Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mays vs Aaron

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

  • leecemark
    replied
    Al Ba 1967-77

    --236, 230, 246, 250, 247, 239, 259, 258, 258, 256, 266. So it wasn't until Jackson was past 30 that the league BA climbed as high as .260 (and I'll concede Reggie was a poor contact hitter in his later years). Jackson's park were also bad ones for BA, Oakland being the worst in the league and Yankee stadium not much better (check out the averages on the championship teams he played for in both places - all 5 of them ). Hitting for average was not one of Reggie's great strengths, but it wasn't a terrible weakness either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edgartohof
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    When league BAs fall into the .230s, as they did several times in Reggie's career, then a guy who hits .270-80 is doing alright.

    Are you sure it was "several" times, and not just twice (3 times if you include 1967, Reggie's first season with only 35 games), over a 21 year career. Reggie on the other hand had 5 seasons hitting in the .230's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    I am perfectly aware what relative numbers do and what they cannot do. They do give a relative reading of how you did compared to your league that season.

    They cannot adjust for the difference in quality of leagues, era to era. So that is understood by the majority of our members, I would think. Some may not as of yet, but will if they hang around a while.

    I do not minimize Reggie Jackson. I do not chisel away at his accomplishments. I do not bash him or demonize Reggie. He was a good baseball player, and he helped all his teams win pennants, which is, after all, the point of the game.

    But just because he isn't the kind of player I prefer, I do not hold that against him in any way. I feel I do give him his due credit, but realize, that he had his shortcomings as a player, as do all others. I can see the good in him, but some can't see his limitations. And that is not my fault.

    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 01-14-2006, 09:34 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    relative stats are comparison of a players numbers vs the league average. They do not account for the era. Eras of parity are going to give for the most part relative stats that are closer together while eras of extreme will produce relative scores that are all over the place

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --In terms of relatives stats you are correct. When I say it doesn't account for era that is to say that the posters who mindlessly reference his .262 lifetime BA and lone .300 season are failing to put those numbers into the context of the times. When league BAs fall into the .230s, as they did several times in Reggie's career, then a guy who hits .270-80 is doing alright.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --Nice contribution Bill. That shows how much Reggie was hurt by his parks, although it doesn't account for his era. In any case, Jackson's relative OPS on the road is 149, a nice jump over his overall figure.
    Actually, relative stats do account for era. I think you intended to say, "league quality". Or do I stand reproved, again?

    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Ubiquitous
    replied
    His away stats give him an OPS+ of 149 which right now would be good for 34th all time and around 28th all time when he retired. Remove some guys from the 1800's like Orr and Browning and you got a guy whose away OPS+ would be in the top 25 all time.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Nice contribution Bill. That shows how much Reggie was hurt by his parks, although it doesn't account for his era. In any case, Jackson's relative OPS on the road is 149, a nice jump over his overall figure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --It is important to remember that Jackson played in a time where league BAs were low and in parks that suppressed his even more. Oakland was perhaps the worst park for BA in either league and Yankee Stadium wasn't that much better.
    Mark,

    Those concerns are very valid, but easily fixed by using Relative stats for away parks. Those should tell the story. I'll do the work.

    --------BA-------onbase-------SLG
    home--.255--------.352-------.481
    away--.268--------.384-------.499


    Relative stats:

    ------------BA--------onbase------SLG
    home------.99----------1.09-------1.25
    away-----1.04---------1.19--------1.30

    All in all, I'd say good numbers, but not great numbers. And I think that is a fair estimation of Reggie.

    Bill Burgess
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 01-13-2006, 09:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    Hey, I had talked a bit about Reggie at the beginning of this thread, but then this had gotten back to topic and I had even contributed to the Mays/Aaron discussion. It was HOBF who brought Reggie back up and challenged me to respond to him.
    Right. A Chris-baiter.
    C'mon, this site is supposed to be above that.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    Not with 53820 around, no. :o
    Hey, I had talked a bit about Reggie at the beginning of this thread, but then this had gotten back to topic and I had even contributed to the Mays/Aaron discussion. It was HOBF who brought Reggie back up and challenged me to respond to him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    Not with 53820 around, no. :o



    Amen to that.
    How about it, Chris and Chris-baiters?

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Is it possible to go through a long thread on these boards where guys named Jackson or Morgan, who have absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question, aren't introduced?
    Not with 53820 around, no. :o

    Originally posted by Chisox
    I wish it was. But, I think history has proven us wrong.
    Amen to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Unless the player's history begins in Alabama in the 1930s or the players talked about are being compared to players whose history starts in Alabama in the 1930s, they don't belong here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chisox
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Is it possible to go through a long thread on these boards where guys named Jackson or Morgan, who have absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question, aren't introduced?
    I wish it was. But, I think history has proven us wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X