Morganites Unite!!!!!!

[cubbieinexile]

I didn't see these guys discuss their time playing baseball, either.

Or one could always talk about the Veecks and the MacPhail's. They seem to know a thing or two about baseball.

[cubbieinexile]

The thing is, at Morgan's peak he was the best player on the '75-'76 World Champoin Reds' teams.

Most definitely, Joe Morgan was the engine that drove the Red Machine.

[Imapotato]

I didn't see these guys discuss their time playing baseball, either.

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."
~I don't remember

Your contribution is this?
Telling me physics of a baseball path is the same as a guy using subjective measures to rank ballplayers in a neat package according to his own bias, disregarding the inordinate amount of intangibles, just so people will buy his book are the same?

Thanks

[therealnod]

hey nod...cool article you linked there.

Fascinating stuff.

I know! I got that today from another board. I've been looking for exactly that for awhile now. Finally it's here!

I'm a little concerned about skewering balls on the ends of bolts, though. Ouch!

If anyone didn't follow that link, there's some great stuff about "seeing the dot" and "picking up a pitch" stuff that you've all heard about, and now someone went and studied it. It's very technical, but it's explained very well.

Nerds Love Baseball

[cubbieinexile]

Your contribution is this?
Telling me physics of a baseball path is the same as a guy using subjective measures to rank ballplayers in a neat package according to his own bias, disregarding the inordinate amount of intangibles, just so people will buy his book are the same?

Thanks

Not picking a fight here, I understand your point but I have a question.

Why would Bill James "[disregard an] inordinate amount of intangibles, just so people will buy his book...?"

How would disregarding intangibles help sell his book? I don't understand the viewpoint on that.

[barzilla]

Of course those Astro teams were expansion teams playing in their first years of existance back in time when player disbursion was less than desirous.

That is precisely my point. I wasn't BLAMING Morgan for the Astros woes. My point is that blaming someone for being on a bad team is about as foolish as giving them extra credit for being on a great teams.

Alright, the comparison between the 1971 Reds and 1972 Reds

1971

C Johnny Bench
1B Lee May
2B Tommy Helms
3B Tony Perez
SS Dave Concepcion
LF Bernie Carbo
CF George Foster
RF Pete Rose

1972

C Johnny Bench
1B Tony Perez
2B Joe Morgan
3B Denis Menke
SS Dave Concepcion
LF Pete Rose
CF Bobby Tolan
RF Cesar Geronimo

A lot of improvement there, but no one in their right mind would claim that Morgan was responsible for all of it.

I do agree that Morgan has an edge over all of the other Reds, but Bench is a close call. This is important only in the sense that with every dynasty you wonder if the player is the straw that stirs the drink or if they are the drink that gets stirred by the straw.

[cubbieinexile]

Before Morgan arrives the Reds have Tommy Helms, he couldn't hit worth a lick but he could field. With him manning second base the Reds have one very good year, one mediocre year, and a bunch of middling years (
especially since there was no wild card).

Now is it possible that Joe Morgan was just lucky in his timing? Of course but those previous teams already had Johnny Bench, Rose, Concepcion, Perez, and Foster coming the year before. Without Morgan that would still be a good team and they may even still make the playoffs but would they be remembered as one of the greatest teams of all time? I doubt it.

To me Joe Morgan was the bridge between the defensive guys and light hitting guys and the power guys. He was a lot of both and because he played a position like second base it allowed for other positions to perform with less then three dimensionality. I don't know if that makes sense, sorry.

[therealnod]

Your contribution is this?
Telling me physics of a baseball path is the same as a guy using subjective measures to rank ballplayers in a neat package according to his own bias, disregarding the inordinate amount of intangibles, just so people will buy his book are the same?

Thanks

You apparently miss so much.
Show me where James did what you claim, and I'll freely tell you that I've long ago disavowed Bill James anyway. And in case you've bothered to pay attention, the comment from me really had nothing to do with James in particular. It had to do with the ridiculous claim that just because James never played (actually, "didn't talk about his time playing baseball") has nothing to do with any of us. If the criteria for objective useful baseball knowledge is confined to people that have actually played professional baseball, well, that's obviously not the case. It's the principle of the whole thing. There's principalities in this..

If I relied on only the opinion of former major leaguers, I'd probably be as dumb a baseball fan as possible. Fact is, I like to look for myself. If science is somehow a problem for the common baeball fan; not my problem.

You don't need to have been a major leaguer to have an inkling what you're talking about. Please, don't ask Joe Morgan to articulate on this subject.

[Bill Burgess]

-------Year-Ag--G---AB----R----H---2B--3B-HR--RBI--SB-CS--BB---SO----BA----OBP---SLG--TB--SH-SF-IBB-HBP-GDP 

Morgan-1975-31-[B]146[/B]--498--[B]107[/B]--[B]163[/B]--27--[B]6[/B]--17---94--[B]67[/B]-10--[B]132[/B]---[B]52[/B]--.[B]327[/B]--.[B]466[/B]--.508--253--0--6---3--[B]3[/B]---[B]3[/B]
Bench--1975-27-142--[B]530[/B]---83--150--[B]39[/B]--1--[B]28[/B]--[B]110[/B]--11--[B]0[/B]---65--108--.283--.359--.[B]519[/B]--[B]275[/B]--0--[B]8[/B]--[B]12[/B]--2--12


Morgan-1976-32-[B]141[/B]--[B]472[/B]--[B]113[/B]--[B]151[/B]--[B]30[/B]--[B]5[/B]--[B]27[/B]--[B]111[/B]--[B]60[/B]--9--[B]114[/B]---[B]41[/B]--.[B]320[/B]--.[B]444[/B]--.[B]576[/B]--[B]272[/B]--0-[B]12[/B]---[B]8[/B]--1---[B]2[/B]
Bench--1976-28-135--465---62--109--24--1--16---74--13--[B]2[/B]---81---95--.234--.348--.394--183--0--4---6--[B]2[/B]---9

[SABR Matt]

Not picking a fight here, I understand your point but I have a question.

Why would Bill James "[disregard an] inordinate amount of intangibles, just so people will buy his book...?"

How would disregarding intangibles help sell his book? I don't understand the viewpoint on that.

I think he was saying that James prettied up the results of his system by adding the subjective componant to make the list more popularly acceptible...I happen to think he's right...but...if that's not what he's saying, I'll stand corrected.

[cubbieinexile]

Okay did a little comparison between the 1971 Reds and the 1972 Reds using Batting Runs above Replacement for each position:

    1971 Reds  1972 Reds    
    Runs    Runs   % inc/dec
C     19    74     289.5%
1B    60    64     6.7%
2B    7     76.25  989.3%
3B    37    19.75  -46.6%
SS    -9    6.5    -
RF    55    6.5    -88.2%
CF    17    43     152.9%
LF    26    61     134.6%
Total    212    351       65.6% 

The two biggest reasons the Reds ended up scoring more runs in 1972 and thus ending up to win 16 more games is because of the improvement out of the Catcher and 2nd base spot. At Catcher you had Bench rebounding from a bad year and increasing the run output by 55 runs. At second base you have Joe Morgan replacing Tommy Helms which gave the Reds almost 70 more runs then before. In terms of offense Joe Morgan was the biggest reason why the Reds scored 121 more runs in 1972 then in 1971 and one could make the argument that because of Joe and his placement at the top of the order (2nd) that he made the rest of the lineup better. He had enough power to knock in the lead-off power and enough speed and on-base ability to put himself in good position to score for the next batters.

[cubbieinexile]

I think he was saying that James prettied up the results of his system by adding the subjective componant to make the list more popularly acceptible...I happen to think he's right...but...if that's not what he's saying, I'll stand corrected.

But heres the thing the subjected part in most cases was equal. Yes there were parts that did not equal out but I don't think it was because he wanted to make it acceptable.

For instance picking Joe Morgan as the best 2nd basemen of all time is not the popular choice, altering the stats to make it that way is not going to make the list popular. Adding the subjective to make Willie Mays the #1 CF'er over Ty Cobb is not going to win you praise. In terms of ulterior motives adding the subjective to fix the list makes no sense. It gains you nothing. The list was just a vehicle to write about the players and his metrics. I believe the real reason he used the subjective is because he realized that stats do not tell the whole story, that by only looking at what is down on paper ignores certain parts of the game that for some players were very important. By adding the subjective he tries to compensate this deficiency. I think he didn't do it very well, because he doesn't tell us the subjective element for each player and how those points added up. So for instance with player like Dick Allen, a player that Bill James feels very strongly about and has done some research on his (Allen's) subjective number is not going to be the standard 25 but something else, as it turns out a very extreme number. While a player he might not know a whole lot about a player that is obscure to him will get the standard number even though if one took a closer look at that player you would find that the standard addition is not the right move.

The reason I think he doesn't list the subjective nor actually tell you what the final number is is because the rankings themselves don't really matter. Even BJ states this in the book, the list is just a vehicle to allow Bill to talk about a wide arrange of players, stats, viewpoints, and metrics.

[four tool]

Pucking the best player of the big red machine is like picking the best player of the 1972-1974 A's--and I'm not even going to try.
But that has nothing to do with Morgan's credentials as the best 2B ever. Hornsby, lbenifited from the great hitting of the 1920s, and had a power stroke unmatched in ther NL. Cut Hornsby the same slack as Ruth. Morgan on the Astros, well that park hurt offense big time--whereas St. Louis has never been a pitchers park. Yes, Rajah also hit well on the road, as a hitter, he beats Morgan hands down--but in every other category, Morgan wins. Rajah had nine stupendous years during the best hitting era ever and that is his only claim to fame, not defense or baserunning.
Morgan was superior in all aspects of the game except one, advantages Morgan.

[cubbieinexile]

To be fair that one advantage that Hornsby enjoys happens to be the most important element in a positional players skillset.

Take it too the extreme. Which player would you rather have, a player that could absoluty crush the ball and hit for a high average but is atrocious on the basepath and with the glove or would you rather have a guy who couldn't hit worth a lick but had blazing speed and a glove that reminded people of a black hole?

Am I saying that is what Rogers and Joe are? No what I am saying is that hitting is kind of important to positional players.

[leecemark]

--Actually the best player of the A's dynasty is much more clear cut. Reggie Jackson was by far the best player of the most successfull team of the decade. In fact, those A's were not only the most successfull team of the decade they are the only non-Yankee team to ever win 3 straight championships.