by brett View Post
    It is a little complicated. He probably would have had double the PAs against lefties, around 1/3 of his total PAs. On the other hand, he may have adapted better, like many modern left handed batters have due to seeing more lefties. Also remember that he had to face the high strike which makes the left on left matchup even tougher.

    The high strike would have hurt Bonds a lot IMO.
    Certainly the high strike is something to consider. Along with train travel, no night games, sweltering heat, double headers, exhibiton games during the season, injury prevention and recovery knowledge, etc etc....many factors would make it harder.

    Leave a comment:


  • pheasant
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Yikes! Playing in all parks equally, Piazza already gains 7 points up to 149. So along with platoon neutral considerations he goes up 14 points to 154. From there I would give him 5% catching (split focus/wear and tear) boost, 3% relief specialist, and 3% league funnel approach boost. So he ends up at 171. I think we really need to do that for modern guys.

    Curiousal, Sultan. about guys like FRobby, Mays, and JoeD.

    On a side note, did you notice I have Bonds ranked #2 all-time? That is based on clean Bonds and projected natural decline. Growing up it was all Griffey all the time. Bonds was sort of an afterthought. Its only in recent years that I've really grown to appreciate the all around talent he was. His first few years weren't special but I'm a big 7 and 5 year peak guy..his run was historic after a slow start.
    Wow, that's unreal that you put Bonds #2. You've gone from a player-perspective guy to a stat-head. That's pretty impressive. You've gotten much more objective during the past couple of years. Bonds was a major league jerk. And I get why a GM would drop him 2-3 spots on the all-time draft. But his talent was undeniable.

    And I'm a huge 9-10 year peak guy too.

    What post did you list Bonds as #2? I want to see your statistical projections.

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by pheasant View Post
    This is a fascinating chart. Williams's homerun frequency dropped by about 40% whereas his strikeout rate increased 50%. That 70 tOPS+ is quite telling. Move him the Bonds' era and he likely gets another 500 AB against nasty lefty relievers and his tOPS+ likely worsens.

    For stats compiled on Lou Gehrig so far, he is at a 91 tOPS+ against lefties with over 1400 PA. Ruth is at a 98 in over 600 PA. Granted, that is a bunch of missing data for Ruth. But Gehrig's split Has a large sample size and it appears fairly typical for a lefty.

    If anything, I appreciate righties more now than ever before.
    It is a little complicated. He probably would have had double the PAs against lefties, around 1/3 of his total PAs. On the other hand, he may have adapted better, like many modern left handed batters have due to seeing more lefties. Also remember that he had to face the high strike which makes the left on left matchup even tougher.

    The high strike would have hurt Bonds a lot IMO. Edit: It would have kept him from dominating after 2000 as much, but he was a good high ball hitter in the 90s.
    Last edited by brett; 08-23-2016, 11:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by pheasant View Post
    You have analyzed handedness more than anybody that I've seen.

    If Piazza simply had a 50/50 split and kept his rate stats above, his career line would have been .313/.387/.560, which yields an OPS+ of 149, a massive 7 point jump. Of course, lefties would take a hit.

    It is interesting how managers platooned the heck out of clean-Bonds once he became a superstar in 1990.

    In 1990 he had 344 PA vs righties and 277 PA vs lefties. His line vs lefties was .304/.386/.592
    In 1991, he had 239 PA vs lefties with a line of .284/.385/.473
    In 1992, arguably his best year(the year before expansion), he had a whopping 283 PA vs lefties wtih a line of .311/.445/.599
    In 1993, he had 260 PA vs lefties and put up a line of .326/.423/.619
    In 1994, 140 PA vs lefties with a line of .291/.400/.607
    In 1995, PA vs lefties with a line of .268/.388/.478
    In 1996, 176 PA vs lefties with a line of .307/.398/.593
    In 1997, 211 PA vs lefties with a line of .295/.427/.584
    In 1998, 214 PA vs lefties with a line of .280/.418/.494

    Just eye-balling that, it looks like Bonds batted nearly .300 and slugged around .560 against lefties, despite facing monster relievers. I believe Floyd showed the Williams batted around .316 and slugged .500 vs lefties for his career, despite not facing fresh relievers throwing 97-100 mph.

    I agree that Piazza should move up the list of hitters, as should clean-Bonds. Pujols will likely look like a monster, a guy that I already have as the greatest righty-hitter ever.
    Yikes! Playing in all parks equally, Piazza already gains 7 points up to 149. So along with platoon neutral considerations he goes up 14 points to 154. From there I would give him 5% catching (split focus/wear and tear) boost, 3% relief specialist, and 3% league funnel approach boost. So he ends up at 171. I think we really need to do that for modern guys.

    Curious about guys like FRobby, Mays, and JoeD.

    On a side note, did you notice I have Bonds ranked #2 all-time? That is based on clean Bonds and projected natural decline. Growing up it was all Griffey all the time. Bonds was sort of an afterthought. Its only in recent years that I've really grown to appreciate the all around talent he was. His first few years weren't special but I'm a big 7 and 5 year peak guy..his run was historic after a slow start.
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 08-23-2016, 10:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pheasant
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    As far as I'm aware, nobody except myself has been preaching the significance of platoon affect on here. When you see guys like Piazza getting roughly 70% of their PA versus the same hand, it really impacts numbers.

    Let's look at Piazza.

    5953 PA vs RHP - .303/.368/.534
    1792 PA vs LHP - .323/.405/.585

    So...it would be interesting to see his line platoon neutral, as if he got 3872 PA vs each hand.

    If I were more statistically inclined, I'd come up with a way to have their numbers reflect 50/50...something like platoon neutral OPS+. Even those who constantly poo poo the idea we should look further, can't deny that it would simply give deeper perspective. Especially when coupled with rrOPS+
    You have analyzed handedness more than anybody that I've seen.

    If Piazza simply had a 50/50 split and kept his rate stats above, his career line would have been .313/.387/.560, which yields an OPS+ of 149, a massive 7 point jump. Of course, lefties would take a hit.

    It is interesting how managers platooned the heck out of clean-Bonds once he became a superstar in 1990.

    In 1990 he had 344 PA vs righties and 277 PA vs lefties. His line vs lefties was .304/.386/.592
    In 1991, he had 239 PA vs lefties with a line of .284/.385/.473
    In 1992, arguably his best year(the year before expansion), he had a whopping 283 PA vs lefties wtih a line of .311/.445/.599
    In 1993, he had 260 PA vs lefties and put up a line of .326/.423/.619
    In 1994, 140 PA vs lefties with a line of .291/.400/.607
    In 1995, PA vs lefties with a line of .268/.388/.478
    In 1996, 176 PA vs lefties with a line of .307/.398/.593
    In 1997, 211 PA vs lefties with a line of .295/.427/.584
    In 1998, 214 PA vs lefties with a line of .280/.418/.494

    Just eye-balling that, it looks like Bonds batted nearly .300 and slugged around .560 against lefties, despite facing monster relievers. I believe Floyd showed the Williams batted around .316 and slugged .500 vs lefties for his career, despite not facing fresh relievers throwing 97-100 mph.

    I agree that Piazza should move up the list of hitters, as should clean-Bonds. Pujols will likely look like a monster, a guy that I already have as the greatest righty-hitter ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by pheasant View Post

    If anything, I appreciate righties more now than ever before.
    As far as I'm aware, nobody except myself has been preaching the significance of platoon affect on here. When you see guys like Piazza getting roughly 70% of their PA versus the same hand, it really impacts numbers.

    Let's look at Piazza.

    5953 PA vs RHP - .303/.368/.534
    1792 PA vs LHP - .323/.405/.585

    So...it would be interesting to see his line platoon neutral, as if he got 3872 PA vs each hand.

    If I were more statistically inclined, I'd come up with a way to have their numbers reflect 50/50...something like platoon neutral OPS+. Even those who constantly poo poo the idea we should look further, can't deny that it would simply give deeper perspective. Especially when coupled with rrOPS+
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 08-23-2016, 08:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Think of the steroid era where a pitcher cannot let up one second. Even with nobody on base and facing the #8 hitter they are throwing 95mph. That #8 hitter along with the majority of the lineup was getting meatballs (comparatively speaking) back in Ruth's day, while they saved the gas for him. THAT'S the gap I'm speaking of, where he actual OPS+ would be higher.
    Sultan is correct here. Except it didn't end when the Steroid Era ended (has it ended?). I watched Scherzer no hit the Mets in person last year...a bad throw from third on a routine play away from a perfect game. He was throwing 98 to the #8 hitter and the pitcher.

    Feller said nobody learns pacing anymore. They don't have to, starting 32 games and throwing 195 innings. "18 outs" is the meme in clubhouses among starters.

    Just as Kaline said nobody practices long toss so long outfield throws are comparatively poor, and people don't bother hitting the cutoff man properly. With outfields 25% smaller and base runners taking far fewer risks, perhaps outfielders don't have to practice or actualize the "fundamentals".

    There are a bevy of component baseball skills that have atrophied en masse due to kids only playing baseball during little league games, instead of sandlot type ball all summer. I've seen play get progressively sloppier in its finer elements..... despite drastically bigger faster and stronger players filling all the rosters today.

    Leave a comment:


  • pheasant
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    Yaz could not hit left handed pitching. Today, that would be much more of a liability than it was in his career, or any era prior.

    Worst relative career OPS scores vs. left handed pitching.

    [ATTACH]156865[/ATTACH]

    Notice Ted Williams at #9. And how few PA he had versus lefties vs. his career PA. More on that later.
    This is a fascinating chart. Williams's homerun frequency dropped by about 40% whereas his strikeout rate increased 50%. That 70 tOPS+ is quite telling. Move him the Bonds' era and he likely gets another 500 AB against nasty lefty relievers and his tOPS+ likely worsens.

    For stats compiled on Lou Gehrig so far, he is at a 91 tOPS+ against lefties with over 1400 PA. Ruth is at a 98 in over 600 PA. Granted, that is a bunch of missing data for Ruth. But Gehrig's split Has a large sample size and it appears fairly typical for a lefty.

    If anything, I appreciate righties more now than ever before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Ruth's OPS+ is actually hindered due to him being approached unlike any other hitter.
    How was he handled differently than Lou Gehrig or Rogers Hornsby in 1927? I think that season is one of the couple old time seasons that is fully complete on retrosheet. This could be corroborated with comparative anecdotes for all three, if the overall data does not do it justice.

    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Anyway, he hit lefties better than Ted, as expected. Thanks for coming.
    I didn't know that info existed in complete! Do you have his career breakdown?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    He went out of the zone regularly but also was patient. It was a very fine line. I think how far he was willing to extend the zone depended on the pitcher/count/situation/etc. He was a very cerebral yet instinctive player in that sense. What you're speaking of really wasn't my point. The outcome is the outcome. I'm saying IF ALL OTHERS HAD BEEN APPROACHED LIKE HIM his OPS+ would have been higher because A) They would be facing the pitchers utmost energy/focus, and B)Pitchers would have less energy/stamina while facing him. Think of the steroid era where a pitcher cannot let up one second. Even with nobody on base and facing the #8 hitter they are throwing 95mph. That #8 hitter was getting meatballs back in Ruth's day, while they saved the gas for him. THAT'S the gap I'm speaking of, where he actual OPS+ would be higher.
    How much of this phenomenon went away during the later half of Ruth's career when the run environment got so high? Is there any way to isolate an effect?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    How much did that "different approach" contribute to his high BB totals - which are already included into his wRC+, etc?
    He went out of the zone regularly but also was patient. It was a very fine line. I think how far he was willing to extend the zone depended on the pitcher/count/situation/etc. He was a very cerebral yet instinctive player in that sense. What you're speaking of really wasn't my point. The outcome is the outcome. I'm saying IF ALL OTHERS HAD BEEN APPROACHED LIKE HIM his OPS+ would have been higher because A) They would be facing the pitchers utmost energy/focus, and B)Pitchers would have less energy/stamina while facing him. Think of the steroid era where a pitcher cannot let up one second. Even with nobody on base and facing the #8 hitter they are throwing 95mph. That #8 hitter along with the majority of the lineup was getting meatballs (comparatively speaking) back in Ruth's day, while they saved the gas for him. THAT'S the gap I'm speaking of, where he actual OPS+ would be higher.
    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 08-22-2016, 08:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    Ted's numbers may be slightly inflated but many of us give a platoon boost to right handed hitters, ESPECIALLY those of later eras who also have to faced specialized relief far more often.

    Ruth didn't face lefties as much as today's lefties do, for the previously mentioned changes in play style. Even you would agree that wasn't his fault. The next logical point to make, would be that everyone faced the same circumstances. Except they didn't. Ruth's OPS+ is actually hindered due to him being approached unlike any other hitter. That's the price of being from another planet. It's well documented that pitchers had no clue what to do with him but saved their utmost energy/focus for his plate appearances.

    Anyway, he hit lefties better than Ted, as expected. Thanks for coming.
    How much did that "different approach" contribute to his high BB totals - which are already included into his wRC+, etc?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    Do you mean on the team, or people they could have traded for, drafted, or purchased?



    He did very well. But 1) he would be platooned and specialized vastly more (probably 20% more) in later eras and 2) even in HIS time, he didn't face lefties as much as he should have.

    So it could be said, and accurately, that his numbers are inflated relative to many of the other greatest hitters ever.

    The second point I'm thinking is.....if he's the greatest hitter of all time- which everyone calls him today- shouldn't he have crushed lefties? Better than anyone? Should the greatest hitter ever have one of the worst relative scores against left handed pitching? Shouldn't he have no major deficits?

    I have little doubt Ruth hit much better against lefties than Ted, also. Especially relatively speaking.
    Ted's numbers may be slightly inflated but many of us give a platoon boost to right handed hitters, ESPECIALLY those of later eras who also have to faced specialized relief far more often.

    Ruth didn't face lefties as much as today's lefties do, for the previously mentioned changes in play style. Even you would agree that wasn't his fault. The next logical point to make, would be that everyone faced the same circumstances. Except they didn't. Ruth's OPS+ is actually hindered due to him being approached unlike any other hitter. That's the price of being from another planet. It's well documented that pitchers had no clue what to do with him but saved their utmost energy/focus for his plate appearances.

    Anyway, he hit lefties better than Ted, as expected. Thanks for coming.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    Musial only had the platoon advantage in 64% of his PA. Bonds 67%. Ted hardly faced lefties at all before WWII, and only 23% of the time in his career.

    There are only a couple (I think literally, two) LHH ever whose numbers haven't been dragged down by LHP. Given his career rates, if he faced lefties as much as Musial, his overall numbers would have dropped like a rock. And unlike Bonds and today's lefties, he wasn't regularly facing LH specialists throwing 97-100 with an off pitch at 91-93. Nor analysts hired by teams recognizing "meta-data" like we are sitting here right now, to exploit relative weaknesses.

    As I said, Greatest Hitter Ever is a unique bar. Just as Honus Wagner had no weaknesses and had the strength, size, and agility to be the best in any era. We can't really say that about more than a couple other guys, ever. GOAT is unique bar to hurdle.

    We'll have to wait to see how Ruth did against lefties.
    Yes - his numbers would have dropped some. That doesn't mean he wasn't still the 3rd best lefty hitter ever vs. lefties. Those are not mutually exclusive things.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X