Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carl Yastrzemski's odd career

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

  • 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, 07:32 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:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post
    Umm, once again his stats against Lefties are not at all bad or taking away from his greatness. And there is no way in the deepest, hottest pit of the Infernal Place that Ted Williams would be platooned.
    I was misusing the term. Not as in "Andre Ethier platooned", but as in, facing lefties a ton through deliberate opposing management decisions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    Yup. The third best (or around) left-handed hitter vs. lefties in history. The OPS+ splits just show how much he decimated righties beyond fairness, decency, and comprehension.

    I am worried there are people who thing the handedness split OPS+ shows how good a guy is in that platoon. I hope that isn't the case.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by ipitch View Post
    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...47#post2122347
    "According to the data they have no lefty has ever faced a lefty pitcher more times than Barry Bonds who faced them in 4147 PA. The 300th most chances against a lefty was 737 PA by Johnny Grubb. Out of those 300 players Ted Williams based on the data that BRef has the 3rd highest OPS at .915. BRef is missing about 600 PA for Ted and my data has him at .926 with 20 PA missing. The .926 OPS is just one point below Stan Musial who is at second but who also has a bunch of data missing as well."
    Yup. The third best (or around) left-handed hitter vs. lefties in history. The OPS+ splits just show how much he decimated righties beyond fairness, decency, and comprehension.

    I am worried there are people who thing the handedness split OPS+ shows how good a guy is in that platoon. I hope that isn't the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • ipitch
    replied
    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...47#post2122347
    "According to the data they have no lefty has ever faced a lefty pitcher more times than Barry Bonds who faced them in 4147 PA. The 300th most chances against a lefty was 737 PA by Johnny Grubb. Out of those 300 players Ted Williams based on the data that BRef has the 3rd highest OPS at .915. BRef is missing about 600 PA for Ted and my data has him at .926 with 20 PA missing. The .926 OPS is just one point below Stan Musial who is at second but who also has a bunch of data missing as well."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    I think for Ted to be crowned Greatest Hitter That Ever Lived (which he always insisted he be announced as, and most fans in the world now have deemed him)...... that's a different standard. There should be nothing that could be exploited in any era, under different circumstances and contexts.

    If he played today he'd be platooned and facing lefties 30-40% of the time and lefty specialists every game. It wasn't until late in his career that he was really platooned much at all. And because of Fenway he wasn't facing lefties much, even in his era.
    I bet he has one of the very best splits of any lefty vs. lefties in history.

    And I wasn't calling him the greatest ever - I was using a hypothetical.

    Bottom line - you can have a massive gap in relative OPS+ in splits and still be dominating at both splits. Not many can, but Williams did.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1905 Giants
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    I think for Ted to be crowned Greatest Hitter That Ever Lived (which he always insisted he be announced as, and most fans in the world now have deemed him)...... that's a different standard. There should be nothing that could be exploited in any era, under different circumstances and contexts.

    If he played today he'd be platooned and facing lefties 30-40% of the time and lefty specialists every game. It wasn't until late in his career that he was really platooned much at all. And because of Fenway he wasn't facing lefties much, even in his era.
    Umm, once again his stats against Lefties are not at all bad or taking away from his greatness. And there is no way in the deepest, hottest pit of the Infernal Place that Ted Williams would be platooned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    The greatest hitter ever could have a massive relative split and still be great. It's like Phelps winning only half as many golds as in 08.
    I think for Ted to be crowned Greatest Hitter That Ever Lived (which he always insisted he be announced as, and most fans in the world now have deemed him)...... that's a different standard. There should be nothing that could be exploited in any era, under different circumstances and contexts.

    If he played today he'd be platooned and facing lefties 30-40% of the time and lefty specialists every game. It wasn't until late in his career that he was really platooned much at all. And because of Fenway he wasn't facing lefties much, even in his era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    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.
    The greatest hitter ever could have a massive relative split and still be great. It's like Phelps winning only half as many golds as in 08.

    Leave a comment:


  • ipitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli View Post
    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?
    A .316 BA and .938 OPS against lefties isn't crushing it?

    Hank Aaron (against all pitchers as a whole) can't match either of those numbers.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X