Joe Carter
John Poutsma
Colin Wilfred Macisaac <cwma...@is.dal.ca> wrote:
> I have found that for some reason, many people in this group seem to
>place a great deal of importance in Sabermetrics when determining a
>players skill. EVERYONE seems to place a great deal of importance in
>BA/OBP/SLG.
Well, most anyway.
The problem with this is that some people feel that by
>looking at only BA/OBP/SLG they can instantly and correctly tell whether
>one player is better than another.
Wrongo, #1. BA/OBP/SLG can give you a pretty good indication of
offensive value, but far from perfect. No one here would ever claim
that.
( Slugging Percentage is a really
>warped stat.)
Please elaborate. Compare and contrast with other warped and non-warped
stats.
Because of this some very good players(mainly sluggers)
>such as Matt Williams and Joe Carter, seem to be getting a bad rap.
> The problem with using the BA/OBP/SLG formula to evaluate sluggers is this:
>First of all cleanup hitters are not paid to get on base.
They're not paid to make outs, I guarantee you that. The opposite
of making outs is getting on base. Wrongo #2.
With a runner
>on it is more helpful to hit a sacrifice fly or advance the runner than
>to draw a walk and leave it to the lesser hitters near the bottom to
>drive in the runners.
And you have the research to prove it, I am sure. What are the
odds that a runner scores in various situations?
That is the point of a cleanup hitter, to drive in
>runners.( I'll get to RBI's later).
Complete this thought. It is the purpose of _all_ batters to create
runs. Make runs score. How do you do that? A great way which has
been shown to work well is 1) get on base; 2) advance runners; 3)
go to 1. Funny, 1 = obp, 2 = slg and sb's.
On the other hand, it would be
>useless for a leadoff hitter to hit a deep fly ball that was caught
90% of the deep flies that Joe Carter hits are useless, too, I bet.
and
>it doesn't really matter which side of the field he hits the ball to if
>its an out. Since he doesn't have to worry about moving runners, he is
>free to take pitches and draw a walk. it is as good as a single. His job
>is to get on base so he can score. My point is that On Base Percentage has
>much more importancein evaluating a hitter near the top of the lineup
>than a cleanup hitter. It should not be used equally for both.
> Secondly, a cleanup hitter can still be very effective while having a
>low batting average.
Batting average is however a legitamate measure, as
>a hit moves a runner closer to home plate.
Yeah, but that darn slg% (which is the same as batting ave except that
tells you how much closer the runner moves) is a poor stat.
But if a middle of the order
>hitter can bring more runs home sacrificing some average for power he
>should not be criticized.(Remember Mike Schmidt? He didn't drive all
>those runners home with his walks, and his career average was only
>.267[Joe Carter- .263])( No, I'm not saying Joe Carter is close to
>achieving what Schmidt did.)
That darn slg% again. How can you rely on slg% after calling it a
poor stat?
> So while a good OBP and BA are bonuses, they do not really give an
>indication of how a slugger has performed. This leaves Slugging Average,
>the most skewed stat of them all. Does anyone really believe that a
>triple is three times as good as a single?
Well, according to Batting average, a home run is _as_ good as
a single. There's a stupid concept if I've ever heard one.
And I don't buy the argument
>that slugging average and on bas average cancel each others bad points
>and create a good stat. Since neither give a good indication of what a
>slugger has produced, how can combining them tell you anything?
> So what is the best way to determine how efective a hitter such as Joe
>Carter has been? It's still the good old standby's : home runs and
>especially RBI's. RBI's are by no means a perfect measurement of a
>cleanup hitter, but what is the purpose of a cleanup hitter? To drive in
>runs.
WRONGO. To create runs. Not the same.
RBI's is a measurement of how well a slugger did his job. No matter
>how well he performed as a hitter, if he drove home the runners ahead of
>him it worked. And nobody in the major leagues is better at driving in
>runners year in and year out than Joe Carter.
In 1993, Olerud drove in 23.1 % of the runners that were in scoring
postion when he batted. Carter: 18.8%. Who was better at driving in runs?
Case rested.
> The argument that the only reason Carter drives home so many runs is
>because of the excellent hitters ahead of him doesn't hold here.There
>weren't any great hitters on the Indians of '88 and '89 or especially the
>Padres of '90( Tony Gwynn hit only .309), and still Joe put up excellent
>RBI totals. He produced when needed.( WS '93)
That's why OBP is a much better indicator of how many runners were
on base.
> Along with his great RBI totals, Carter is constantly among the leaders
>in homeruns, proving he is capable of instantaneous offense and run
>production. Carter's batting averages(.271 this year) are nothing to be
>ashamed of, and he has good speed on the basepaths( 10 SB 0 CS).
> Even the creater of total average admitted that even though Joe Carter
>kept slipping through the cracks in his formula, anyone who puts up those
>kind of RBI totals every year is among the best players in the game.
Boswell must be losing it. or succombing to garbage talk.
> If Joe Carter is good enough to be considered great by sportswriters,
>baseball managers and players he must be doing something right. Put
>everything together and I believe Joe Carter is among the best players in
>baseball today.
>
Yep, those same old writers who don't think Ron Santo is good enough to
get in the Hall of Fame. Who think Kirby Puckett is a gold glover
(his own team didn't think so). Your point, sir?
>
>PS: Even SABR stats are created from the basics, BA, HR, etc.....
>
>
Where's the BA in RC?
David M. Nieporent
> I have found that for some reason, many people in this group seem to
>place a great deal of importance in Sabermetrics when determining a
>players skill. EVERYONE seems to place a great deal of importance in
>warped stat.) Because of this some very good players(mainly sluggers)
as Frank Thomas and Barry Bonds get really good raps.
If you know what position a person plays, and what park a player plays in,
OBP/SLG provide virutally all you need. SBs would be nice to know, but don't
change things much.
> The problem with using the BA/OBP/SLG formula to evaluate sluggers is this:
You're right. Neither is anyone else. They're paid to help the team win.
That's why we count both OBP **AND** SLG.
>on it is more helpful to hit a sacrifice fly or advance the runner than
>to draw a walk and leave it to the lesser hitters near the bottom to
likely to get multiple runs. Which is how to win games. Ask Earl Weaver.
>drive in the runners. That is the point of a cleanup hitter, to drive in
>runners.( I'll get to RBI's later). On the other hand, it would be
No; like all hitters, the point is to create runs.
>useless for a leadoff hitter to hit a deep fly ball that was caught and
>its an out. Since he doesn't have to worry about moving runners, he is
>free to take pitches and draw a walk. it is as good as a single. His job
>is to get on base so he can score. My point is that On Base Percentage has
>much more importancein evaluating a hitter near the top of the lineup
>than a cleanup hitter. It should not be used equally for both.
lineup constructions is miniscule compared to the difference between a good
and poor hitter.
You'll score more runs with Brett Butler hitting fourth than you will with,
say, a low-OBP power hitter like Joe Carter.
(Not that this is a particularly efficient use of Brett Butler's skills,
though...)
> Secondly, a cleanup hitter can still be very effective while having a
>low batting average. Batting average is however a legitamate measure, as
>should not be criticized.(Remember Mike Schmidt? He didn't drive all
>those runners home with his walks, and his career average was only
>achieving what Schmidt did.)
Ad we don't look at BAs.
> So while a good OBP and BA are bonuses, they do not really give an
>indication of how a slugger has performed. This leaves Slugging Average,
>the most skewed stat of them all. Does anyone really believe that a
>and create a good stat. Since neither give a good indication of what a
>slugger has produced, how can combining them tell you anything?
them edible?
Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. The combination of the two stats
correlates with scoring runs.
> So what is the best way to determine how efective a hitter such as Joe
>Carter has been? It's still the good old standby's : home runs and
>especially RBI's. RBI's are by no means a perfect measurement of a
>cleanup hitter, but what is the purpose of a cleanup hitter? To drive in
>him it worked. And nobody in the major leagues is better at driving in
>runners year in and year out than Joe Carter.
does
NOT have an especially good RBI%.
And, no, that isn't his job. His job is to help his team score the MAXIMUM
number of runs. Which includes himself, and the guys after him. Not just
the guys before him.
> The argument that the only reason Carter drives home so many runs is
>because of the excellent hitters ahead of him doesn't hold here.There
>weren't any great hitters on the Indians of '88 and '89 or especially the
>Padres of '90( Tony Gwynn hit only .309), and still Joe put up excellent
>RBI totals. He produced when needed.( WS '93)
matter of opinion that you can argue away. Look up the stats.
> Along with his great RBI totals, Carter is constantly among the leaders
>in homeruns, proving he is capable of instantaneous offense and run
>production. Carter's batting averages(.271 this year) are nothing to be
>ashamed of, and he has good speed on the basepaths( 10 SB 0 CS).
average, even good, at hitting HRs. Secondly, you're bringing in irrelevant
stats like his BA after saying they don't matter.
> Even the creater of total average admitted that even though Joe Carter
>kept slipping through the cracks in his formula, anyone who puts up those
>kind of RBI totals every year is among the best players in the game.
>baseball managers and players he must be doing something right. Put
>everything together and I believe Joe Carter is among the best players in
>baseball today.
means they
are looking at the wrong thing.
The earth used to be considered flat by everybody. That didn't make it so.
No matter how many people thought so.
> sticking up for Joe, Trey
>
>PS: Even SABR stats are created from the basics, BA, HR, etc.....
Secondly, that's true. You just conveniently want to ignore the stats that
don't support your point.
The most important stat is OUTS. Joe Carter makes lots and lots and lots of
them. That means he can't be great.
--
David M. Nieporent
Niep...@delphi.com OR DNiep...@aol.com
Send Email to DNiep...@aol.com if you want me to see it
Orioles 1995: MVP - Palmeiro, RotY - Obando, Cy - Mussina
Jonathan Bernstein
: Colin Wilfred Macisaac <cwma...@is.dal.ca> wrote:
: > If Joe Carter is good enough to be considered great by sportswriters,
: >baseball managers and players he must be doing something right. Put
: >everything together and I believe Joe Carter is among the best players in
: >baseball today.
Actually, this is sort of an unfair hit on sportswriters and managers, or
at least GMs.
Sportswriters have never done anything so silly as given Carter the MVP.
He hasn't done very well in MVP voting; I don't have the lists, but I'm
pretty sure this is correct. True, as a player on a World Champion team,
he's received lots of attention, but it's not like he's an awful player,
and he did hit a very dramatic homer. Yes, he's currently overrated, but
that's the nature of playing on a WS winner. He used to be ignored by
the press.
As for GMs, he's been involved in three trades. The first was a fairly
reasonable now vs. the future trade: Carter and Hall for Sutcliffe and
Hassey. Good for both teams. The 2nd was a mistake by the Padres, who
gave up S. Alomar and Baerga for him; he was worth about Alomar. OTOH,
the Pads thought they had talent to spare at 2B and C, so it wasn't quite
as unreasonable as one might think. The 3rd trade was very reasonable;
McGriff vs. R. Alomar is not crazy, nor was Carter vs. Fernandez. It's
still possible to argue over this trade.
So, it's not as if GMs are vastly overrating him, at least as seen in trades.
The problem is when one takes the most extreme things said by the press
seriously, then exaggerates them.
JHB
Steven Thornton
flaws. However, those flaws largely cancel each other out when they
are combined. Not all times on base are equal, like they are
represented in OBP; but the more valuable ones (hits, extra base hits)
add to SLG as well. Not all bases advanced are equal, like they are
treated in SLG; but OBP evens this out too, by giving more credit for
the first, most valuable, base than subsequent ones. They are an
excellent complement for lazy bastards like myself who don't always
want to do the longer calculations of RC or BR.
--
Steve Thornton | ste...@eskimo.com | http://www.eskimo.com/~stevet/
Roger Maynard
>Colin Wilfred Macisaac <cwma...@is.dal.ca> writes:
>
>> I have found that for some reason, many people in this group seem to
>>place a great deal of importance in Sabermetrics when determining a
>>players skill. EVERYONE seems to place a great deal of importance in
>>BA/OBP/SLG. The problem with this is that some people feel that by
>>looking at only BA/OBP/SLG they can instantly and correctly tell whether
>>one player is better than another.( Slugging Percentage is a really
>>warped stat.) Because of this some very good players(mainly sluggers)
>>such as Matt Williams and Joe Carter, seem to be getting a bad rap.
>
>No; it has nothing to do with the fact that they are sluggers. Such sluggers
>as Frank Thomas and Barry Bonds get really good raps.
He never said - or even implied - that the bad rap that players get has
anything to do with the fact that they are sluggers. He is complaining,
and rightly so, that this group is overrun with people who don't understand
the true nature of sport. Instead, this great mass of philistines seize
statistics and analysis holding them up as the epitome of baseball knowledge
and in the process destroying the very nature of the game itself.
>If you know what position a person plays, and what park a player plays in,
>OBP/SLG provide virutally all you need. SBs would be nice to know, but don't
>change things much.
That may be enough for a stat fan but it hardly even scratches the surface
of what a sport fan wants to know. I would rather know that Carter was the
last player to touch the ball in the last two world series than moan about
his slugging percentage.
>> The problem with using the BA/OBP/SLG formula to evaluate sluggers is this:
>>First of all cleanup hitters are not paid to get on base. With a runner
>
>You're right. Neither is anyone else. They're paid to help the team win.
>That's why we count both OBP **AND** SLG.
Perhaps if you were paying them then this would be the case. But you are
not. Cito Gaston wants White to score runs. He wants Carter to drive
them in. Now perhaps you know more about baseball than Gaston. I seriously
doubt it. Of course Gaston would agree that all players are paid to win
but this is so general that it is useless.
>
>>on it is more helpful to hit a sacrifice fly or advance the runner than
>>to draw a walk and leave it to the lesser hitters near the bottom to
>
>No, it isn't. You're more likely to get one run your way, but much less
>likely to get multiple runs. Which is how to win games. Ask Earl Weaver.
And what is Earl doing these days? Besides enjoying the rep that an
outstanding pitching staff "earned" him?
>
>>drive in the runners. That is the point of a cleanup hitter, to drive in
>>runners.( I'll get to RBI's later). On the other hand, it would be
>
>No; like all hitters, the point is to create runs.
Again, a pointless generalization. The job of all hitters is to implement
their manager's strategy in any particular situation.
>
>>useless for a leadoff hitter to hit a deep fly ball that was caught and
>>it doesn't really matter which side of the field he hits the ball to if
>>its an out. Since he doesn't have to worry about moving runners, he is
>>free to take pitches and draw a walk. it is as good as a single. His job
>>is to get on base so he can score. My point is that On Base Percentage has
>>much more importancein evaluating a hitter near the top of the lineup
>>than a cleanup hitter. It should not be used equally for both.
>
>Prove it. Simulations have shown that the difference between different
>lineup constructions is miniscule compared to the difference between a good
>and poor hitter.
You say prove it while I say watch it. And I have better things to do
than watch simulations. (of course the fact that I am responding to your
drivel would seem to contradict this)
>You'll score more runs with Brett Butler hitting fourth than you will with,
>say, a low-OBP power hitter like Joe Carter.
>(Not that this is a particularly efficient use of Brett Butler's skills,
>though...)
Which game are you talking about? When did Butler bat fourth? Was this
in Cleveland? Where did Carter bat? Leadoff?
How many rings did Butler earn batting fourth?
>
>> Secondly, a cleanup hitter can still be very effective while having a
>>low batting average. Batting average is however a legitamate measure, as
>>a hit moves a runner closer to home plate. But if a middle of the order
>>hitter can bring more runs home sacrificing some average for power he
>>should not be criticized.(Remember Mike Schmidt? He didn't drive all
>>those runners home with his walks, and his career average was only
>>..267[Joe Carter- .263])( No, I'm not saying Joe Carter is close to
>>achieving what Schmidt did.)
>
>Ad we don't look at BAs.
Well the rest of us do. And we celebrate batting average too. We celebrate
triple crown winnners. But most of all we celebrate WS wins.
Aren't we all just so stupid? Some of us believe in God too...
>
>> So while a good OBP and BA are bonuses, they do not really give an
>>indication of how a slugger has performed. This leaves Slugging Average,
>>the most skewed stat of them all. Does anyone really believe that a
>>triple is three times as good as a single? And I don't buy the argument
>>that slugging average and on bas average cancel each others bad points
>>and create a good stat. Since neither give a good indication of what a
>>slugger has produced, how can combining them tell you anything?
>
>Since Sodium and Chlorine are both poisonous, how can combining them make
>them edible?
Who cares? Does this have anything to do with sport? Nope.
>Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. The combination of the two stats
>correlates with scoring runs.
Always after the fact. Always. Who's going to win next year? Assuming
there is a next year? Your guess is only as good as the next guys...so
until you can show us otherwise why don't you just relax into the idea
that the essence of the sport is the competition and the only "best" that
has any meaning to the sport fan is the "best" that is proved on the
scoreboard at the end of each game.
>> So what is the best way to determine how efective a hitter such as Joe
>>Carter has been? It's still the good old standby's : home runs and
>>especially RBI's. RBI's are by no means a perfect measurement of a
>>cleanup hitter, but what is the purpose of a cleanup hitter? To drive in
>>runs. RBI's is a measurement of how well a slugger did his job. No matter
>>how well he performed as a hitter, if he drove home the runners ahead of
>>him it worked. And nobody in the major leagues is better at driving in
>>runners year in and year out than Joe Carter.
>
>False. a lot of people are better than Joe Carter at driving in runners. He
>does
>NOT have an especially good RBI%.
What you are probably trying to say is that a lot of people are _potentially_
better at driving in runners than Carter. But over the last ten years how
many have driven in more? Hm?
Again, for the 95th time, all that really matters to the sport fan is what
actually happens on the field. And every year Carter drives in a shitload.
And that is good enough for the sport fan. And it's good enough to pick
up a couple of rings as well. It doesn't matter how many Brett Butler
would have driven in batting fourth in the Jays lineup because it never
happened. But it happens with Joe and Blue Jay fans, sport fans, celebrate.
>
>And, no, that isn't his job. His job is to help his team score the MAXIMUM
>number of runs. Which includes himself, and the guys after him. Not just
>the guys before him.
No again this is a pointless generalization. Carter's "job" is to do what
his manager and his teammates expect him to do. And if he draws a walk
instead of run-scoring sacrifice then he has failed. You don't like it?
Get your own team.
>> The argument that the only reason Carter drives home so many runs is
>>because of the excellent hitters ahead of him doesn't hold here.There
>>weren't any great hitters on the Indians of '88 and '89 or especially the
>>Padres of '90( Tony Gwynn hit only .309), and still Joe put up excellent
>>RBI totals. He produced when needed.( WS '93)
>
>False, again. Carter has had more opportunities than anyone else. This isn't a
>matter of opinion that you can argue away. Look up the stats.
Try to focus on what Carter actually did. That is sport. Focussing on what
could have been or even should have been is not sport.
>
>> Along with his great RBI totals, Carter is constantly among the leaders
>>in homeruns, proving he is capable of instantaneous offense and run
>>production. Carter's batting averages(.271 this year) are nothing to be
>>ashamed of, and he has good speed on the basepaths( 10 SB 0 CS).
>
>(A) He is not "among the leaders" in HRs at all. He is certainly above
>average, even good, at hitting HRs. Secondly, you're bringing in irrelevant
>stats like his BA after saying they don't matter.
Carter has led the best team in baseball in HR's for many years now. I would
say that puts him among the leaders. At least in any way that is relevant.
>> Even the creater of total average admitted that even though Joe Carter
>>kept slipping through the cracks in his formula, anyone who puts up those
>>kind of RBI totals every year is among the best players in the game.
>> If Joe Carter is good enough to be considered great by sportswriters,
>>baseball managers and players he must be doing something right. Put
>>everything together and I believe Joe Carter is among the best players in
>>baseball today.
>
>Well, then, you're all wrong. That he is considered great by these people just
>means they
>are looking at the wrong thing.
What an arrogant little ass you are. If you know so much about it why aren't
you out there managing a team? Are _all_ the owners and GM's too stupid to
hire you? Or why aren't you at least writing about sport? Is that because
all the editors are too stupid to hire you?
Of course you have other things to do, right? Nonsense. You could easily
devote the time that you spend polluting this group to writing a column.
But the fact is that you know nothing at all about sport and that is obvious
immediately to anyone that begins to read what you are saying.
>
>The earth used to be considered flat by everybody. That didn't make it so.
>No matter how many people thought so.
And some people still believe the earth is flat. Some people believe that
stats capture the essence of sport. And it's even rumoured that some of
each can be found in the same wards...
>Secondly, that's true. You just conveniently want to ignore the stats that
>don't support your point.
And you just conveniently assume that analysis tells you anything really
useful about sport because you simply can't see what the rest of us can.
>The most important stat is OUTS. Joe Carter makes lots and lots and lots of
>them. That means he can't be great.
The most important stat to you is OUTS. The most important stat to most
ball players - beyond their salary - is the number of rings they can wear.
And most ball players place more faith in their manager's method of
winning rings than yours...
Of course we would just love to see you try to prove them wrong...on the field.
cordially, as always,
rm
Jonathan Bernstein
: As has been pointed out many times, both SLG and OBP have serious
: flaws. However, those flaws largely cancel each other out when they
: are combined. Not all times on base are equal, like they are
Nitpick -- that should be "used together". Otherwise, no objection from me.
: represented in OBP; but the more valuable ones (hits, extra base hits)
: add to SLG as well. Not all bases advanced are equal, like they are
: treated in SLG; but OBP evens this out too, by giving more credit for
: the first, most valuable, base than subsequent ones. They are an
: excellent complement for lazy bastards like myself who don't always
: want to do the longer calculations of RC or BR.
JHB
Jeff Hildebrand
but I do have to point out one thing.
In article <38oo2i$f...@gold.interlog.com>,
Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>triple crown winnners. But most of all we celebrate WS wins.
So let's see, Ted Williams never was on a World Series
winner. Luis Aguayo played on the 1980 Phillies team that won the WS.
Therefore Aguayo is a better player than Ted Williams. Anyone want to
buy some cheap waterfront property in Florida?
-Jeff
--
Jeff Hildebrand, The Shaggy TA hild...@math.wisc.edu
"Spontaneous Human Combustion. *poof* There goes another one! // A raging
fire, a funeral pyre, an unexpected cremation." - The Bobs
Roger Maynard
> I realize that in general trying to argue with Roger is pointless,
>but I do have to point out one thing.
That's true of course if you don't have a point to begin with. Let's see
what you've got...
>In article <38oo2i$f...@gold.interlog.com>,
>Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>
>>triple crown winnners. But most of all we celebrate WS wins.
> So let's see, Ted Williams never was on a World Series
>winner. Luis Aguayo played on the 1980 Phillies team that won the WS.
>Therefore Aguayo is a better player than Ted Williams. Anyone want to
>buy some cheap waterfront property in Florida?
Where did I say that Aguayo was better than Williams? In, fact, unless
I was a manager considering a trade, why the hell would I even care?
Besides, in 1980 Ted Williams was 62 years old and they don't use the
DH in the NL...
But I will tell you this: the 1980 Phillies were, in 1980, the best
team in baseball. They proved it on the field. What does this have
to do with land in Florida? For that matter, what does this have to
do with Ted Williams?
cordially, as always,
rm
Jeff Hildebrand
Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>That's true of course if you don't have a point to begin with. Let's see
>what you've got...
Ok, I'll spell it out in very simple terms. You said that one of
the important things in looking at how good a player is is how many WS
rings he has. My point is that teams win World Series, not individual players.
Therefore some lousy players get rings while some great players never do,
and as a result looking at the number of WS rings someone has tends to
be a pretty lousy measure of how good a player they are. You clearly
would agree with the statement that Williams was a greater player than Luis
Aguayo. Now, why?
As far as your comment goes that the 1980 Phillies were the best
team that year, well even though I'm a lifelong Phillies fan I gotta
disagree. They proved they were _one_ of the best teams that year.
But in both the NLCS and the World Series they had hard fought battles which
were extremely close. In both cases things could have gone the other way
and only a little bit of luck got the Phillies through.
James Daniel Powers
Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
I can't believe I'm responding to Roger, but at least I'll keep it short...
>What you are probably trying to say is that a lot of people are _potentially_
>better at driving in runners than Carter.
No, he's definitely saying "_are_ better".
>But over the last ten years how
>many have driven in more? Hm?
Over the last ten years how many have stranded more? Hm? Hint: same number.
>Again, for the 95th time, all that really matters to the sport fan is what
>actually happens on the field. And every year Carter drives in a shitload.
Of course, what I mentioned above was exactly what happens on the field.
Every year, Carter drives in a bunch of runs. Every year, Carter strands a
bunch of runners. Every year, the percentage of runners on base that Carter
drives in is nowhere near the league lead. Every year, there are many
people who do a better job of driving people in than Carter. Why? Because
when they have people on base, they drive them in. Much more often than
Carter. Every year, this is what actually happens on the field. That
matters to me, because I'm a sport fan.
-Jim
--
Jim Powers | Got mashed potato
MSME Department | Got mashed potato
UC Berkeley | Got mashed potato
jpo...@sapphirine.berkeley.edu | Ain't got no T-bone -Neil Young
Dorian Rysling Kim
Mon Dieu! Roger's back! Everyone hide under respective beds and don't come
out! ;)
-dorian
--
---{@---{@
Dorian R. Kim \ Thou seest we are not all alone unhappy * This wide and
dor...@cic.net \ universal theatre * Presents more woeful pagents than
dor...@umich.edu \ scene * Wherein we play in - As You Like It (II,vii)
David M. Nieporent
>He never said - or even implied - that the bad rap that players get has
>anything to do with the fact that they are sluggers. He is complaining,
>and rightly so, that this group is overrun with people who don't understand
>the true nature of sport. Instead, this great mass of philistines seize
>statistics and analysis holding them up as the epitome of baseball knowledge
>and in the process destroying the very nature of the game itself.
Whats the matter, Roger, did kindergarden let out early today?
I guarantee that posts by SDCNs or anyone else on the internet have about as
much chance of destroying anything, let alone "the nature of the game," as you
do of making an intelligent post that doesn't invent new meanings to words.
Once again, this "true nature of sport" is a fantasy that you've dreamed up
and has no bearing on events on this planet.
>That may be enough for a stat fan but it hardly even scratches the surface
>of what a sport fan wants to know. I would rather know that Carter was the
>last player to touch the ball in the last two world series than moan about
>his slugging percentage.
>And what is Earl doing these days? Besides enjoying the rep that an
>outstanding pitching staff "earned" him?
wishing that Bud Selig wasn't such an ass, etc.
>>You'll score more runs with Brett Butler hitting fourth than you will with,
>>say, a low-OBP power hitter like Joe Carter.
>>(Not that this is a particularly efficient use of Brett Butler's skills,
>>though...)
>
>Which game are you talking about? When did Butler bat fourth? Was this
>in Cleveland? Where did Carter bat? Leadoff?
that I said "You'll." That implies a future or conditional action, NOT a past
action.
>How many rings did Butler earn batting fourth?
>>>the most skewed stat of them all. Does anyone really believe that a
>>>triple is three times as good as a single? And I don't buy the argument
>>>that slugging average and on bas average cancel each others bad points
>>>and create a good stat. Since neither give a good indication of what a
>>>slugger has produced, how can combining them tell you anything?
>>
>>Since Sodium and Chlorine are both poisonous, how can combining them make
>>them edible?
>
>Who cares? Does this have anything to do with sport? Nope.
Unlike you, he probably doesn't post just out of ego gratification and the
desire to annoy people.
Does it have something to do with sport? Yes. It has to do with the things
that happen in baseball.
>>Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. The combination of the two stats
>>correlates with scoring runs.
>
>Always after the fact. Always. Who's going to win next year? Assuming
>there is a next year? Your guess is only as good as the next guys...so
>until you can show us otherwise why don't you just relax into the idea
>that the essence of the sport is the competition and the only "best" that
>has any meaning to the sport fan is the "best" that is proved on the
>scoreboard at the end of each game.
your warped views. You can't even keep your own arguments straight. First
you say that the essense is the competition, and then you claim that the only
thing that has any meaning is the result. Make up your mind.
>>False. a lot of people are better than Joe Carter at driving in runners. He
>>does
>>NOT have an especially good RBI%.
>
>What you are probably trying to say is that a lot of people are _potentially_
>better at driving in runners than Carter. But over the last ten years how
>many have driven in more? Hm?
better
than Joe Carter at driving in runners. I define "better" by success
percentage, as do most rational people, rather than by frequency.
>Again, for the 95th time, all that really matters to the sport fan is what
>actually happens on the field. And every year Carter drives in a shitload.
>And that is good enough for the sport fan. And it's good enough to pick
>up a couple of rings as well. It doesn't matter how many Brett Butler
>would have driven in batting fourth in the Jays lineup because it never
>happened. But it happens with Joe and Blue Jay fans, sport fans, celebrate.
what might happen and what could happen as well as what did happen. They care
about how players do individually -- even those not on their favorite team --
and how teams do. And they don't care what you have to say.
>>False, again. Carter has had more opportunities than anyone else. This isn't a
>>matter of opinion that you can argue away. Look up the stats.
>
>Try to focus on what Carter actually did. That is sport. Focussing on what
>could have been or even should have been is not sport.
encyclopedia entry. A biblical quote. An excerpt from the National Enquirer.
Anything which actually proves that one other person agrees with your narrow
and narrow-minded definition.
>Carter has led the best team in baseball in HR's for many years now. I would
>say that puts him among the leaders. At least in any way that is relevant.
"many years." Please get a clue.
David M. Nieporent
>Where did I say that Aguayo was better than Williams? In, fact, unless
>I was a manager considering a trade, why the hell would I even care?
in
Boston or to Fenway Park, and see whether more of them discuss Ted Williams
or the World Series. ALL true fans care about these things. Thats why, if
you talk to any baseball fan, you're a lot more likely to get into a discussion
of which players were the best than which team was.
I can just see a typical conversation with you:
Other person: Ted Williams was a better player than Willie Mays.
Roger: Who cares? You don't understand sport. Toronto was the best team in
baseball last year.
Other person: Ryne Sandberg is the greatest second baseman in history.
Roger: Who cares? You don't understand sport. How many rings does he have?
Other person: Atlanta's rotation last year is one of the best ever.
Roger: Who cares? You don't understand sport. How many rings do they have?
If you don't like the stathead posts around here, Roger, ignore them. Put the
prominent SDCN posters in your killfile. But leave us alone.
Jim Rising
the last 2 world series, but I'd have given that honor to Mitch Williams in
1993!
--
Name: Jim Rising
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising
BITNET: ris...@zoo.utoronto.ca
ron wener
is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
Debate all you like, we have the two-time defending world champs in
Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
Scott Farkas
>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
>is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
>in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
No. There are other statistics that matter. Such as...
* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
most runners of all batters in the league?
>Debate all you like, we have the two-time defending world champs in
>Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
you my impartiality thusly:
- Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
- Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
- Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
- aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
And please don't tell me that the Jays would have done any worse with one of
about twenty OF's in the majors who are more valuable than Carter playing RF.
Thank you for your time.
Scott
---
Happiness is contagious. Scatter the seed.
Ira K. Blum
|> dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
|>
|> >In article 100000@cml, ron wener <wener@cml> writes:
|> >>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
|>
|> hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
|> Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
Yeah, just like all the people who remember Bill Mazeroski's shot to win
the 1960 World Series. I'm sure that Mazeroski's name will stand long in
the annals of the HOF long after the excitement about Mickey Mantle's and
Ted William's and Stan Musial's numbers have died down. After all,
Williams never even won a World Series! He musta been a chump! (insert
heavy sarcasm and many smileys)
Comparable players:
Willie Mays ---> Barry Bonds
Ted Williams ---> Frank Thomas
Joe DiMaggio ---> Don Mattingly (times 1.7)
Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
any others?
maybe Lou Brock ---> Vince Coleman
--
Ira
ib...@utdallas.edu
Go Rangers and Phillies (and Cowboys and Mavericks and Speed Racer Go!)
Will Clark for MVP!!!!!
this sig for rent
Please direct all flames to /dev/null
Harold Brooks
<wener@cml> wrote:
> This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
> is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
> in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
>
Of course, if he wouldn't have swung at ball four in the first inning trying
to hit a fly ball, Toronto probably would have knocked Mulholland out of the
game right there and blown the Phillies out. Then, there wouldn't have been
any ninth inning heroics. Carter's failure in the first helped set up the
situation in the ninth.
> Debate all you like, we have the two-time defending world champs in
> Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
The final clause of the sentence is certainly debatable.
Harold
--
Harold Brooks bro...@nssl.uoknor.edu
DOC/NOAA/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory (Norman, OK)
Standard disclaimer
Roger Maynard
>In article 100000@cml, ron wener <wener@cml> writes:
>>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
>>is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
>>in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
>No. There are other statistics that matter. Such as...
>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
whatsoever of sport.
>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>most runners of all batters in the league?
Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
>>Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
>Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
>why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
>you my impartiality thusly:
Well if you could care less about who he plays for then why the hell are you
reading a sport group devoted to fans of baseball?
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
> - aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
_EVERY_ player in major league baseball is a great hitter. And I don't need
a spreadsheet to tell me so. Carter hit the magic shot. You can't see it.
You're a philistine. Go away. Stop bothering sport fans.
>And please don't tell me that the Jays would have done any worse with one of
>about twenty OF's in the majors who are more valuable than Carter playing RF.
Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
the season, into the post-season and the WS.
But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
they? In fact, if baseball folds it's tent because of people like yourself
don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
substance of your arguments.
>Thank you for your time.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger Maynard
>>Yeah, just like all the people who remember Bill Mazeroski's shot to win
>>the 1960 World Series. I'm sure that Mazeroski's name will stand long in
Yeah and Bobby Thomson and Bucky Dent and Rick Monday and Reggie...nothing
like a little drama, eh?
>>the annals of the HOF long after the excitement about Mickey Mantle's and
>>Ted William's and Stan Musial's numbers have died down. After all,
>>Williams never even won a World Series! He musta been a chump! (insert
>>heavy sarcasm and many smileys)
Well Williams is remembered chiefly as the last guy to hit .400. 'Course
that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in stat land, does it? Williams
is also remembered as a player who gave up two parts of his career to
fighting wars. Of course the stat fan sees those two stints merely as
missed opportunities, right? And who gives a shit about triple crowns
anway...not stat fans. Now just what was Williams career OPS? I'm
sure that must be burned into every stat fans "heart".
As for the WS, I'm sure that Williams feels that his career was incomplete
without one...
>>Comparable players:
>>Willie Mays ---> Barry Bonds
Bonds is such a terror on the base paths. And he plays such a stellar
centre field, doesn't he?
>>Ted Williams ---> Frank Thomas
Thomas really plays that monster well doesn't he?
>>Joe DiMaggio ---> Don Mattingly (times 1.7)
???
>>Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
Your ignorance is completely astounding.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger Maynard
>Tell us about sport, Roger. I've been reading this newsgroup for over
>a year and I don't remember you ever contributing anything about your
>own personal experiences as a sport fan regarding any particular game,
>player, or team, except in contradiction to someone else. I get the
>vague impression that you're a Jays fan, but other than that, you seem
>interested in nothing but being contrary.
I was sitting behind third base in the old CNE with Nick Trantos when Nick
pointed to the Seattle Mariner logo on the outfield wall and said "The next
pitch goes over Seattle" and sure enough that is where Al Oliver put it.
>Basically, you're a damn poor example of whay you call a "sport fan",
>at least from what you're showing around here.
I had to buy scalper's tickets for my first game in the dome. "Behind home
plate!" I insisted and that is exactly what I got. In the very top row.
Top of the dome.
>>>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>>>most runners of all batters in the league?
>>
>>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
>Are you implying that Frank Thomas is unworthy of excitement? How
>ridiculous.
Is that what I said? Hmm? You claim to have been _reading_ the group for
a year...the only numbers that Thomas may ever hit in his career that will
be as exciting as Carter's homer is one of: .400 BA, Triple Crown, 62+ HR's,
200 RBI. And of course none of those stats mean squat to the stat head.
>Personally, I didn't find Carter's famous HR all that exciting, despite
>the fact that it was a WS-winning HR. It felt strongly when he came to bat
>that the Blue Jays were going to win, and that Mitch Williams couldn't
>hold a lead if his life depended on it. Of course, any game-ending HR
>is exciting. But Dave Henderson's HR in game 5 of the '86 ALCS , Gibson's
>HR in game 1 of the '88 WS and Francisco Cabrera's game-winning hit in
>the '92 NLCS were all far more exciting to me.
Well there you go...Bucky Dent, Rick Monday...add them to your list and that
is the essence of baseball. And that stuff slips through the cracks of the
spreadsheets.
Of course the stat fans say "Oh yes we like that stuff too!" Sure. But it
just isn't that important is it? After all the stat fans can "prove" that
there is no such thing as clutch hitting...
>So this is your definition of being a fan of baseball? Undying love for
>your team of choice and blind hatred of all other teams and players? Maybe
>on your planet.
That is pretty close to being the definition of a fan of sport. Maybe not on
your planet.
>So you, representing a consensus of one, are spouting off defining how
>"sport fan(s)" ought to look at the world, and then calling people
>philistine for disagreeing. Let he who is without sin cast the first
>stone...
Nonsense. The stat fans have teamed up and bullied everyone else off of here
that doesn't share their severely restricted point of view.
>>Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
>>Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
>>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
>So every WS champ represents some magic combination of players that is
>the optimally best team?
Yep. I'm talking about reality here. Leave your "optimal" in fantasy
land. It doesn't apply to sport because sport isn't a program that can
be tweaked and run over again. Thank God. But stat fans can't grasp this.
Sport fans don't give a damn about how well the Jays would have done with
Bonds or Griffey out there instead of Carter unless of course there was
a realistic opportunity to have had either of them and the Jays lost
because of it...but even then the mature sport fan would merely dismiss
this bleating as crying over spilt milk...
>That's ridiculous. The fact is that the Jays
>could've replaced Carter with a number of other RFers and been just as
>good or better. The same is more obviously true with regard to Pat Borders
>and Todd Stottlemyre. I know you understand this.
We'll never know for sure, will we? But it doesn't really matter either
because the season is over - the magic is over - and the Jays won. With
Borders, Stottlemyre and Carter.
>>But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
>>strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
>>But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
>>they?
>I sense a straw man coming...
Actually the man is only straw on paper...
>> In fact, if baseball folds it's tent because of people like yourself
>Yes, "stat fans" are the cause of baseball's current problems! I love
>it!
>>don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
>>game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
>>substance of your arguments.
>The only argument I see here - maybe - is that Joe Carter isn't that
>great a RFer. That seems obvious to me. Of course, by your criteria
After all of this and you missed the point...Joe Carter had the most
exceptional season of any RF in baseball last year.
>it's even more obvious as the Blue Jays were nowhere close to winning a
>WS this year.
That's right. This year it would have been someone else's turn. Maybe
Mattingly would have finally got the shot at it. Or Boggs...or Alou...
Maybe you're catching on after all. (not likely)
cordially, as always,
rm
Ron Wener (wener@cml.com)
> Date: 1 NOV 1994 19:18:01 GMT
> From: Scott Farkas <dpe...@qualcomm.com>
> Newgroups: rec.sport.baseball
> Subject: Re: Joe Carter
>
> >Debate all you like, we have the two-time defending world champs in
> >Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
>
> Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
> why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
> you my impartiality thusly:
>
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
> - aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
>
Scott, who said anything about this being an anti-Canadian rap. My point
is a simple one. Whether you are a fan of Joe Carter or not, you have to
admit that he played an important role in the Jays world championships.
To argue whether another outfielder would have had better stats is mute.
To do that is to ignore Carter's contribution on the field both
offensively and defensively and his leadership off the field. Given that
combination, there are only a few other players that I would take in his
place (i.e. Griffey).
Anyway, enough with this debate already. It seems that Jays fans love
Carter and fans outside Toronto may not like him as much. That seems
pretty normal. I'm sure the fans in Philly appreciate Len Dykstra more
than fans in other cities.
Damn do I miss professional sports that are played on the field!
Ron
Jim_...@transarc.com
>
> Who has more excitement attached to him.. Bill Mazeroski or Ernie Banks?
>
That's an easy one: Mazeroski, of course. I loved watching the great
plays he made at second. Pure excitement.
Of course, while you can make a good case that things like "value" can
be measured objectively (and, therefore, for example, show that Thomas
is better than Carter), excitement is subjective. I personally find
Thomas more exciting than Carter, but I can understand how someone can
think that Carter is the more exciting of the two.
Now, how anyone could think that Carter is the BETTER of the two is
beyond me ...
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage:
file://grand.central.org/afs/transarc.com/public/jmann/html/Home.html
Football players, somewhere back in their phylogenic development,
learned how to talk like football coaches. ("Our goals this week were
to contain Dickerson and control the line of scrimmage.") Baseball
players say things like, "This pitcher's so bad that when he comes in,
the grounds crew drags the warning track."
-- Tom Boswell, "99 Reasons Why Baseball Is Better than Football"
gei...@bscr.uga.edu
>
>>In article 100000@cml, ron wener <wener@cml> writes:
>>>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
>>>is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
>>>in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
>
>>No. There are other statistics that matter. Such as...
>
>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>
>This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
>of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
>whatsoever of sport.
Tell us about sport, Roger. I've been reading this newsgroup for over
a year and I don't remember you ever contributing anything about your
own personal experiences as a sport fan regarding any particular game,
player, or team, except in contradiction to someone else. I get the
vague impression that you're a Jays fan, but other than that, you seem
interested in nothing but being contrary.
Basically, you're a damn poor example of whay you call a "sport fan",
at least from what you're showing around here.
>>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>>most runners of all batters in the league?
>
>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
Are you implying that Frank Thomas is unworthy of excitement? How
ridiculous.
Personally, I didn't find Carter's famous HR all that exciting, despite
the fact that it was a WS-winning HR. It felt strongly when he came to bat
that the Blue Jays were going to win, and that Mitch Williams couldn't
hold a lead if his life depended on it. Of course, any game-ending HR
is exciting. But Dave Henderson's HR in game 5 of the '86 ALCS , Gibson's
HR in game 1 of the '88 WS and Francisco Cabrera's game-winning hit in
the '92 NLCS were all far more exciting to me.
>>>Toronto, and we wouldn't be World Champs without Joe Carter!!!!
>
>>Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
>>why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
>>you my impartiality thusly:
>
>Well if you could care less about who he plays for then why the hell are you
>reading a sport group devoted to fans of baseball?
So this is your definition of being a fan of baseball? Undying love for
your team of choice and blind hatred of all other teams and players? Maybe
on your planet.
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
>> - aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
>
>_EVERY_ player in major league baseball is a great hitter. And I don't need
>a spreadsheet to tell me so. Carter hit the magic shot. You can't see it.
>You're a philistine. Go away. Stop bothering sport fans.
So you, representing a consensus of one, are spouting off defining how
"sport fan(s)" ought to look at the world, and then calling people
philistine for disagreeing. Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone...
>>And please don't tell me that the Jays would have done any worse with one of
>>about twenty OF's in the majors who are more valuable than Carter playing RF.
>
>Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
>Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
So every WS champ represents some magic combination of players that is
the optimally best team? That's ridiculous. The fact is that the Jays
could've replaced Carter with a number of other RFers and been just as
good or better. The same is more obviously true with regard to Pat Borders
and Todd Stottlemyre. I know you understand this.
>But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
>strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
>But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
>they?
I sense a straw man coming...
> In fact, if baseball folds it's tent because of people like yourself
Yes, "stat fans" are the cause of baseball's current problems! I love
it!
>don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
>game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
>substance of your arguments.
The only argument I see here - maybe - is that Joe Carter isn't that
great a RFer. That seems obvious to me. Of course, by your criteria
it's even more obvious as the Blue Jays were nowhere close to winning a
WS this year.
Dave Geiser
David M. Nieporent
>dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
>
>>In article 100000@cml, ron wener <wener@cml> writes:
>>>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
>>>is only one statistic that matters. Joe Carter drove in the winning run
>>>in the 1993 World Series with one of the greatest clutch hits of all time!
>
>>No. There are other statistics that matter. Such as...
>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>
>This is a completely groundless assertion, impossible to prove. And typical
>of the pollution being made to this group by those who have no conception
>whatsoever of sport.
intelligent. And that you have something meaningful to say. Go back to
kindergarden with the other 5 year olds and stop playing with your daddy's
account.
>>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>>most runners of all batters in the league?
>
>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
Who has more excitement attached to him.. Bill Mazeroski or Ernie Banks?
>
>>Now see, there you go, making like the folks on rsbb hate Canadians and that's
>>why we're so hard on Carter. I could care less who he plays for, and I'll show
>>you my impartiality thusly:
>
>Well if you could care less about who he plays for then why the hell are you
>reading a sport group devoted to fans of baseball?
at all?
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Cubs
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Indians
>> - Joe Carter was not a great hitter when he played for the Padres
>> - aanndd, Joe Carter is still not a great hitter now that he plays for the Jays.
>
>_EVERY_ player in major league baseball is a great hitter. And I don't need
>a spreadsheet to tell me so. Carter hit the magic shot. You can't see it.
>You're a philistine. Go away. Stop bothering sport fans.
Every human being on the planet is intelligent compared to you.
What the clear implication in the above sentences was that Joe Carter is not
a great hitter compared to other major leaguers.
And I'm sorry, but I don't believe in magic.
Now go away and leave the posting to the baseball fans.
>>And please don't tell me that the Jays would have done any worse with one of
>>about twenty OF's in the majors who are more valuable than Carter playing RF.
>
>Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
>Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
Please learn the definition of THOUGHT. Extrapolation. Hypothesis.
Every baseball fan cares about these comparisons.
>But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
>strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
>But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
>they? In fact, if baseball folds it's tent because of people like yourself
>don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
>game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
>substance of your arguments.
Gary Gambino Sr.
ib...@utdallas.edu (Ira K. Blum) writes:
>
>In article <39900r$3...@gold.interlog.com>, r...@interlog.com (Roger Maynard) writes:
>|> dpe...@qualcomm.com (Scott Farkas) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article 100000@cml, ron wener <wener@cml> writes:
>|> >>This is a very interesting debate about the value of Joe Carter. There
>|>
>|> Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>|> hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>|> Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
>
>Yeah, just like all the people who remember Bill Mazeroski's shot to win
>the 1960 World Series. I'm sure that Mazeroski's name will stand long in
>the annals of the HOF long after the excitement about Mickey Mantle's and
>Ted William's and Stan Musial's numbers have died down. After all,
>Williams never even won a World Series! He musta been a chump! (insert
>heavy sarcasm and many smileys)
>
>Comparable players:
>Willie Mays ---> Barry Bonds
>Ted Williams ---> Frank Thomas
>Joe DiMaggio ---> Don Mattingly (times 1.7)
>Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
>
>any others?
gei...@bscr.uga.edu
>gei...@bscr.uga.edu writes:
>
>>Tell us about sport, Roger. I've been reading this newsgroup for over
>>a year and I don't remember you ever contributing anything about your
>>own personal experiences as a sport fan regarding any particular game,
>>player, or team, except in contradiction to someone else. I get the
>>vague impression that you're a Jays fan, but other than that, you seem
>>interested in nothing but being contrary.
>
>I was sitting behind third base in the old CNE with Nick Trantos when Nick
>pointed to the Seattle Mariner logo on the outfield wall and said "The next
>pitch goes over Seattle" and sure enough that is where Al Oliver put it.
>
>>Basically, you're a damn poor example of whay you call a "sport fan",
>>at least from what you're showing around here.
>
>I had to buy scalper's tickets for my first game in the dome. "Behind home
>plate!" I insisted and that is exactly what I got. In the very top row.
>Top of the dome.
Well, that's good. Of course, it was in contradiction to someone else.
Try posting such stuff unprompted and I'll start taking you seriously.
>>>>* If Carter is such a great "clutch hitter", why does he routinely strand the
>>>>most runners of all batters in the league?
>>>
>>>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>>>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>>>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
>
>>Are you implying that Frank Thomas is unworthy of excitement? How
>>ridiculous.
>
>Is that what I said? Hmm? You claim to have been _reading_ the group for
>a year...
Well, you did put "excitement" in quotes. I think Thomas is the most
exciting player in the game. More exciting than Joe Carter. That's not
based on numbers. I don't watch that many Sox games, but when I do, I
find myself thinking, "When is Thomas up?", knowing that he is the key
to the game. Of course, his numbers reflect that fact very well...
It's possible to realize that the numbers tell you a lot about the player,
why he's the one worthy of excitement, and be excited about the player,
not the numbers themselves. It is you who imposes this contradiction.
the only numbers that Thomas may ever hit in his career that will
>be as exciting as Carter's homer is one of: .400 BA, Triple Crown, 62+ HR's,
>200 RBI. And of course none of those stats mean squat to the stat head.
Oh, I see. Who's the stat head here? I can say for myself, a firm
believer in OPS and the like, that there are no magical stats that
surround Carter, Thomas, or anyone else. Triple Crowns? Whoop-de-doo.
Who cares. OPS titles? They mean more, but whether Thomas wins another
OPS title in his career means nothing to me. I just want him to keep
producing. Again, it's obvious to me that OPS reflects that production
more than any Triple Crowns he may or may not win, but there's clearly
no convincing you of that.
>>Personally, I didn't find Carter's famous HR all that exciting, despite
>>the fact that it was a WS-winning HR. It felt strongly when he came to bat
>>that the Blue Jays were going to win, and that Mitch Williams couldn't
>>hold a lead if his life depended on it. Of course, any game-ending HR
>>is exciting. But Dave Henderson's HR in game 5 of the '86 ALCS , Gibson's
>>HR in game 1 of the '88 WS and Francisco Cabrera's game-winning hit in
>>the '92 NLCS were all far more exciting to me.
>
>Well there you go...Bucky Dent, Rick Monday...add them to your list and that
>is the essence of baseball. And that stuff slips through the cracks of the
>spreadsheets.
Of course it does. Their accomplishments in the WS, playoffs, or whatever
are not necessarily reflective of their overall value in the long run.
That's news to no one you might term a "stat head".
>Of course the stat fans say "Oh yes we like that stuff too!" Sure. But it
>just isn't that important is it? After all the stat fans can "prove" that
>there is no such thing as clutch hitting...
No, they can't. They can show, over the long haul, that no player is
significantly better at hitting in the clutch than in other situations.
Carter's HR was undeniably clutch. One might also argue that the "non-clutch"
situations are more important than people think.
>>So you, representing a consensus of one, are spouting off defining how
>>"sport fan(s)" ought to look at the world, and then calling people
>>philistine for disagreeing. Let he who is without sin cast the first
>>stone...
>
>Nonsense. The stat fans have teamed up and bullied everyone else off of here
>that doesn't share their severely restricted point of view.
That is clearly not the case.
>>>Still don't get it, do you? The Jays wouldn't have been the Jays without
>>>Carter in the lineup. Or without any other player on that team. Sport fans
>>>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>>>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>>>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
>
>>So every WS champ represents some magic combination of players that is
>>the optimally best team?
>
>Yep. I'm talking about reality here. Leave your "optimal" in fantasy
>land. It doesn't apply to sport because sport isn't a program that can
>be tweaked and run over again. Thank God.
So we're talking apples and oranges. My interest in theoretical optimal
teams is like playing solitaire or having this conversation with you. It
is independent of my enjoyment of baseball games. I can say with confidence
that there are RFers better than Carter. This wouldn't interfere with my
enjoyment of watching Carter hit WS-winning HRs (as surprisingly not-so-
exciting as that was for me).
But stat fans can't grasp this.
>Sport fans don't give a damn about how well the Jays would have done with
>Bonds or Griffey out there instead of Carter unless of course there was
>a realistic opportunity to have had either of them and the Jays lost
>because of it...
Well, there you go. Right now the Chicago Cubs are hopelessly bad. I
want them to be better. So, I think about the players I wish they had and
those I wish they'd get rid of. Those lists are based on my perceptions
of their value in helping the Cubs win. That perception is based largely
on statistics because my brain doesn't do that good a job of assessing value
on its own. I'd rather have Jefferies than Grace. If Carter and Griffey
were both available as free agents, I'd want Griffey. Griffey's never
hit a WS-winning HR, but I'd bet he's more likely to hit HRs, WS-winning
or not, than Carter. That in no way diminishes the magic of Carter's
HR, it just makes him less valuable.
You must've been around when the Jays were a bad team. Did you just ignore
baseball, or root for some other team that won?
>but even then the mature sport fan would merely dismiss
>this bleating as crying over spilt milk...
If it actually involves "bleating", you're right. But no team is good
forever. In the bad times I like to think about what would make my team
better.
>>That's ridiculous. The fact is that the Jays
>>could've replaced Carter with a number of other RFers and been just as
>>good or better. The same is more obviously true with regard to Pat Borders
>>and Todd Stottlemyre. I know you understand this.
>
>We'll never know for sure, will we? But it doesn't really matter either
>because the season is over - the magic is over - and the Jays won. With
>Borders, Stottlemyre and Carter.
It might matter in a few years (or in 1994, for that matter), when the
Jays do/did not win with that combination.
>>>But none of that matters, does it? In fact for nerds like yourself the
>>>strike doesn't really mean much other than you don't have any fresh data.
>>>But your arguments all work just as well on last year's data, anyway, don't
>>>they?
>
>>>don't crave the glory then you could be comparing stats 20 years after the
>>>game died without no perceptible difference in either the quality or
>>>substance of your arguments.
>
>>The only argument I see here - maybe - is that Joe Carter isn't that
>>great a RFer. That seems obvious to me. Of course, by your criteria
>
>After all of this and you missed the point...Joe Carter had the most
>exceptional season of any RF in baseball last year.
I beg to differ. Off the top of my head, I'll take Justice, Gwynn, Walker,
Buhner, maybe even Mondesi and Sosa, probably others I'm not thinking
about (I assume you mean '94).
Please support your argument that Carter was the most exceptional RFer
in baseball in '94, and I'll support mine.
If you meant '93, I didn't miss the point. I just disagree. I think the
real test of the best team is the regular season, and the test of who's the
best RFer is a lot more complex, but is not necessarily reflected in his
team's overall success. And I don't think any other way of seeing this is
valid.
>>it's even more obvious as the Blue Jays were nowhere close to winning a
>>WS this year.
>
>That's right. This year it would have been someone else's turn. Maybe
>Mattingly would have finally got the shot at it. Or Boggs...or Alou...
>Maybe you're catching on after all. (not likely)
That's your criterion, not mine. Individual players and teams are two
different things.
Dave Geiser
Jeff Joseph
Cw> I have found that for some reason, many people in this group seem to
Cw> place a great deal of importance in Sabermetrics when determining a
Cw> players skill. EVERYONE seems to place a great deal of importance in
Cw> BA/OBP/SLG.
I think the first sentence will tell you the most common
response to your hypothesis. BA/OBP/SLG provides a *great* deal, but
not the entire deal. Of course numbers will not be able to give a 100%
complete picture of how good a player was or will be. However, it will
give a *high degree of certainty* as to such. This has been tested
over time by sabermetricians to prove this conclusion.
Cw> The problem with this is that some people feel that by
Cw> looking at only BA/OBP/SLG they can instantly and correctly tell
Cw> whether one player is better than another.( Slugging Percentage is a
Cw> really warped stat.)
Yes, SLG *alone* is a warped stat. Just as OBP and BA *alone*
are warped. But using them *in combination* DOES provide a good
picture.
Cw> Because of this some very good players(mainly sluggers) such as
Cw> Matt Williams and Joe Carter, seem to be getting a bad rap. The
Cw> problem with using the BA/OBP/SLG formula to evaluate sluggers
Cw> is this: First of all cleanup hitters are not paid to get on
Cw> base. With a runner on it is more helpful to hit a sacrifice
Cw> fly or advance the runner than to draw a walk and leave it to
Cw> the lesser hitters near the bottom to drive in the runners.
True, they may not be paid to get on base *per se*. However,
as the term implies, they are paid to "clean up" the hitters who are
on-base. And, the higher the proportion of times the manage to do
this, the better they can be shown. Sure, the walk doesn't guarantee
the RBI like the SAC fly when the runner is on third. But BA/OBP/SLG
does reflect this. In fact, by extracting a *combination* of these
three statistics, you get the clear picture. For cleanup hitters,
right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take a
look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
Cw> That is the point of
Cw> a cleanup hitter, to drive in runners.( I'll get to RBI's later). On
Cw> the other hand, it would be useless for a leadoff hitter to hit a deep
Cw> fly ball that was caught and it doesn't really matter which side of
Cw> the field he hits the ball to if its an out. Since he doesn't have to
Cw> worry about moving runners, he is free to take pitches and draw a
Cw> walk. it is as good as a single. His job is to get on base so he can
Cw> score. My point is that On Base Percentage has much more importancein
Cw> evaluating a hitter near the top of the lineup than a cleanup hitter.
Who said it doesn't? But, remember, if that individual high in
the lineup is caught stealing frequently, would that not be a
significant off-set to his OBP? After all, what he does on-base is
just as important as what he does at the plate. Therefore,
base-stealing percentage is also one of many *other* good analysis
tools (so is Secondary Average to an extent) for non-3-4-5 hitters.
And, again, if you are looking at the cleanup hitter, OBP certainly
*would* be factored in. After all, if he drives in the run while
getting on-base is he not creating an additional opportunity for the
team to score a run? Again for cleanups, you can use the OBP+SLG sum.
It's a good indicator that shows why the Carter's and Williams' taking
the criticism they do. And, of course, you also factor driving in runs
as a proportion of the opportunities they get to drive in runs. Carter
is pretty weak relative to clean-up types in this area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Joseph
E-mail:jeff....@canrem.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Eric London
the strike is going, but wasn't it excessive to suspend Dwight Gooden
for the entire season. Is this the longest suspension in baseball
history for drug use?
Jonathan Bernstein
[lots of perfectly sensible things, and...]
: For cleanup hitters,
: right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
: that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take a
: look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
Haven't looked lately -- did Matty really have a .100-.150 OBP this year???
[and]
: It's a good indicator that shows why the Carter's and Williams' taking
: the criticism they do.
Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs a
year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at least in
1991, 1993 and 1994. Oh, I suppose another reason is that wildly
undeserved 2nd place in the MVP voting this year (anyone remember how he
did the year he led the league in RBIs?).
Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
JHB
Jonathan Bernstein
: Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> writes:
:
: >: For cleanup hitters,
: >: right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
: >: that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take a
: >: look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
: >
: >Haven't looked lately -- did Matty really have a .100-.150 OBP this year???
: No, it only seemed that way. But he *did* have a below-average (even including
: pitchers) .300 OBP.
:
: He actually had a decent 900 OPS -- except that the great players were
: busy having 1050 or more OPS years.
Nothing I really disagree with here. Except for the emphasis, maybe --
but I'll never say Williams is as good a hitter as Bonds or Bagwell or
McGriff. If "great" only means top five hitters in the league, position
not important, M. Williams clearly does not, did not, and will not
qualify.
: >Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
: >
: >Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
: >some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
: >Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
: >some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs a
: >year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at least in
: >1991, 1993 and 1994. Oh, I suppose another reason is that wildly
: >undeserved 2nd place in the MVP voting this year (anyone remember how he
: >did the year he led the league in RBIs?).
:
:
: >Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
: >Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
: >power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
:
: I've seen this set of claims posted before (by you?) but it isn't really
: especially *that* accurate. 1993 and 1994 were the only years where Williams'
: power was "killer," and were the only years where he has significantly better
: than Carter.
: 1990 and 1991 he hit ~315/495. That's no different than Carter has been
: hitting over the last four years or so.
:
: Over their careers, they're QUITE comparable offensively:
:
: Carter: 262/309/469
: Williams: 251/295/467.
I've addressed this before (probably was my posts in the past): comparing
their career averages is, IMO, really unfair to Williams. 1. Williams
had lots of ML ABs when he was younger than Carter. 2. Park effects:
Carter had 4 years in Toronto, now, a few ABs in Wrigley, and lots of
years in Cleveland, which (I think) was relatively neutral (?). Matt
plays in the worst park in the NL recently, and it's always been a
pitchers' park. 3. Position (although to be fair Carter used to play CF).
I don't know what it was at the time, by Murphy shows as a good RH-HR
park now.
: (This doesn't include 1994; Williams' SLG will go up relative to Carter's, but
: not a whole lot in one year.)
But it's his 2nd consecutive SLG much better than anything Carter has
done.
: Now, there are some positional adjustments that might make Williams slightly
: more valuable, but not tons. And park effects, but it's only in the last
: couple of years that Carter has played in a hitter's park.
See above -- do you have anything for Cleveland in the 80s?
: Obviously, Williams is ~6 years younger, so the rest of his career will
: probably be better than the rest of Carter's, but we're not discussing future
: potential.
Why not? Anyway, the last two years (93-94) were significantly better
than Carter. 89-92 they were essentially even: during those years,
Carter was just over peak age, Williams ended 92 at 26 years old. So if
we're talking about *now*, Williams is clearly better, by ~70 points of SLG.
: Matt Williams had a very good year this year, but even so, it wasn't among
: the top 10 in value in the league offensively.
I just filled out an MVP-style ballot, ranking him in a group anywhere
from 6th to 11th. I could take arguments that he should be lower. I
don't think I've ever claimed anything better for him.
: Sure, he had an excellent .600 SLG, but even so, it wasn't as if he led the
: league or anything. (In fact, thanks to Bagwell, he wasn't even CLOSE.) And
: with his *TERRIBLE* on-base percentage, he was a good year. Not a great one.
You have now switched the argument. I was objecting to people who lump
Carter and Williams together, and you are saying, in effect, that
Williams stinks because he's much worse than Bagwell. Of course he's
much worse than Bagwell, and Bonds, and Gwynn, and somewhat worse than
several others. What does this have to do with whether he's better than
Joe Carter? Carter is even more worse than those guys. It's wrong for
Williams to be 2nd in the MVP voting, but it would be silly to put Carter
in the top 10 -- it's not silly, at all, to think Williams was one of the
10 most valuable players in the NL this year.
OTOH, Williams is missing the one thing Carter does well, which is to
stay in the lineup everyday for over a decade, with only one real awful
slump year. Carter's problem is that his good years only make him
OK-good for his position.
My complaint is that I suspect Williams would receive a whole lot less
bashing around here if he turned ten HRs a years to singles and ten outs
a year into BBs. Of course, he would be an awesome hitter if he could
simply turn twenty outs a year into BBs. But he is a good-very good
hitter, esp. for a 3B. Should he avoid a repeat of 1992, when he stunk,
and should he age as well as Carter has, he'll be a marginal-HOF type
over his career. That's two HUGE ifs, and even then he wouldn't be as
good as some 3Bs who are not in the Hall (but deserve, IMO, to be).
However, Joe Carter has never had anything resembling HOF potential.
JHB
Nelson Lu
Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
>Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
>power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
This past year, yes, but during their careers thus far, they have virtually
the same OBP and the same SLG. I don't see anything wrong with lumping them
together, given that Carter, on his career, played a tougher position (CF)
at times and easier positions (LF/RF) at times.
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
David M. Nieporent
>: For cleanup hitters,
>: right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
>: that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take a
>: look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
>
>Haven't looked lately -- did Matty really have a .100-.150 OBP this year???
pitchers) .300 OBP.
He actually had a decent 900 OPS -- except that the great players were
busy having 1050 or more OPS years.
>
>Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
>some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
>Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
>some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs a
>year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at least in
>1991, 1993 and 1994. Oh, I suppose another reason is that wildly
>undeserved 2nd place in the MVP voting this year (anyone remember how he
>did the year he led the league in RBIs?).
>Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
>Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
>power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
especially *that* accurate. 1993 and 1994 were the only years where Williams'
power was "killer," and were the only years where he has significantly better
than Carter.
1990 and 1991 he hit ~315/495. That's no different than Carter has been
hitting over the last four years or so.
Over their careers, they're QUITE comparable offensively:
Carter: 262/309/469
Williams: 251/295/467.
not a whole lot in one year.)
more valuable, but not tons. And park effects, but it's only in the last
couple of years that Carter has played in a hitter's park.
probably be better than the rest of Carter's, but we're not discussing future
potential.
the top 10 in value in the league offensively.
league or anything. (In fact, thanks to Bagwell, he wasn't even CLOSE.) And
with his *TERRIBLE* on-base percentage, he was a good year. Not a great one.
Bernie Gilbert
No. Steve Howe's lifetime suspension is probably the longest. Since Howe
actually pitched throughtout the 1993 and 1994 seasons, one has to asume
that "lifetime suspension" in baseball is a term that means "roughly as
long as a typical WWF tag-team alliance."
As such, Gooden's season suspension should last about 3 innings. Which
hardly seems excessive to me.
Where's Whitey Herzog when you need him?
--
-- Bernie
-- bgi...@ukelele.gcr.com
-- Springfield, VA
Theodore J Kury
Nope. Steve Howe was suspended for life.
Of course, Steve Howe came back 5 months later. I'd be shocked if Gooden
actually served an entire year (such as it is).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kury | "Ahhh, it's just a little twinge in my shoulder, Chuck.
SUNY at Buffalo | Set me and I'll see if I can hit with it."
Dept. of Economics | - _How to End a Volleyball Season in One Easy Lesson_
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul William Stratman
I
>history for drug use?
I really don't think that a one year suspension is very excessive when you
consider Gooden's constant drug habits. This is not the first time he has been
busted for doin' drugs. Last time he was to go to a rehabilitation clinic
for a while, and apparntly that didn't work, so he's been suspended for a
longer period of time, personally I think that if it happens again he should
be banned for life (if they can bust Joe Jackson for hanging around gamblers, and Pete Rose for gambling, surely they
can get rid of Gooden for drugs)
-Paul Stratman
David M. Nieporent
>Scott, who said anything about this being an anti-Canadian rap. My point
>is a simple one. Whether you are a fan of Joe Carter or not, you have to
>admit that he played an important role in the Jays world championships.
What is an "important role?" Bill Clinton played an "importandt role," too --
had he started WW3, the Jays wouldn't have won. Todd Benzinger played an
"important role" too -- had he had a Babe Ruth-like year, the Jays might not
have won.
>To argue whether another outfielder would have had better stats is mute.
We're not arguing over whether another outfielder would have had better
stats. Other outfielder DID have better stats.
>To do that is to ignore Carter's contribution on the field both
>offensively and defensively and his leadership off the field. Given that
>combination, there are only a few other players that I would take in his
>place (i.e. Griffey).
Jays games earlier by making lots of outs. Given his combination, there are
a LOT of other players that I would take in his place.
David M. Nieporent
>In <39e7gf$g...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> ELo...@ix.netcom.com (Eric London) writes:
>
>>Granted, 1995 might not have that many games in the schedule, the way
>>the strike is going, but wasn't it excessive to suspend Dwight Gooden
>>for the entire season. Is this the longest suspension in baseball
>I
>>history for drug use?
came back...
>I really don't think that a one year suspension is very excessive when you
>consider Gooden's constant drug habits. This is not the first time he has been
>busted for doin' drugs. Last time he was to go to a rehabilitation clinic
>for a while, and apparntly that didn't work, so he's been suspended for a
>longer period of time, personally I think that if it happens again he should
>be banned for life (if they can bust Joe Jackson for hanging around gamblers, and Pete Rose for gambling, surely they
>can get rid of Gooden for drugs)
topic before on other threads, but I think it falls under the category of
"none of their business."
They did NOT bust Joe Jackson for "hanging around gamblers." They busted him
for admitting he took money from gamblers to throw the World Series.
Roger Maynard
>we...@cml.com)" <we...@cml.com <"Ron Wener> writes:
>
>Well, I'm speechless... :)
I wish.
>We're not arguing over whether another outfielder would have had better
>stats. Other outfielder DID have better stats.
Not playing for the same team Carter did. Now if you want to make comparisons
between players make sure that the comparisons are geared towards what the
players are trying to do - win the WS - and not what you think they should
do. In any case when you have the figures together that show what other
outfielder has contributed more to his team's WS victory than Carter I
would love to see them. And remember in the REAL world all that counts
is winning the WS. All the rest of it is just pissin' in the wind.
>No, what YOU'RE doing is ignoring his contribution on the field -- to ending
>Jays games earlier by making lots of outs. Given his combination, there are
>a LOT of other players that I would take in his place.
Great. And how did your team do last year? Your problem is that you are
blind to any vision of reality that is substantially different from your
own. If baseball was merely a matter of applied mathematics no one would
play. Can't you grasp the fact that you and Spira and the rest are just
a bunch of blind men huddled about an elephant who strut about from time
to time just because you all happened to grab the same piece at the same
time. You might claim that the "piece" is Frank Thomas' real value but
we all know which piece you clowns are really loathe to let go of...
cordially, as always,
rm
Ken Kaufman
I think you're missing the comical surrealism of it all. The
commissioner's office suspending Gooden for the 1995 season -- that's an
empty room suspending a player for games that may not even be played. I
somehow find this most fitting.
==Ken
Jesse Beard
year and is a real team player and leader. Bonds may have better stats but I
wouldn't want him in my clubhouse (and ther's a lot more names that can
follow his..)
Jeff Joseph
Ge> In article <39900r$3...@gold.interlog.com>, r...@interlog.com (Roger
Ge> Maynard) writes:
>
>>* The Jays made it to their two recent World Series despite having Joe Carter
>>bat cleanup, and not because of it. The same could be said for having Cito
>>Gaston coaching, but that's another thread.
>
[Response from Roger Maynard to this omitted]
Ge> Tell us about sport, Roger. I've been reading this newsgroup for
Ge> over a year and I don't remember you ever contributing anything about
Ge> your own personal experiences as a sport fan regarding any particular
Ge> game, player, or team, except in contradiction to someone else. I get
Ge> the vague impression that you're a Jays fan, but other than that, you
Ge> seem interested in nothing but being contrary.
Actually, being from Toronto myself, I only need to figure out
if his regular seats are on the 100 or 200 level at the Dome - where
his comments seem to fit in perfectly.
Ge> Basically, you're a damn poor example of whay you call a "sport fan",
Ge> at least from what you're showing around here.
Actually, he's about the *perfect* "sports fan" - you know the
guy who calls in to phone of those phone-in programs and (ahem)
dazzles us with analysis with, of course, nothing remotely concrete to
back it up.
Ge> Personally, I didn't find Carter's famous HR all that exciting,
Ge> despite the fact that it was a WS-winning HR. It felt strongly when he
Ge> came to bat that the Blue Jays were going to win, and that Mitch
Ge> Williams couldn't hold a lead if his life depended on it. Of course,
Ge> any game-ending HR is exciting. But Dave Henderson's HR in game 5 of
Ge> the '86 ALCS , Gibson's HR in game 1 of the '88 WS and Francisco
Ge> Cabrera's game-winning hit in the '92 NLCS were all far more exciting
Ge> to me.
Well, let's be fair about it. Regardless of the circumstances,
it *was* a damn exciting finish - at least on par with all those
others you mentioned except that this one closed the Series. I was at
the Dome when it happened and it was *damn* exciting no matter what
Carter is or isn't as a player.
> _EVERY_ player in major league baseball is a great hitter. And I
> don't need a spreadsheet to tell me so. Carter hit the magic
> shot. You can't see it. You're a philistine. Go away. Stop
> bothering sport fans.
Ge> So you, representing a consensus of one, are spouting off defining
Ge> how "sport fan(s)" ought to look at the world, and then calling people
Ge> philistine for disagreeing. Let he who is without sin cast the first
Ge> stone...
Sure. But, of course, if the Jays had a win percentage of .423
and Carter hit .225 with all the RBI's, the viewpoint would turn 180
degrees no doubt.
Scott Farkas
>On 1 Nov 1994, Scott Farkas wrote:
>
>Scott, who said anything about this being an anti-Canadian rap. My point
>is a simple one. Whether you are a fan of Joe Carter or not, you have to
>admit that he played an important role in the Jays world championships.
He sure did. He made the final offensive numbers for the team in their
WS years all the more impressive, considering that they are so far above
his alone.
Joe Carter made a lot of outs for the World Series champs two years in a
row and that's all I'm going to admit.
>To argue whether another outfielder would have had better stats is mute.
Why?
>To do that is to ignore Carter's contribution on the field both
>offensively and defensively and his leadership off the field. Given that
He contributes somewhat offensively, any number of minor leaguers would
contribute better defensively, and his leadership is not something that I
am familiar with.
>combination, there are only a few other players that I would take in his
>place (i.e. Griffey).
And there's my point--there are many, many players I would take instead of
Joe Carter, if for no other reason than the Jays could get two players that
are fairly good for Carter's ridiculous salary.
>Anyway, enough with this debate already. It seems that Jays fans love
>Carter and fans outside Toronto may not like him as much. That seems
>pretty normal. I'm sure the fans in Philly appreciate Len Dykstra more
>than fans in other cities.
Right. All I'm saying is that I, being from neither Philadelphia or
Toronto but having the pleasure (?) of seeing Joe Carter play for a year
in SD, am of the opinion that Lenny Dykstra is far and away more valuable
than Joe Carter, and this is a point that most people would not agree
with.
>Damn do I miss professional sports that are played on the field!
Me too.
Have a good one.
Scott
---
Happiness is contagious. Scatter the seed.
Scott Farkas
>Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
Not entirely. Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good
player *and* the mediots think he's god.
>Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
>some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
>Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
>some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs a
>year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at least in
>1991, 1993 and 1994. Oh, I suppose another reason is that wildly
>undeserved 2nd place in the MVP voting this year (anyone remember how he
>did the year he led the league in RBIs?).
Now now.
Williams is not an exceptional major league hitter by any means. I'll
agree with you that it's pretty unlikely that you can have a .600 SLG and
still be a poor offensive player, but he's nothing incredible as a total
package offensively.
Frankly, Jonathan, I think the main reason you defend Williams is because
he plays in the Bay Area, but in any case, the reason people around here
seem to not like Carter is because he is held in such high regard. Williams,
too, is thought of as more valuable than he is, and that's the main reason
I don't like him...
>Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
>Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
>power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
Well, if Williams keeps up this power binge he's been on the last couple
of years, I would agree with you. Until then, I don't have too much of a
problem with it (take a look at the career numbers, quite close).
But the last couple of years, I would agree with you that Matt Williams
makes Joe Carter look sick.
Thank you for your time.
Scott
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article 3...@agate.berkeley.edu, j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Bernstein) writes:
: >Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
: Not entirely. Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good
: player *and* the mediots think he's god.
OK. Don't forget, he was "underrated" (probably more or less fairly
rated) until the last couple years. Now they've much more than made up
for their perceived "mistake".
: >Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
: >some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
: >Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
: >some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs a
: >year..
: Now now.
: Williams is not an exceptional major league hitter by any means. I'll
: agree with you that it's pretty unlikely that you can have a .600 SLG and
: still be a poor offensive player, but he's nothing incredible as a total
: package offensively.
Agreed; I don't claim otherwise. Good-very good the past two years, not
very good-great.
: Frankly, Jonathan, I think the main reason you defend Williams is because
: he plays in the Bay Area, but in any case, the reason people around here
: seem to not like Carter is because he is held in such high regard. Williams,
: too, is thought of as more valuable than he is, and that's the main reason
: I don't like him...
Small point of accuracy: although I'm a lunatic Giants fan, I'm not from
the Bay Area, at all. I completely agree that Matt Williams is
overrated. I don't object when people are attacked for making silly
claims about him, or when his much-too-high MVP vote in '94 is the
subject of attack. I *do* defend him when I think people underestimate
his actual value.
One of the useful things about the recent "overrated" poll was that it
showed just how subjective "Overrated" can be. I agree that many here
object when someone "is thought of as more valuable than he is", and I
understand the frustration, but Matt Williams is a pretty good ballplayer
and I'm going to do my best to keep that fact as part of the discussion.
: >Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
: >Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
: >power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
: Well, if Williams keeps up this power binge he's been on the last couple
: of years, I would agree with you. Until then, I don't have too much of a
: problem with it (take a look at the career numbers, quite close).
: But the last couple of years, I would agree with you that Matt Williams
: makes Joe Carter look sick.
Fair enough.
JHB
Mike Jones
>GDGA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Gary Gambino Sr.) writes:
>>>Yeah, just like all the people who remember Bill Mazeroski's shot to win
>>>the 1960 World Series. I'm sure that Mazeroski's name will stand long in
>like a little drama, eh?
The problem is that you're a bad drama critic, too. Dent's HR was
remarkable, but for drama it paled beside two other events in that
game:
Lou Piniella's brilliant fake of a ball he'd lost in the sun which
prevented a Sox runner from going from first to third. Luckily for
Lou, the ball fell near enough to him that he was able to hold the
runner at second because the runner was waiting to see if Piniella
would catch the ball. The next batter hit a fly ball that would have
easily scored a runner from third.
The bottom-of-the-ninth, two-out duel between Gossage and
Yaztrzemski. When I think of this game, this is the moment I
remember most painfully. Captain Carl standing in against the Goose,
battling, strength against strength, and in the end Gossage winning,
the popup settling into Nettles' glove, and the season ending for
Sox fans.
Of course, I'm a "stat fan", so I can't possibly appreciate these,
right? You're an ass, Roger.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
You are in a twisting maze of little passages, all different.
Steve Geswein, IBRC
>Sport fans
>don't give a damn about silly and pointless comparisons that are impossible
>to assess because the _only_ proof in baseball is on the field, through
>the season, into the post-season and the WS.
Hate to be the one to tell you, Roger, but we didn't have a World Series
this year. I know you're a little out of touch, so I thought I'd
mention it just to be sure you got the word.
The stuff you heard on the radio this October in Toronto was just a
simulation. Toronto didn't actually beat anybody this year. There are
no rings to count, and we're all baseball fans here nonetheless.
I regret having to tell you this. But, the sooner you come to terms
with this, the better it will be -- for all of us.
Steve Geswein sges...@indyvax.iupui.edu
with my most cordial sympathies, of course.
Mark Anthony
>compared to the "boring" steady production of a Fred McGriff or a Frank
>Thomas. To say otherwise is to prove yourself completely incompetent as far
>as "sport" is concerned.
Carter's best asset to the team is his humour. He is always in a good mood
and keeps the attitute of the team high. I believe his contribution has been
greater to the team than McGriff's, when Freddie played for the Jays.
Ira K. Blum
|> GDGA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Gary Gambino Sr.) writes:
|>
|> >>the 1960 World Series. I'm sure that Mazeroski's name will stand long in
|>
|> like a little drama, eh?
|>
|> >>Ted William's and Stan Musial's numbers have died down. After all,
|> >>Williams never even won a World Series! He musta been a chump! (insert
|> >>heavy sarcasm and many smileys)
|>
|> that doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in stat land, does it? Williams
|> is also remembered as a player who gave up two parts of his career to
|> fighting wars. Of course the stat fan sees those two stints merely as
|> missed opportunities, right? And who gives a shit about triple crowns
|> anway...not stat fans. Now just what was Williams career OPS? I'm
|> sure that must be burned into every stat fans "heart".
|>
Since you missed the obvious sarcasm, I will assume you are being serious.
Williams stands currently as the second best hitter in the history of the
game. That's what I will remember him as.
|> As for the WS, I'm sure that Williams feels that his career was incomplete
|> without one...
|>
Yep, and he'll have to carry that, but since I'm not him and I was not
even born when he retired, I won't have to. Doesn't take away anything
from my perception of him.
|> >>Comparable players:
|> >>Willie Mays ---> Barry Bonds
|>
|> Bonds is such a terror on the base paths. And he plays such a stellar
|> centre field, doesn't he?
|>
He is and he did, before he moved to Left field, where he is still plays
stellar defense. what's your point? I was only talking about offense.
|> >>Ted Williams ---> Frank Thomas
|>
|> Thomas really plays that monster well doesn't he?
|>
Offense only.
|> >>Joe DiMaggio ---> Don Mattingly (times 1.7)
|>
|> ???
|>
Its a stretch. Mattingly could never hit that hard.
|> >>Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
|>
|> Your ignorance is completely astounding.
|>
Why? because Mickey Mantle is some goddamn legendary creature and we
should worship the ground he walks on. Jesus Christ man, get a grip.
Mantle was a great player, but its not like there will never be a better
one! Or is it because Juan plays in Texas where they've never won a
pennant. Its not like Juan's a complete stiff!!!! (well, he almost was
this year) I saw in the Sporting News last spring when they were
reviewing the 1993 season and they inserted some seasons of the past which
were similar in type. Ryan's last season was compared to Cy Young's last,
and they were fairly similar. Doesn't mean anything against Cy Young,
just a comparison.
If you don't agree, just say so and try and post a counter-example,
insults are unbecoming.
|> cordially, as always,
|>
Shove it.
|> rm
Jeff Joseph
Jh> Jeff Joseph (jeff....@canrem.com) wrote:
Jh> [lots of perfectly sensible things, and...]
Jh>
Jh> : For cleanup hitters,
Jh> : right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
Jh> : that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take
Jh> a : look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
Jh>
Jh> Haven't looked lately -- did Matty really have a .100-.150 OBP this
Jh> year???
No. But was I talking about the performance of one season? No.
1994 was, pretty much, Matt's fifth full season in the majors. And,
yes, it was a certainly outstanding one. In Matt a see two very good
seasons (1990, 1991), a clunker (1992) and two stellars (1993, 1994).
Carter has had super seasons as well (1986, 1991, 1993) - and note a
couple of those seasons where Carter, age-wise, was in his early
thirties. Williams will be 29 in the 1995 season (if there is one) and
it is conceivable that the numbers could tail off. I want to see what
Matt is like 3 or 4 seasons more down the road. Until then, I don't
view him much differently than I would Carter.
Jh> [and]
Jh> : It's a good indicator that shows why the Carter's and Williams'
Jh> taking : the criticism they do.
Jh> Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
Jh>
Jh> Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
Jh> some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
Jh> Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
Jh> some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs
Jh> a year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at
Jh> least in 1991, 1993 and 1994.
As opposed to Carter? (And yes, comparing Williams to Schmidt
is an absolute joke. I could probably name about five 3B in baseball
today that are better than Williams. I could *never* say that about
Schmidt.)
Jh> Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
Jh> Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
Jh> power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
I don't see any reason to suggest that Carter is a "much
worse" hitter. Unless you want to factor in park differential (vis a
vis SkyDome vs. Candlestick.) Still, Carter did play in a similar
ballpark to the Stick (Cleveland Stadium) and put up numbers not all
that much different from Williams.
Put it to you this way. I like Carter. I like Williams. I
*love* neither (at this point. I'll re-evaluate Williams in another
4-5 years.) I'd still take a Griffey, Thomas, or Bonds over either of
the two.
Jonathan Bernstein
: -=> Quoting J...@uclink2.berkeley.edu on 11-08-94 04:14 (to All) <=-
: Jh> : For cleanup hitters,
: Jh> : right off the bat (pardon the pun), just add OBP+SLG. Look at where
: Jh> : that puts a Joe Carter/Matt Williams (.700-.750 perhaps?) Then take
: Jh> a : look at, say, a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas. Big difference.
: Jh>
: Jh> Haven't looked lately -- did Matty really have a .100-.150 OBP this
: Jh> year???
: No. But was I talking about the performance of one season? No.
: 1994 was, pretty much, Matt's fifth full season in the majors. And,
: yes, it was a certainly outstanding one. In Matt a see two very good
: seasons (1990, 1991), a clunker (1992) and two stellars (1993, 1994).
: Carter has had super seasons as well (1986, 1991, 1993) - and note a
: couple of those seasons where Carter, age-wise, was in his early
: thirties. Williams will be 29 in the 1995 season (if there is one) and
: it is conceivable that the numbers could tail off. I want to see what
: Matt is like 3 or 4 seasons more down the road. Until then, I don't
: view him much differently than I would Carter.
I'd say Matt Williams had two good seasons, a clunker, and two very good
ones. Carter? His best is fairly good, but I don't see many .500+ SLGs
in his record. No "super" seasons, IMO. I certainly agree he's aged
well; to the extent Williams hasn't done that yet, it's sort of a plus,
but Williams' peak now would let him age a little worse than Carter but
still match Carter's 33-year-old season.
: Jh> Williams, near as I can tell, takes criticism either because it annoys
: Jh> some people that Williams is (incorrectly) compared favorably to Mike
: Jh> Schmidt, the greatest by far 3B of all time, or because it just galls
: Jh> some people that anyone can be a good ML hitter without taking >30 BBs
: Jh> a year. Granted, it's damn hard to do, but Williams does it -- at
: Jh> least in 1991, 1993 and 1994.
: As opposed to Carter? (And yes, comparing Williams to Schmidt
: is an absolute joke. I could probably name about five 3B in baseball
: today that are better than Williams. I could *never* say that about
: Schmidt.)
Yes, as opposed to Carter. I don't think, by the way that there are
really five 3Bs in baseball today *better* than Williams, if fielding is
included; Bonilla, for example, is probably as good, rather than better
(better career to date, but not really better over last couple years).
: Jh> Anyway, the main point here is that Carter is a much worse hitter than
: Jh> Williams, since Carter has some power but Williams has serious killer
: Jh> power, and that I have a thing about them being lumped together.
: I don't see any reason to suggest that Carter is a "much
: worse" hitter. Unless you want to factor in park differential (vis a
: vis SkyDome vs. Candlestick.) Still, Carter did play in a similar
: ballpark to the Stick (Cleveland Stadium) and put up numbers not all
: that much different from Williams.
Why shouldn't we consider the parks? See my other posts...
: Put it to you this way. I like Carter. I like Williams. I
: *love* neither (at this point. I'll re-evaluate Williams in another
: 4-5 years.) I'd still take a Griffey, Thomas, or Bonds over either of
: the two.
I'd say Williams is a useful player, a plus to a team, a guy who will
help you win a pennant. Carter, most of his life, has been basically a
break even player -- won't keep you from winning, won't particularly help
you.
The biggest plus for Carter, of course, is that he never gets hurt, and
he hasn't had as bad a year (vs. his standards) as Williams did in 1992.
JHB
Reede Stockton
(Jeff Joseph) wrote:
> As opposed to Carter? (And yes, comparing Williams to Schmidt
> is an absolute joke. I could probably name about five 3B in baseball
> today that are better than Williams. I could *never* say that about
> Schmidt.)
Are you talking about the total package, or offense only? If you're
talking total package, I'd be interested in the list of five. If offense
only, I won't quibble.
Reede
--
Reede Stockton
Will Riley Software Works
re...@nbn.com
Roger Maynard
>Scott Farkas (dpe...@qualcomm.com) wrote:
>: In article 3...@agate.berkeley.edu, j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Jonathan Bernstein) writes:
>: >Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good player.
>: Not entirely. Carter takes criticism since he's not a particularly good
>: player *and* the mediots think he's god.
>OK. Don't forget, he was "underrated" (probably more or less fairly
>rated) until the last couple years. Now they've much more than made up
>for their perceived "mistake".
Silliness. As the starting RF and cleanup hitter of back to back WS Winners
Carter deserves all the hype he can muster. Baseball is about winning and
losing - it's not about stat fan whining and crowing.
cordially, as always,
rm
P.A. Binkley
>
>>We're not arguing over whether another outfielder would have had better
>>stats. Other outfielder DID have better stats.
>
>Not playing for the same team Carter did. Now if you want to make comparisons
>between players make sure that the comparisons are geared towards what the
>players are trying to do - win the WS - and not what you think they should
>do. In any case when you have the figures together that show what other
>outfielder has contributed more to his team's WS victory than Carter I
>would love to see them. And remember in the REAL world all that counts
>is winning the WS. All the rest of it is just pissin' in the wind.
Then why bother watching baseball before the last game of the World Series?
Do you go through the season saying "Well, that *looked* like
a great catch, but we won't know until October." If not, why not? Do
you admit that a player's actions can have value even if they don't
lead to a World Series ring? If they do have value, why can't they be
evaluated? And if they don't, why bother watching?
You accuse the statheads of not appreciating the game itself; and yet in
your view, there is only black and white: the '93 Jays all get a 10, and
everyone else was just pissin' in the wind. This is real appreciation?
Once you start to say "That was a fine catch, even if it doesn't lead to
a World Series victory", then you open the way to evaluating an individual's
performance independently of his team's success. I assume you do this; I
can't imagine any other reason for watching the game. How do you reconcile
this with your view that World Series success is the only measure of success
in baseball?
To put it another way: what is there to say about Joe Carter except "Carter
has a ring"? If there's nothing else to say, why bother watching the game?
And if there is something else to say, why not let statistical analysis at
least strip away some of the misconceptions that fallible human observation
is prey to?
I suspect I've missed your point, like everyone else who's ever answered one
of your posts.
Peter Binkley
bin...@let.rug.nl
Gail A. Fullman
>Granted, 1995 might not have that many games in the schedule, the way
>the strike is going, but wasn't it excessive to suspend Dwight Gooden
>for the entire season. Is this the longest suspension in baseball
>history for drug use?
>
Between Steve Howe and Doc Gooden, how many weeks/years have they served
suspensions?
Gail Fullman
Manager - ADMO
David M. Nieporent
>Carter's best asset to the team is his humour. He is always in a good mood
>and keeps the attitute of the team high. I believe his contribution has been
>greater to the team than McGriff's, when Freddie played for the Jays.
important because...? keeping the attitude of the team high means...?
Don't you think winning more games, because you've made fewer outs, is much
more important to the team than whether they're laughing? Don't you think
winning more games is much more conducive to creating a good attitude than
being in a good mood?
Scott Farkas
[deletia...]
>I suspect I've missed your point, like everyone else who's ever answered one
>of your posts.
You mean "read one of your posts", don't you?
Scott Farkas
[deletia...]
>Carter's best asset to the team is his humour. He is always in a good mood
>and keeps the attitute of the team high. I believe his contribution has been
>greater to the team than McGriff's, when Freddie played for the Jays.
Joe Carter seems like a great guy, and I'm happy that he is a fairly successful
ball player, but I'll take Barry Bonds or Fred McGriff (who were leading their
respective teams offenses to great heights last year while Joe Carter gave the
wheel to Robbie Alomar and John Olerud) on my team over a good guy anyday.
Not that I think there is any evidence that McGriff isn't a good guy--maybe a
bit stoic, but... And I'll agree that Bonds thinks a lot of himself, but he
*is* a baseball god.
Scott Farkas
Well, sometimes I don't know how I do it myself ... :)
RBI's are a myth. Driving in runs is mainly a function of the guys in front
of the guy who gets all the RBI. The only relatively flattering thing that
can be said about Carter when looking at his RBI's is that he does not get hurt
very often.
Real team player is a myth. Baseball players who are selfish help their team
just as much as if they do the things they do through some kind of nice guy
instinct. For a parallel situation, I might be called a "real team player"
becasue I work hard, but the fact is my instincts are purely selfish. I want
a raise and a promotion. And the end result is the same. It doesn't matter.
Leader is a myth. Which team needs a leader? And why? Don't they all know
what they're doing by now? Besides, if Carter was really leading the Blue
Jays (instead of Sleepin' Cito, although sometimes I wonder if he's actually
in charge) they would make a lot more outs and take a lot less walks trying
to emulate their 'leader'...
Carter may be a nicer guy than Bonds but Carter couldn't carry Bonds jock
on the field, and that's where a player really helps his team.
Craig The White Craig Biggio Richardson
P.A. Binkley <bin...@let.rug.nl> wrote:
>In article <39k1s6$4...@gold.interlog.com> r...@interlog.com (Roger Maynard)
>writes:
>
>To put it another way: what is there to say about Joe Carter except "Carter
>has a ring"? If there's nothing else to say, why bother watching the game?
>And if there is something else to say, why not let statistical analysis at
>least strip away some of the misconceptions that fallible human observation
>is prey to?
>
>I suspect I've missed your point, like everyone else who's ever answered one
>of your posts.
No, I don't think you have - you've just realized something that,
sooner or later, everyone who sees his posts does. Roger evaluates
all players by World Series rings - a concrete, statistical measure
of performance. Nothing else matters but this one statistic.
In short, Roger Maynard is the prototypical "stathead".
--Craig
--
Craig S. Richardson (cri...@eskimo.com)
GM - Pullman Sleepers (OBFBL) -- GM/Manager - Tacoma Black Adders (IBL)
Shortstop - Federal Way Wizards of the National Adult Baseball Assn.
"... things don't look good for Craig. He's a stiff." - Gary Huckabay
Roger Maynard
> Lou Piniella's brilliant fake of a ball he'd lost in the sun which
> prevented a Sox runner from going from first to third. Luckily for
> Lou, the ball fell near enough to him that he was able to hold the
> runner at second because the runner was waiting to see if Piniella
> would catch the ball. The next batter hit a fly ball that would have
> easily scored a runner from third.
> The bottom-of-the-ninth, two-out duel between Gossage and
> Yaztrzemski. When I think of this game, this is the moment I
> remember most painfully. Captain Carl standing in against the Goose,
> battling, strength against strength, and in the end Gossage winning,
> the popup settling into Nettles' glove, and the season ending for
> Sox fans.
Well done. You remember it much more clearly than I do. But that "Mighty
Casey" image of Yaz remains with me still. Is that your impression of
him? Or is your impression a reflection of some numbers?
>Of course, I'm a "stat fan", so I can't possibly appreciate these,
>right?
Why is that? I am a sport fan but I know what an on base average is. The
difference lies in weight. I would say that your memory of Yaz is one that
everyone shares and it has much more of an impact on the sport than the
numbers which you and your kind feel represent his contribution to the
sport. What was Bill Buckner's contribution to baseball? Reggie Jackson's?
Up to now Frank Thomas has made a comparatively small contribution to the
sport. And yet you call him the "best".
Har.
>You're an ass, Roger.
And you show yourself to be wrong about everything.
cordially, as always,
rm
Nelson Lu
>Yes, as opposed to Carter. I don't think, by the way that there are
>really five 3Bs in baseball today *better* than Williams, if fielding is
>included; Bonilla, for example, is probably as good, rather than better
>(better career to date, but not really better over last couple years).
On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
a mistake, please correct me):
(Carter had a .314/.478 year that year, which is better than it looks, since
the recent couple years there had been a huge offensive explosion)
Team Player Comparison to Carter
Atlanta Dale Murphy Worse (.313/.421)
Cincinnati Paul O'Neill Worse (.306/.414)
Houston Kevin Bass Worse (.314/.390)
Los Angeles Mike Marshall Worse? (.314/.445, in Dodger Stadium)
San Diego Tony Gwynn Better (.373/.415)
San Francisco Joel Youngblood? Worse (no numbers)
Chicago Andre Dawson Better? (.344/.508 in Wrigley Field)
Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
New York Darryl Strawberry Better (.366/.545)
Philadelphia Chris James Worse (.283/.389)
Pittsburgh Glenn Wilson Worse (.286/.341)
St. Louis Tom Brunansky Worse? (.340/.414 in Busch Stadium)
California Chili Davis Worse (.326/.432, terrible D)
Chicago Dan Pasqua? Worse (.307/.417)
Kansas City Can't Remember... ? (probably worse :-))
Minnesota Randy Bush Worse? (.365/.434, terrible D)
Oakland Jose Canseco BETTER (.391/.569)
Seattle Darnell Coles? Worse (.326/.438)
Texas Ruben Sierra Worse (.301/.424)
Baltimore Joe Orsulak Worse (.331/.422)
Boston Dwight Evans Better (.375/.487)
Cleveland Carter
Detroit Chet Lemon Worse? (no numbers)
Milwaukee Can't Remember... (Probably worse, if I can't recall :-))
New York Dave Winfield Better (.398/.530)
Toronto Jesse Barfield Worse (.302/.425, great D)
Of the ones that I can remember, only Gwynn, Strawberry, Canseco, Evans, and
Winfield were significantly better, and most of the crop is quite a bit worse
(worse than the current 3B competitors that Williams has).
>I'd say Williams is a useful player, a plus to a team, a guy who will
>help you win a pennant. Carter, most of his life, has been basically a
>break even player -- won't keep you from winning, won't particularly help
>you.
He has only been a useful player, really, for three seasons. We'll have to
watch if he can keep this up.
>The biggest plus for Carter, of course, is that he never gets hurt, and
>he hasn't had as bad a year (vs. his standards) as Williams did in 1992.
Actually, he did -- his '90 was absolutely atrocious (.290/.391).
===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Mike Jones
>In article <39s0v0$i...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>Yes, as opposed to Carter. I don't think, by the way that there are
>>really five 3Bs in baseball today *better* than Williams, if fielding is
>>included; Bonilla, for example, is probably as good, rather than better
>>(better career to date, but not really better over last couple years).
>On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
>there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
>can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
>better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
>a mistake, please correct me):
>(Carter had a .314/.478 year that year, which is better than it looks, since
>the recent couple years there had been a huge offensive explosion)
Well, since I just happen to have the 1989 Elias near my PC...
>Team Player Comparison to Carter
>Atlanta Dale Murphy Worse (.313/.421)
>Cincinnati Paul O'Neill Worse (.306/.414)
>Houston Kevin Bass Worse (.314/.390)
I'm not sure this is much worse once you figure in park factor.
Houston deflated SLG 9.6% that year. Carter's still better, but it's
closer than it looks since the dome also deflated AVG by 4% (I don't
have park factor for OBP).
>Los Angeles Mike Marshall Worse? (.314/.445, in Dodger Stadium)
Hmmm. I would normally expect this to be *better* than Carter after
adjusting for park factor, but Dodger Stadium actually BOOSTED SLG by
3.3% in '88.
>San Diego Tony Gwynn Better (.373/.415)
>San Francisco Joel Youngblood? Worse (no numbers)
Elias says Candy Maldonado. Worse (.33/.377)
>Chicago Andre Dawson Better? (.344/.508 in Wrigley Field)
Probably better. Park factor for SLG showed only a 6.1% boost.
>Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
Hubie Brooks, actually. Sightly worse (.318/.447)
>New York Darryl Strawberry Better (.366/.545)
>Philadelphia Chris James Worse (.283/.389)
>Pittsburgh Glenn Wilson Worse (.286/.341)
>St. Louis Tom Brunansky Worse? (.340/.414 in Busch Stadium)
>California Chili Davis Worse (.326/.432, terrible D)
>Chicago Dan Pasqua? Worse (.307/.417)
Pasqua split it with Ivan Calderon (.299/.424). Euuuggh.
>Kansas City Can't Remember... ? (probably worse :-))
Surprise! Danny Tartabull, (.369/.515). *Much* better.
>Minnesota Randy Bush Worse? (.365/.434, terrible D)
>Oakland Jose Canseco BETTER (.391/.569)
>Seattle Darnell Coles? Worse (.326/.438)
Jay Buhner, actually. Still worse, though (.302/.421)
>Texas Ruben Sierra Worse (.301/.424)
>Baltimore Joe Orsulak Worse (.331/.422)
>Boston Dwight Evans Better (.375/.487)
>Cleveland Carter
>Detroit Chet Lemon Worse? (no numbers)
Lemon's the man, and I think I'd put him about even (.346/.436). 30 points
of OBP seems an adequate trade for 40 points of SLG.
>Milwaukee Can't Remember... (Probably worse, if I can't recall :-))
Split between Glenn Braggs, worse (.307/.423)
and Rob Deer, about even (.328/.441). Deer got most of the PT.
>New York Dave Winfield Better (.398/.530)
>Toronto Jesse Barfield Worse (.302/.425, great D)
>Of the ones that I can remember, only Gwynn, Strawberry, Canseco, Evans, and
>Winfield were significantly better, and most of the crop is quite a bit worse
>(worse than the current 3B competitors that Williams has).
I'd certainly add Tartabull to the list, and note that Brunansky,
Deer, and Lemon were about as good.
Of course, "clutch hitter" and "RBI man" Joe Carter was *not* among
the top 20 hitters in the league in
- Batting average with runners on base
- Batting average in pressure situations
- Home run percentage in pressure situations
- % of runners driven in from scoring position in pressure
situations
- Batting average with runners in scoring position
- Batting average with runners in scoring position and two outs
- % of runners driven in from scoring positions
- % of runners driven in from third with less than two outs.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a Sacrament.
- Florynce Kennedy
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <39s0v0$i...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: >Yes, as opposed to Carter. I don't think, by the way that there are
: >really five 3Bs in baseball today *better* than Williams, if fielding is
: >included; Bonilla, for example, is probably as good, rather than better
: >(better career to date, but not really better over last couple years).
: On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
: there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
: can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
: better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
: a mistake, please correct me):
: (Carter had a .314/.478 year that year, which is better than it looks, since
: the recent couple years there had been a huge offensive explosion)
: Team Player Comparison to Carter
: Atlanta Dale Murphy Worse (.313/.421)
-- 1988 is Murphy's 1st bad year; in '87 he was much better than JC.
: Texas Ruben Sierra Worse (.301/.424)
-- Worse that year, but about equal for '87-'92.
: Of the ones that I can remember, only Gwynn, Strawberry, Canseco, Evans, and
: Winfield were significantly better, and most of the crop is quite a bit worse
: (worse than the current 3B competitors that Williams has).
Really? Sprague? Brosius? Easley? Maybe; I guess Maldonado/Youngblood
is pretty miserable.
In 1993-1994, who has been better than Williams? Fryman, Ventura,
Bonilla, and Caminiti are roughly in the same boat as Matt; I don't think
you can really make a case that they of them were better, if you include
fielding (Bonilla's been a little better hitter for the two years).
Caminiti was as good this year, but not last year; I suspect you'd rather
have Ventura, but are his RC/26 really better? What about league/ballpark?
Fryman was off this year.
I'd say Boggs has been better.
: >I'd say Williams is a useful player, a plus to a team, a guy who will
: >help you win a pennant. Carter, most of his life, has been basically a
: >break even player -- won't keep you from winning, won't particularly help
: >you.
: He has only been a useful player, really, for three seasons. We'll have to
: watch if he can keep this up.
Totally agree.
(Actually, it's four, sort of -- 1990 and 1991 were OK years, Joe
Carter-type years; 1992 stunk; 1993 and 1994 have been very nice).
If Williams does no better over the rest of his career than Carter did
1989-1994, he'll not have been a great player. I don't think it's
unreasonable to anticipate at least somewhat better for Williams, since
Carter in 1987 and 1988 was worse than Williams in 1993 and 1994.
: >The biggest plus for Carter, of course, is that he never gets hurt, and
: >he hasn't had as bad a year (vs. his standards) as Williams did in 1992.
: Actually, he did -- his '90 was absolutely atrocious (.290/.391).
I thought about that, but since his standards are lower (or so I'm
arguing) I didn't think I should mention it...I guess that wasn't totally
honest.
JHB
Craig The White Craig Biggio Richardson
Funny - I'd take him in *my* clubhouse in a second if it meant I'd
also get his performance on the field.
Tino Martinez is a great guy - real team player. Wanna trade?
Scott Fischthal
>Carter's best asset to the team is his humour. He is always in a good mood
>and keeps the attitute of the team high. I believe his contribution has been
>greater to the team than McGriff's, when Freddie played for the Jays.
>
David Letterman must be *some* ballplayer. I wonder why no one's signed
him?
If I want a comedian, I'll sign one. If I want a "great leader", I'll
hire Winston Churchill (okay, I couldn't think of any living ones ;-). If
I want a "positive influence in the clubhouse", I'll send an escort for
Mother Theresa.
If I want a ballplayer, Fred McGriff and Barry Bonds (and many others)
are preferable to Joe Carter.
Scott Fischthal
Artificial Intelligence Technology Center
Loral Federal Systems Group
Gaithersburg, MD
Roger Maynard
>In article <39bv5s$r...@gold.interlog.com>, r...@interlog.com (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>>>Who cares about the routine situations? Only nerds like yourself. Carter's
>>>>hit will be remembered by sport fans long after any "excitement" about
>>>>Frank Thomas' numbers have died down.
>>
>>>Are you implying that Frank Thomas is unworthy of excitement? How
>>>ridiculous.
>>
>>Is that what I said? Hmm? You claim to have been _reading_ the group for
>>a year...
>Well, you did put "excitement" in quotes. I think Thomas is the most
That's right. "Excitement" refers to Thomas' numbers not Thomas himself.
I think that this is clear enough.
>exciting player in the game. More exciting than Joe Carter. That's not
>based on numbers. I don't watch that many Sox games, but when I do, I
>find myself thinking, "When is Thomas up?", knowing that he is the key
>to the game. Of course, his numbers reflect that fact very well...
I used to find myself thinking the same thing about Alfredo. Often he was
key to the outcome of the game as well.
>It's possible to realize that the numbers tell you a lot about the player,
>why he's the one worthy of excitement, and be excited about the player,
>not the numbers themselves. It is you who imposes this contradiction.
If you think that it is the numbers that communicate excitement then as far
as I am concerned you've missed the point.
>the only numbers that Thomas may ever hit in his career that will
>>be as exciting as Carter's homer is one of: .400 BA, Triple Crown, 62+ HR's,
>>200 RBI. And of course none of those stats mean squat to the stat head.
>Oh, I see. Who's the stat head here? I can say for myself, a firm
>believer in OPS and the like, that there are no magical stats that
>surround Carter, Thomas, or anyone else. Triple Crowns? Whoop-de-doo.
>Who cares.
The people, including the players, who have been following baseball for years.
That's who cares.
>OPS titles? They mean more, but whether Thomas wins another
>OPS title in his career means nothing to me. I just want him to keep
>producing. Again, it's obvious to me that OPS reflects that production
>more than any Triple Crowns he may or may not win, but there's clearly
>no convincing you of that.
WS rings are the only measure of production that has any real meaning in
Baseball. OPS is only a predictive tool. It will give you your best "on
paper". But the proof, as always, is in the pudding. If you think that
OPS gives you a better indication of a player's share in the glory than
a WS ring then you clearly don't understand sport.
>>>Personally, I didn't find Carter's famous HR all that exciting, despite
>>>the fact that it was a WS-winning HR. It felt strongly when he came to bat
>>>that the Blue Jays were going to win, and that Mitch Williams couldn't
>>>hold a lead if his life depended on it. Of course, any game-ending HR
>>>is exciting. But Dave Henderson's HR in game 5 of the '86 ALCS , Gibson's
>>>HR in game 1 of the '88 WS and Francisco Cabrera's game-winning hit in
>>>the '92 NLCS were all far more exciting to me.
>>
>>Well there you go...Bucky Dent, Rick Monday...add them to your list and that
>>is the essence of baseball. And that stuff slips through the cracks of the
>>spreadsheets.
>Of course it does. Their accomplishments in the WS, playoffs, or whatever
>are not necessarily reflective of their overall value in the long run.
But you are exactly wrong. In the long run it is the homers that Dent and
Monday et al made that reflect their contribution to the glory of sport.
One misplay at first defines Bill Buckner. It may not be fair - and it may
not be accurate on paper - but this is the way of the world and this is the
way of sport. Sport is about winning and losing, about _besting_ your
opposition on the field through test. What you people do is determine
some "best" on paper and then try to convince the world that your "best"
somehow has more meaning than the real best. Your best is nothing more
than a prediction based on aspects of past performance that you find
meaningful. But you can't even predict with any more accuracy than my
paperboy who is going to win next year's WS. And so you invent a "best"
team, different again than the team that proves to be the best on the
field and then you try to say that your best team is somehow better than the
one that proved itself to be best.
C'mon guys. Take your heads out of your asses and open your eyes.
cordially, as always,
rm
Floating Head of Death
Mark Anthony <Mark_A...@galaxy.com> wrote:
>Carter's best asset to the team is his humour. He is always in a good mood
>and keeps the attitute of the team high. I believe his contribution has been
>greater to the team than McGriff's, when Freddie played for the Jays.
Are people really this dopey?
"Yeah, I heard the Yanks hired Billy Crystal. He'll hit about
.095 and can't really field, but his most vaulable asset his his
humor. If it weren't for Billy, they'd be 0-162."
I like Joe Carter, as a person, plenty (given what little I
suppose I know about him). But more of a contribution than Fred
McGriff? Keeeeripes.
--
Chip Hart - ch...@pcc.com | "Dad! You shot the Zombie Flanders!"
People's Computer Co. | "He was a zombie?"
Essex Junction, Vermont |
RAPA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
>there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
>can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
>better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
>a mistake, please correct me):
>
>(Carter had a .314/.478 year that year, which is better than it looks, since
>the recent couple years there had been a huge offensive explosion)
>
>Team Player Comparison to Carter
>Atlanta Dale Murphy Worse (.313/.421)
>Cincinnati Paul O'Neill Worse (.306/.414)
>Houston Kevin Bass Worse (.314/.390)
>Los Angeles Mike Marshall Worse? (.314/.445, in Dodger Stadium)
>San Diego Tony Gwynn Better (.373/.415)
>San Francisco Joel Youngblood? Worse (no numbers)
>
I'm trying to supply names, no numbers here in the office.
>Chicago Andre Dawson Better? (.344/.508 in Wrigley Field)
>Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
>New York Darryl Strawberry Better (.366/.545)
>Philadelphia Chris James Worse (.283/.389)
>Pittsburgh Glenn Wilson Worse (.286/.341)
>St. Louis Tom Brunansky Worse? (.340/.414 in Busch Stadium)
>
>California Chili Davis Worse (.326/.432, terrible D)
>Chicago Dan Pasqua? Worse (.307/.417)
Johnson was already in CF and Raines was yet to arrive; I think
Pasqua was a LF/DH/1B...like Kittle, Walker, et al.
>Kansas City Can't Remember... ? (probably worse :-))
>Minnesota Randy Bush Worse? (.365/.434, terrible D)
he was traded to St. Louis for Herr in the spring. Then...?
>Oakland Jose Canseco BETTER (.391/.569)
>Seattle Darnell Coles? Worse (.326/.438)
>Texas Ruben Sierra Worse (.301/.424)
>
>Baltimore Joe Orsulak Worse (.331/.422)
>Boston Dwight Evans Better (.375/.487)
>Cleveland Carter
>Detroit Chet Lemon Worse? (no numbers)
>New York Dave Winfield Better (.398/.530)
Hmm. Trivia.
>Toronto Jesse Barfield Worse (.302/.425, great D)
>
>Of the ones that I can remember, only Gwynn, Strawberry, Canseco, Evans, and
>Winfield were significantly better, and most of the crop is quite a bit worse
>(worse than the current 3B competitors that Williams has).
>
Rodger
rapa...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
SWeick
Lu) writes:
Good analysis, but one small problem. Didn't Carter play left field,
first and
sometimes center for Cleveland? I remember Cory Snyder playing right
almost all the time and Mel Hall played it the other times.
Stephen Weick
(Trying out AOL, not as good a reader as xrn tho)
Rany Jazayerli
That's because there isn't one, Peter. Roger's just pissin' in the wind.
| Rany Jazayerli. cam...@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu |
| Royals in '95. or cam...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu |
| |
\__________________________________________________________/
Craig The White Craig Biggio Richardson
<RAPA...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>In article <39uqf5$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
>n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>
>>Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
>
>This doesn't look right. Mitch Webster?
At least part-time
>>Detroit Chet Lemon Worse? (no numbers)
>
>Gibson was probably the RFer for either Detroit or LA.
If this was '88, definitely LA.
Yaska Sankar
>n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>
>>On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
>>there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
>>can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
>>better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
>>a mistake, please correct me):
>>
>>(Carter had a .314/.478 year that year, which is better than it looks, since
>>the recent couple years there had been a huge offensive explosion)
>>
>>Team Player Comparison to Carter
[bunch o' 1988 RFs deleted]
>>Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
>
>This doesn't look right. Mitch Webster?
Neither. Hubie Brooks was moved after the '87 season from SS, where he
was brutal defensively, to RF where he was just as bad. In 1988,
Brooks hit about .319/.447 in slightly pitcher-friendly Olympic Stadium,
so it's pretty close to Carter's '88.
Of course, other than Brooks' 1988 and injury-shortened '86, as an Expo,
he hit more like an average shortstop instead of an average RF.
FWIW, Mitch Webster was dealt to the Cubs for Dave Martinez midway through
the season, and while they filled in for the oft-injured Brooks,
both were primarily CFs for the Expos in 1988.
>>Of the ones that I can remember, only Gwynn, Strawberry, Canseco, Evans, and
>>Winfield were significantly better, and most of the crop is quite a bit worse
>>(worse than the current 3B competitors that Williams has).
Yaska ! ya...@eecg.toronto.edu ! Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
Sankar ! ! University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada
Nelson Lu
>n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>
>>On the other hand, when Carter was 28 (Williams' current age), I don't think
>>there were that many right fielders better than he either. Let me see if I
>>can try to recall the '88 RFs (I can probably remember that season a little
>>better than '87 or '89, thanks to some quirks for me that year, but if I make
>>a mistake, please correct me):
>>
>>San Francisco Joel Youngblood? Worse (no numbers)
>>
>I think the SF OF that year was Maldanado, Leonard and a CFer.
>I'm trying to supply names, no numbers here in the office.
Yeah, after thinking about it, I think it was Candy Maldonado, who was
.311/.377 and thus worse than Carter.
>>Montreal Dave Martinez? Worse (.313/.351)
>
>This doesn't look right. Mitch Webster?
Someone corrected me through e-mail: this was Hubie Brooks, who was .318/.447;
still worse than Carter, but not that much worse.
>>Chicago Dan Pasqua? Worse (.307/.417)
>
>I think the correct answer is Calderon here. Was Baines a RFer?
>Johnson was already in CF and Raines was yet to arrive; I think
>Pasqua was a LF/DH/1B...like Kittle, Walker, et al.
Calderon only played 79 games that year, so he wasn't the full-time starter
(I believe he was injured); he was .299/.424.
>
>>Kansas City Can't Remember... ? (probably worse :-))
>
>This was Danny Tartabull and he was definitely better than Carter.
Yup. (.369/.515)
>
>>Minnesota Randy Bush Worse? (.365/.434, terrible D)
>
>I don't think Bush was actually the starter. This was Bruno until
>he was traded to St. Louis for Herr in the spring. Then...?
I think Bush was the starter -- Brunansky was dealt 14 games into the season;
Bush platooned with a right-hander, but got the chunk of the playing time.
>>Oakland Jose Canseco BETTER (.391/.569)
>>Seattle Darnell Coles? Worse (.326/.438)
>
>Worse, I think this was Mike Kingery.
Kingery played CF, I think.
>>Detroit Chet Lemon Worse? (no numbers)
>
>Gibson was probably the RFer for either Detroit or LA.
Gibson was playing LF for Los Angeles that year.
>>Milwaukee No remember Worse? (if can't remember...)
>
>Hmm. Trivia.
After thinking about it, I think it might be Glenn Braggs for part of the
season (.307/.423) but I can't think who the other part-timer was.
Scott Farkas
Grrrrrr....
That's *Rob Deer*, Nelson.
He still gets no respect.
Thank you for your time.
Scott
President
Rob Deer Fan Club
Mike Jones
>How can anybody debate the value of Carter? He drives in over a 100 runs a
>year and is a real team player and leader. Bonds may have better stats but I
>wouldn't want him in my clubhouse (and ther's a lot more names that can
>follow his..)
Now how the heck can you know whether Carter is a leader or not? Have
you ever spoken personally to any player who's been on a team with
Carter? Can you give just one or two examples of his "leadership", and
how it may have translated into better performance for his team?
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Dying is a very dull, dreary affair. And my advice to you is to have
nothing whatever to do with it.
- W. Somerset Maughm
Nelson Lu
>In article <39uqf5$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson
>Lu) writes:
>
>Good analysis, but one small problem. Didn't Carter play left field,
>first and
>sometimes center for Cleveland? I remember Cory Snyder playing right
>almost all the time and Mel Hall played it the other times.
Argh. You are right... I forgot that Carter played CF (and exclusively so)
that year rather than RF or LF. Let me see if I can remember the CFs from
that year, for another comparison thing:
(Again, Carter was .314/.478)
Team Player Comparison to Carter
Atlanta Albert Hall Worse? (no numbers)
Cincinnati Eric Davis Better (.363/.489)
Houston Gerald Young Worse (.334/.325)
Los Angeles John Shelby Worse (.320/.395)
San Diego Marvell Wynne? Worse? (no numbers)
San Francisco Brett Butler Better, IMO (.393/.398)
Chicago Mitch Webster Worse (.337/.356)
Montreal Dave Martinez Worse (.313/.351)
New York Lenny Dykstra Worse (.321/.385)
Philadelphia Phil Bradley? Even? (no numbers)
Pittsburgh Andy Van Slyke Better (.345/.506)
St. Louis Willie McGee Worse? (.329/.372 in Busch, 41-6 SB/CS)
California Devon White Worse (.297/.389)
Chicago Dave Gallagher Worse (.354/.406)
Kansas City Willie Wilson Worse? (no numbers)
Minnesota Kirby Puckett Better (.375/.545)
Oakland Dave Henderson Better (.363/.525)
Seattle Henry Cotto Worse (.302/.373)
Texas Oddibe McDowell Worse? (no numbers)
Baltimore Brady Anderson Worse (.272/.286)
Boston Ellis Burks Better (.367/.481)
Cleveland Carter
Detroit Gary Pettis Worse (.285/.277)
Milwaukee Robin Yount Better (.369/.465)
New York Cl. Washington Better? (no numbers)
Toronto Lloyd Moseby Worse (.343/.369)
Hmmm... Actually looks a bit worse...
Roger Maynard
>Then why bother watching baseball before the last game of the World Series?
Indeed. Why watch at all? Isn't it just better to wait until the stat
books come out before we know which players were the "best"?
>Do you go through the season saying "Well, that *looked* like
>a great catch, but we won't know until October." If not, why not? Do
Why not? Because I can appreciate a great catch without having to know
whether or not it was the "best" catch or whether or not it was made by
the "best" player.
>you admit that a player's actions can have value even if they don't
>lead to a World Series ring? If they do have value, why can't they be
>evaluated? And if they don't, why bother watching?
Does beauty have value? Sure. But can you attach a number to it? Can you
say that Mozart was "better" than Bach? And if you can't then why bother
listening?
>You accuse the statheads of not appreciating the game itself; and yet in
I use the term "stat fans". Statheads sounds too much like shitheads to
me and I never resort to name calling.
>your view, there is only black and white: the '93 Jays all get a 10, and
Hardly. It is the stat fan p.o.v. that is black and white. I won't say
that player A rates higher than player B. And I won't give the Jays a 10.
I will say that the Jays as a team accomplished what all teams set out to
do at the beginning of the year and that the players are to be treated
with respect as winners. Carter is a winner. Bonds is a loser. At
the beginning of the year all the players in the game set out to determine
which would be winners and which would be losers. They did not set out to
see which of them would place the highest in the statistical categories that
stat fans feel are important. They set out to win the WS.
>everyone else was just pissin' in the wind. This is real appreciation?
Sorry my friend but sport is about winning and losing. If you don't like
if take up crochet. Or statistics.
>Once you start to say "That was a fine catch, even if it doesn't lead to
>a World Series victory", then you open the way to evaluating an individual's
>performance independently of his team's success. I assume you do this; I
I can say that it was a fine catch without putting a number beside it. We
did this one above.
>can't imagine any other reason for watching the game. How do you reconcile
>this with your view that World Series success is the only measure of success
>in baseball?
Because I can appreciate the catch as the thing-in-itself without having to
relate it to other catches. This is the difference between being a human
being and being a computing device. Humans (some of us) have an aeshetic
sense. The rest are, quite frankly, a dreary and dull bunch of nerds
that make the world bleeker and uglier each time they open their mouths.
>To put it another way: what is there to say about Joe Carter except "Carter
>has a ring"? If there's nothing else to say, why bother watching the game?
You are completely clueless, aren't you? You don't have an inkling about
sport at all, do you? Sport fans don't watch sport just so that they have
something to talk about.
>And if there is something else to say, why not let statistical analysis at
>least strip away some of the misconceptions that fallible human observation
>is prey to?
Sure. Now why don't you record an outstanding musical performance and then
take it home and study it with some sophisticated electronic gear? You will
see that even the best musicians are not always exactly on pitch. You can
smooth that out. And their timing is not always completely perfect. Again
you can smooth that out. Now what do you have left? It's not music. Any
music lover will tell you that. Take it a bit further. Compare two great
performances and see that in one the artist is off pitch and time a little
more often than the other. The stat fan would immediately rush out and
announce to his friends that the one musician was superior to the other.
Stat fans are philistines. I really wish that they would either go away
or shut up.
>I suspect I've missed your point, like everyone else who's ever answered one
>of your posts.
I suspect that this is an insult. However I'm not sure so if it is it isn't
a very good one. Perhaps I've missed your point.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger Maynard
>In article <651165...@u87.galaxy.com>,
>Jesse Beard <Jesse...@galaxy.com> wrote:
>>How can anybody debate the value of Carter? He drives in over a 100 runs a
>>year and is a real team player and leader. Bonds may have better stats but I
>>wouldn't want him in my clubhouse (and ther's a lot more names that can
>>follow his..)
>Funny - I'd take him in *my* clubhouse in a second if it meant I'd
>also get his performance on the field.
Just shows that your values in sport are distorted. Carter's past performance
has contributed to two WS victories. How about Bonds?
(And I am _not_ saying that Carter is "better" than Bonds so the more simple
minded of you can holster your flame throwers.)
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger Maynard
>Jesse...@galaxy.com (Jesse Beard) writes:
>>How can anybody debate the value of Carter? He drives in over a 100 runs a
>>year and is a real team player and leader. Bonds may have better stats but I
>>wouldn't want him in my clubhouse (and ther's a lot more names that can
>>follow his..)
>Now how the heck can you know whether Carter is a leader or not? Have
>you ever spoken personally to any player who's been on a team with
>Carter? Can you give just one or two examples of his "leadership", and
>how it may have translated into better performance for his team?
Not that I really care about leadership...but just for Mr. Jones...
1. If you ever see the way Carter greets White after White hits a home
run you'll see part of the reason White now has the confidence to
excel as the Jay's leadoff hitter.
2. His constant heckling of "Mrs. Gruber" helped get that asshole off
the team. Carter is well known for his willingness to play while he
is injured.
Remember Mike that just because something isn't obvious to you (and isn't
that a huge set) doesn't mean it isn't obvious to just about everyone else.
cordially, as always,
rm
Craig The White Craig Biggio Richardson
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Argh. You are right... I forgot that Carter played CF (and exclusively so)
>that year rather than RF or LF. Let me see if I can remember the CFs from
>that year, for another comparison thing:
>
Bradley was never a real CF. This would be Milt Thompson.
>Baltimore Brady Anderson Worse (.272/.286)
Brady wasn't a full-timer till '92. Big Mac says Fred Lynn.
Scott Tribe
I see...
Just for recollection, I went back thru some of the old articles back
just after the Jays had won the 93 WS, and I found this interesting
article by Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star; who was discussing possible
MVP candidates for the Blue Jays that year.. this following quote is
Perkin's case for Carter:
"Carter.. plays right field every day with some distinction, nobody ever
talks about Carter and defence. With Carter, the subject is driving in
runs and nobody has done it better then he has. Carter is somewhat
penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
100-plus and everybody yawns. ** The number crunchers can whip up a
melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Regardless of the if's and
but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does. If what he
does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
everybody does. ** (Ed: Commentary - those are my italics to draw your
attention to the fact that Perkins obviously must read this usenet
base about Joe Carter and statheads <grin>)"
Just s personal observation: I've seen a lot of people pooh-pooh that
Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
team and sat in the clubhouse.. I'd be more then willing to bet not too
many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
teams.. Carter is a leader on this team.. Keeping the team loose and
having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
(The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
1 other thing: I still see how much Cito Gaston has been constantly
derided for his management style.. I find it rather ironic that in a
country where everyone promotes laissez-faire as the best way to go in
government and economics, if a ball manager does the same thing, he gets
jumped on here for not managing "aggressively".. If you all applied the
principles in politics that you all seem to want in baseball, you'd have
all voted Democrat in your primaries, rather then Republican..:)
I dont know why Cito gets a bad rap on here.. I considered Fregosi to be
much of a stand-pat manager as Cito.. and I would put Sparky in his later
managing years in the same boat, but I never see as much intense
criticism of them..
I certainly would HOPE that it isnt because Cito is a black man, and some
aspects of American society cant deal with that.. To say that Cito isnt
smart, smacks of it though...
I concede that Cito doesnt do as much strategy as other managers, but he
certainly is a good communicator and good at handling his players: I dont
think that anyone can dispute that.. and the results speak for themselves
- 2 WS championships. I have seen many teams over the years that also had
many superstars on a team, and all the talent in the world, and it went
nowhere.. I think here specifically of the '92 Mets, Bosox, and Dodgers,
who all spent as much money or more then Toronto did on salary and free
agens, but who all ended up last or near last in their divisions..
That's all I have to say on the matter - I know hardly any of you will
agree with me, except for the occasional Blue Jay fan.. :) but, I had to
get it off of my chest, and attempt to counter some of the points I see
over and over and OVER on here..
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <39r39d$d...@gold.interlog.com>,
: Roger Maynard <r...@interlog.com> wrote:
: >It ain't the numbers...it's the books and the names. 100
: >years from now a lot more people will know about Kirby Puckett than Frank
: >Thomas. You can bank on it.
: I'd take that bet, but I'd have no way to collect. Thomas is going to
: hit balls out of ballparks, and do some things with raw strength and
: hard work that only a very few in baseball have ever done. In 100
: years, I think the arguments will be "Babe, Ted, Frank, or Stig?"
Let's see...what causes players to be remembered?
-- Raw stats: milestones in certain categories. 500 HRs, although if
Thomas, Griffey, and Gonzalez all make it (very unlikely) the fame mark
might actually move to 600 (!), with 6 members. 3000 hits. 300
(pitcher's) Wins. These milestones may someday be joined by others,
although I just can't believe that kids 50 years from now will memorize
the top ten career RC leaders list the way we memorized the 500 HR guys.
-- Raw stats: single season accomplishments. Roger Maris. .400
hitters. A lot of people will have heard of Denny McLain 50 years from
now. (Thigpen???!??)
-- Famous pennant race, or, more likely, postseason moments: Bucky Dent.
I'd guess players on good teams are more famous than players on bad
teams; we've all heard of Bob Meusel.
-- Hall of Fame: various reasons over and above the stats cited above,
but qualification so far has mainly had to do with either a player's
career stats or, unfortunately, how many buddies he had on the veteran's
committee. Fame while playing not an established independent factor.
-- Quirky fame: Anything from Tinker-Evers-Chance (famous for a poem) to
Vince DiMaggio. Basically random, although obviously decent players have
a better shot at it. Dom is more famous than Vince. I'd guess the Alous
might still be somewhat famous in 50 years. OTOH, Ed Delahanty had four
brothers, died, and made the HOF, and still isn't particularly well known
to baseball fans 90 years later.
-- Staying around forever as a coach, manager, broadcaster. Garagiola.
Cronin. Bill White, I suppose. (will anyone have heard of these guys 50
years from now?)
Assuming Thomas has a normal rest-of-career, he'll be much more famous
than Puckett; if Kirby can't reach 3000 hits (I think he should make it),
he'll be forgotten.
: >Certainly the greatest player whose peak I
: >remember clearly was the Candy Bar.
: For me, it's Schmidt, along with Henderson. I don't think any A's fan
: will ever forget Rickey's personal dismantling of Toronto in the '89
: LCS.
The greats I've watched most closely over their careers would be, I
suppose, Henderson and Thomas -- this year, I tried to schedule around
WGN White Sox broadcasts, which ain't easy to do. Just watching both of
them. Of the near- or maybe- greats, Matt Williams and Will Clark.
Oddly, while I was an intense fan in the 70s as well, my best memories
are 80s and 90s (well, was I supposed to get excited by Ed Heaverlo and
Rob Andrews?). I guess I'd add Gooden and Clemens from the mound; I've
never really enjoyed watching Maddux as much, good as he is. Maybe add
Vida Blue, from rookie year on (damn that Finley).
JHB
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <3a4ff6$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Now responding to the comparisons...(references to "greatness" gone)
: Williams, over his career thus far, looks a lot worse than Bobby Bonilla,
: If you argue that that is simply because Williams is younger, check this out:
(I added a guy)
: Age Bonilla Williams Player X
: 23 .352/.333 .242/.455 (p/s) ------
: 24 .351/.481 .319/.488 .343/.431 (p/s)
Bonilla's 24-y-old campaign was 1987; given 1987 and the ballparks, this
is close, actually.
: 25 .366/.476 .310/.499 .391/.419
: 26 .358/.490 .286/.384 .407/.556
: 27 .322/.518 .325/.561 .383/.419
: 28 .391/.492 .318/.607 .364/.406
: 29 .348/.432 .327/.316 (ouch)
: 30 .352/.522 .355/.416
: 31 .376/.504 .365/.404
: Also remember that Williams' last two years numbers are inflated by the
: general offensive inflation. This means that thus far, Williams has had one,
: maybe two, seasons that were better than Bonilla at the same age. (And both
: of those seasons (ages 27 and 28) are debatable.)
Since I hadn't talked about hitting only, but about the whole package,
the comparison is actually a lot closer; in addition, Williams has been
in Candlestick, while Bonilla had 5.5 years in Three Rivers. BTW,
they are similar in GDPs, and both horrific basestealers. Williams
probably was just following (Craig's) orders with all those CSs; don't
know about how Bonilla got his.
Just eyeballing it, but keeping ballparks, 1987, 1993-4, and fielding in
mind, it looks to me like the big difference is Williams' disaster year
in 1992. Take that out (a big deal, of course) and the hitting might be
offset by the fielding. I don't know. Nothing makes up for MW's 1992;
BB never stunk. Of course, we are coming to his worst year...
Oh -- player X is Da. Evans. To me, Bonilla doesn't look that far
behind, if at all, to this point; Evans was traded to the Giants in time
for his awful season, so most of this is in Atlanta (got to be better
than Three Rivers). Of course, Evans was probably much better in the
field than Bonilla, and was good through his 40-year-old season; I'd put
Evans in the Hall, so I'd say someone in his ballpark at the same age
might just be great.
[clipped W. Clark stuff -- seems like we agree, here]
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <3a4ff6$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: Jonathan Bernstein <j...@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: >The greats I've watched most closely over their careers would be, I
: >suppose, Henderson and Thomas -- this year, I tried to schedule around
: >WGN White Sox broadcasts, which ain't easy to do. Just watching both of
: >them. Of the near- or maybe- greats, Matt Williams and Will Clark.
: Neither Williams nor Clark looks like a near- or maybe- great in my books.
Cheap shot!!! Unfair!!!
I thought from the context I was *not* making any amazing claims about
these guys. Just that they were players who, at one time, seemed very
exciting. C'mon, my position on Williams, in particular, has been
spelled out in excruciating detail, and I'm awful careful not to make
outrageous claims about him, and did not think this was one. (I believe
the full context put these two guys in with Vida Blue). I just like
watching them, and they are both among the many, many players I would put
in the "maybe" great category. Like Fielder, or Olerud, or Palmiero, or
Jefferies. Jeez, I love watching Chad Curtis, a near- or maybe- very
good, and he stunk just awful this year. Obviously, neither Williams or
Clark has any chance of being among the 50 top players of all time, nor
will they be the best players ever with their last names (I suppose,
without looking, that Will could be as good as Jack Clark). Nor have I
ever said anything here that I meant to imply such a thing.
Give me a break. Both Clark and Williams have had very good years, years
where they were competitive with the best in baseball at their
positions. I wasn't making any more specific claim. I'd put >100
players over the last ten years in the "near or maybe great" category; it
wasn't meant for anything more. In the context of who I have had a lot of
pleasure watching, I really don't think it's irresponsible to use the
language I used.
JHB
Jonathan Bernstein
: Lottsa Carter-bashers on here still not willing to give the man his due,
: I see...
: Just for recollection, I went back thru some of the old articles back
: just after the Jays had won the 93 WS, and I found this interesting
: article by Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star; who was discussing possible
: MVP candidates for the Blue Jays that year.. this following quote is
: Perkin's case for Carter:
: "Carter.. plays right field every day with some distinction, nobody ever
: talks about Carter and defence. With Carter, the subject is driving in
: runs and nobody has done it better then he has. Carter is somewhat
: penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
: season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
: 100-plus and everybody yawns. ** The number crunchers can whip up a
: melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
: gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
: little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Regardless of the if's and
: but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does. If what he
: does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
: everybody does. ** (Ed: Commentary - those are my italics to draw your
: attention to the fact that Perkins obviously must read this usenet
: base about Joe Carter and statheads <grin>)"
Well, most years, many teams do have a Joe Carter -- that is, a guy who
knocks in 100 runs. Or, try this: going into 1994, Carter had the same
number of RBIs as Lou Whitaker, a 2B who doesn't even get to bat cleanup.
(OK, so Whitaker's got 3 years on him). Carter *still* has only a so-so
chance of clearing 1500 career RBI, which some 35 players have done, and
RBI is the *only* thing he does. Many players, of course, have led their
league in RBI more than once -- he's done it exactly once. Yes, not
everybody has a Carter (again, RBIs only), but all the good teams have
one, so they're not that hard to find. Of course, Carter does have the
real benefit that he never gets hurt.
(The preceding argument ignores all the holes in Carter/100 RBI that the
quoted material apparently was aware of but ignored, without anything
resembling an argument.
: Just s personal observation: I've seen a lot of people pooh-pooh that
: Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
: know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
: team and sat in the clubhouse.. I'd be more then willing to bet not too
: many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
: teams.. Carter is a leader on this team.. Keeping the team loose and
: having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
: (The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
: malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
: or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
: George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
: Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
: chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
1. George Bell's Jays won the divison twice, and he was on the Sox
division winners in '93. Maybe he has "leadership"?
2. If you look at the roster of the Padres team in 1990 vs. the Reds, it
sure looks like the Pads should be competitive. Had Joe Carter's
"leadership" meant anything, why didn't the Pads do better than 4T, 16
games out?
3. The Indians also had some fine players while Carter was there,
including Franco, Butler, Hargrove, Candiotti, Swindell, Jacoby. They
stunk too. Where's his leadership then?
Of course, there's a problem here -- if you want to both defend Carter as
a player *and* as a clubhouse leader, then you have to add him as one of
the fine players on these teams. So the talent which didn't win is even
more impressive.
I'm willing to listen to arguments that teammates affect each other
positively or negatively -- but I would like to hear arguments, not
assertions, and I need more evidence than that one or two teams a guy was
on won. Baseball players have considerable year-to-year variation, which
we normally attribute to luck, essentially, but I'm open to evidence that
managers, teammates, whatever are helping/hurting a player. Do you have
any? Or is this just cliche time?
JHB
Mike Jones
>In article <3a0n63$6...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, SWeick <swe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <39uqf5$3...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson
>>Lu) writes:
>>Good analysis, but one small problem. Didn't Carter play left field,
>>first and
>>sometimes center for Cleveland? I remember Cory Snyder playing right
>>almost all the time and Mel Hall played it the other times.
>Argh. You are right... I forgot that Carter played CF (and exclusively so)
>that year rather than RF or LF. Let me see if I can remember the CFs from
>that year, for another comparison thing:
>(Again, Carter was .314/.478)
>Team Player Comparison to Carter
>Atlanta Albert Hall Worse? (no numbers)
Terry Blocker played 59 games at (.250/.283). Dion James had 35 games
in CF at (.353/.350). Bad, worse, and worse.
>San Diego Marvell Wynne? Worse? (no numbers)
Another split:
Shawn Abner, 10 games .227/.289, worse
Tony Gwynn, 32 games .373/.415, better
Stan Jefferson, 24 games .216/.216
Shane Mack, 32 games .338/..269
Marvell Wynne, 63 games .325/.426, worse
They're all ugly except Gwynn, who was really a RF.
>San Francisco Brett Butler Better, IMO (.393/.398)
I'd say better.
>Chicago Mitch Webster Worse (.337/.356)
Webster played 48 games in CF. Also:
Darrin Jackson, 35 games .266 batting average is all I can find
Dave Martinez, 62 games .313/.351
Jackson is almost certainly worse, Martinez is worse.
>Montreal Dave Martinez Worse (.313/.351)
Martinez played 43 games in CF. Also:
Otis Nixon, 42 games .314/.288
Mitch Webster, 51 games .357/.313 with Montreal
All worse.
>New York Lenny Dykstra Worse (.321/.385)
Dykstra played 98 games in CF. Also:
Mookie Wilson, 62 games .346/.431
I'd put Mookie just slightly worse.
>Philadelphia Phil Bradley? Even? (no numbers)
Mostly Milt Thompson (95 games), .356/.357, worse. Also:
>Chicago Dave Gallagher Worse (.354/.406)
Gallagher played 67 games in CF. Also:
Daryl Boston, 39 games .272/.434 worse
Lance Johnson, 27 games .223/.234 worse
Steve Lyons, 8 games; Gary Redus, 13 games; Ken Williams, 7 games
>Kansas City Willie Wilson Worse? (no numbers)
.291/.333 Worse.
>Texas Oddibe McDowell Worse? (no numbers)
Bob Brower, 27 games .316/.274 Eeeugh.
Cecil Espy, 31 games .291/.329 Double Eeeugh.
Oddibe McDowell, 103 games .315/.355 Worse
>Baltimore Brady Anderson Worse (.272/.286)
Anderson played 43 games in CF. Also:
Ken Gerheart, 49 games .260/.344 worse
Fred Lynn, 60 games .316/.482 marginally better
>New York Cl. Washington Better? (no numbers)
.345/.442, actually. I'd say even to slightly better, depending on
park factors.
>Hmmm... Actually looks a bit worse...
Well, I've added Lynn to the better list, Mookie and Washington to the
"as good" list, and fished out a bunch of the dregs. On the whole, I'd
say he looks about as good here as in RF.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
[Gorbachev] may prove to be, in the popular dismissive phrase, "a
transitional figure." So was Moses, another guy who never managed to lead
his people into the promised land.
- Michael Kinsley in The New Republic, September 16, 1991
Nelson Lu
>The greats I've watched most closely over their careers would be, I
>suppose, Henderson and Thomas -- this year, I tried to schedule around
>WGN White Sox broadcasts, which ain't easy to do. Just watching both of
>them. Of the near- or maybe- greats, Matt Williams and Will Clark.
Neither Williams nor Clark looks like a near- or maybe- great in my books.
Williams, over his career thus far, looks a lot worse than Bobby Bonilla,
and I don't think I am about to label Bonilla as a near- or maybe- great.
If you argue that that is simply because Williams is younger, check this out:
Age Bonilla Williams
23 .352/.333 .242/.455 (part-season)
24 .351/.481 .319/.488
25 .366/.476 .310/.499
26 .358/.490 .286/.384
27 .322/.518 .325/.561
28 .391/.492 .318/.607
29 .348/.432
30 .352/.522
31 .376/.504
Also remember that Williams' last two years numbers are inflated by the
general offensive inflation. This means that thus far, Williams has had one,
maybe two, seasons that were better than Bonilla at the same age. (And both
of those seasons (ages 27 and 28) are debatable.) Unless you are ready to
declare Bonilla a great, I don't think Williams will be a great anything.
As for Clark, his career .373/.499 (entering this season) looks great, but
compare this to the other first-base starters this season:
California J. T. Snow Worse (.329/.402)
Oakland Mark McGwire Even (.359/.509)
Seattle Tino Martinez Worse (.321/.411)
Texas Will Clark
Chicago Frank Thomas Better (.441/.561)
Cleveland Paul Sorrento Worse (.334/.433)
Kansas City Wally Joyner Worse (.353/.447)
Milwaukee John Jaha Worse (.328/.394)
Minnesota Kent Hrbek Worse (slight, .368/.487 in Metrodome)
Baltimore Rafael Palmeiro Worse (slight, .360/.472)
Boston Mo Vaughn Worse (.360/.455)
Detroit Cecil Fielder Worse (.346/.500)
New York Don Mattingly Worse (slight?, .357/.479 in Yankee Stadium)
Toronto John Olerud Even? (.398/.488 in Skydome)
Colorado A. Galarraga Worse (.332/.452)
Los Angeles Eric Karros Worse (.293/.413)
San Diego Phil Clark Worse (.368/.503)
San Francisco Todd Benzinger Worse (.300/.384)
Chicago Mark Grace Worse (.377/.425)
Cincinnati Hal Morris Worse (.364/.438)
Houston Jeff Bagwell Even? (.380/.466 in Astrodome)
Pittsburgh Kevin Young Worse (.307/.346)
St. Louis Gregg Jefferies Worse (.346/.426)
Atlanta Fred McGriff Better? (.389/.531 in TOR, SD, ATL)
Florida Greg Colbrunn Worse (.289/.371)
Montreal Cliff Floyd Worse (.226/.323)
New York David Segui Worse (.330/.360)
Philadelphia John Kruk Worse (slight, .397/.450)
As a result of this season, Palmeiro may be about even as Clark, Bagwell
has surpassed Clark, and Olerud fell behind Clark. (I know for many of these
people, these are small samples, but this is just for simplicity sake) Clark
is behind Thomas, probably behind Bagwell and McGriff, and stuck in a pile
with McGwire and Palmeiro. Not far behind are Hrbek, Mattingly, and Kruk.
I don't think this is a sign of greatness -- this is a sign of a very good
player, for sure, but he's not going to be a great one.
Roger Maynard
>|> >>Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
>Why? because Mickey Mantle is some goddamn legendary creature and we
>should worship the ground he walks on. Jesus Christ man, get a grip.
What exactly should I get a grip on? How many WS victories was Mantle a
party to? How many HR's? Probably the third greatest Yankee of all time...
maybe the fourth. Mantle is *bathed* in glory. How many books have
been written about Gonzalez? Why don't you write one? Isn't that a
golden opportunity...
>Mantle was a great player, but its not like there will never be a better
>one! Or is it because Juan plays in Texas where they've never won a
Sure there will be. But none of 'em are playing in Texas right now.
>pennant.
>If you don't agree, just say so and try and post a counter-example,
>insults are unbecoming.
Counter-example to what? Mickey, Willie and the Duke? It's all hype. The
best thing about baseball is the quality of the glory. The hype. That's
what keeps the names alive. It's the songs and the films and the memories
of old men. It ain't the numbers...it's the books and the names. 100
years from now a lot more people will know about Kirby Puckett than Frank
Thomas. You can bank on it. Certainly the greatest player whose peak I
remember clearly was the Candy Bar. The best? Who cares? It's not about
being the best. It's about being the greatest. That is what sport is about.
And that is something that the stat fan simply can't be satisfied with because
he doesn't appreciate it.
cordially, as always,
rm
Jonathan Bernstein
: In article <3a4ckd$m...@nermal.cs.uoguelph.ca>,
: Scott Tribe <str...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
: >
: >...I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
: >teams..
: So, you've been in the clubhouse and seen all the Blue Jays having
: serious personal problems that was affecting their performance and
: you saw Joe Carter go over and give them a punch on the shoulder and
: say "Cheer up, buckaroo" and all of a sudden things got better, right?
: As far as I can tell, "good team chemistry" is pretty much orthagonal
: to winning. I've heard of great teams with GTC, good teams with
: awful team chemistry, awful teams with good team chemistry, and awful
: teams with bad team chemistry. It really doesn't seem to me
: to matter.
I can't quite agree with this. I *do* think we know absolutely nothing
about it, and what reporters say is likely wrong. But we've all seen:
1. Teams where everyone has a good year at the same time ('93 SFG)
2. Teams where everyone has an awful year at the same time ('85, '92 SFG)
3. Players who match the highest possible expectations for their careers.
4. Players who fizzle out early, despite legitimate promise (O.
McDowell, let's say).
Looked at from one perspective, these things even out, and they look like
luck. But I see no prior reason to assume "leadership" -- affect of one
or more players on one or more other players -- to be meaningless. I
mean, I have been in work situations in which a particularly inspiring
person pushed everyone to do better, or a group of people set high
standards everyone aspired to, and opposite situations; I don't see any
inherent reason baseball teams should be different.
OTOH, I think the answers may be quite complex, and would have no idea
how to actually study it. Any evidence we get is much more likely to be
about individual players' ability to work well (or badly) with reporters
than about the things we would really want to know, at least evidence
directly about clubhouse moods (it's possible a better way to study this
would be to limit the study to on-field effects of hypothesized causes,
without info on the causes. That's tricky too).
JHB
Gary E5 Huckabay
Hi Roger. Welcome back. Are you going to join us on .analysis?
>What exactly should I get a grip on? How many WS victories was Mantle a
>party to? How many HR's? Probably the third greatest Yankee of all time...
>maybe the fourth. Mantle is *bathed* in glory. How many books have
>been written about Gonzalez? Why don't you write one? Isn't that a
>golden opportunity...
"Deed Aye Train Eeenough?"
Apparently not.
>>Mantle was a great player, but its not like there will never be a better
>>one!
>
>Sure there will be. But none of 'em are playing in Texas right now.
No joke. There are three potential HoFs though, and that's pretty exciting.
Four if you count Henke, but I don't think he'll make it.
>Counter-example to what? Mickey, Willie and the Duke? It's all hype. The
>best thing about baseball is the quality of the glory. The hype.
Nah. The best thing about baseball is the redemption, the power, the
speed, and the grace. In 1981, I saw Tony Armas personally cost the
A's a game by dropping consecutive fly balls in the tenth against the
Red Sox. (In Tony's defense, the sun in RF in Oakland can be positively
brutal.) The very next day, Armas homered twice, including the game
winner in the bottom of the ninth. The ball in the ninth hit halfway
up the steps and ricocheted back on the field, into the LF's glove.
(For some reason, I don't think it was Yaz, but I don't recall who it
might have been.)
>It ain't the numbers...it's the books and the names. 100
>years from now a lot more people will know about Kirby Puckett than Frank
>Thomas. You can bank on it.
I'd take that bet, but I'd have no way to collect. Thomas is going to
hit balls out of ballparks, and do some things with raw strength and
hard work that only a very few in baseball have ever done. In 100
years, I think the arguments will be "Babe, Ted, Frank, or Stig?"
>Certainly the greatest player whose peak I
>remember clearly was the Candy Bar.
For me, it's Schmidt, along with Henderson. I don't think any A's fan
will ever forget Rickey's personal dismantling of Toronto in the '89
LCS.
>The best? Who cares? It's not about
>being the best. It's about being the greatest. That is what sport is about.
For me, that's not what sport is about. Sport is about being better.
And that can mean a lot of things to different people. To me, it means
two things. One, be the better team or participant on the field. Real
sport is one on one, either individuals or teams. And two, be better than
you were last time.
>And that is something that the stat fan simply can't be satisfied with because
>he doesn't appreciate it.
?
--
* Gary Huckabay * "Thank God they're not going to seek the death penalty *
* "Hardly ever * for OJ." "I'm surprised you even care." "Well, it's *
* indicted." * not that I really do, but the potential for really bad *
******************* jokes about 'The Juice' was mindboggling." - GH & AR. *
gei...@bscr.uga.edu
>Lottsa Carter-bashers on here still not willing to give the man his due,
>I see...
>
>Just for recollection, I went back thru some of the old articles back
>just after the Jays had won the 93 WS, and I found this interesting
>article by Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star; who was discussing possible
>MVP candidates for the Blue Jays that year.. this following quote is
>Perkin's case for Carter:
>
>"Carter.. plays right field every day with some distinction, nobody ever
>talks about Carter and defence. With Carter, the subject is driving in
>runs and nobody has done it better then he has.
Bzzzzt. Incorrect. Downright wrong.
Carter is somewhat
>penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
>season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
>100-plus and everybody yawns. ** The number crunchers can whip up a
>melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
>gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
>little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Regardless of the if's and
>but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does. If what he
>does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
>everybody does.
And thank you for providing the laugh. That has got to be one of the
stupidest things I've ever seen. "Those mean old numbers crunchers can
provide evidence to the contrary, but I'm going to keep on believing
what I believe." Bleeding briliant. This guy has the analytical skills
of a nematode.
Furthermore, I think few would argue that Carter isn't a good player.
He's just not a great player, and his RBI "accomplishments" mean a lot
less than people think. Accepting this fact doesn't mean you have to
burn your Blue Jay cap.
>Just s personal observation: I've seen a lot of people pooh-pooh that
>Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
>know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
>team and sat in the clubhouse.. I'd be more then willing to bet not too
>many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
>teams.. Carter is a leader on this team..
His chemistry and leadership sure did the Indians and Padres a whole
helluva lotta good. I'm willing to believe that Carter is a great
clubhouse influence, maybe he's the best clubhouse influence ever. What
I'm not willing to believe is that is anything but a pale substitute for
getting runs across the plate, which Carter does well, but not remarkably
well.
Keeping the team loose and
>having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
>(The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
>malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
>or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
>George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
>Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
>chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
Funny, I recall the Jays winning three division titles with George Bell.
I guess his bad influence was only a problem in the ALCS.
Dave Geiser
gei...@bscr.uga.edu
>ib...@utdallas.edu (Ira K. Blum) writes:
>
>>|> >>Mickey Mantle ---> Juan Gonzalez (+ 80 walks per year)
>
>>Why? because Mickey Mantle is some goddamn legendary creature and we
>>should worship the ground he walks on. Jesus Christ man, get a grip.
>
>What exactly should I get a grip on? How many WS victories was Mantle a
>party to? How many HR's? Probably the third greatest Yankee of all time...
>maybe the fourth.
Ummm, I think I can guess who number one is, and maybe number two,
although I'd disagree with you, even on your own criteria for greatness.
Maybe I'm a little slow, but for the life of me I can't think of three
Yankees greater than Mantle.
[John Philip Sousa music on]
>Counter-example to what? Mickey, Willie and the Duke? It's all hype. The
>best thing about baseball is the quality of the glory. The hype. That's
>what keeps the names alive. It's the songs and the films and the memories
>of old men. It ain't the numbers...it's the books and the names.
None of the above, Roger. It's the game.
100
>years from now a lot more people will know about Kirby Puckett than Frank
>Thomas. You can bank on it.
Why would you bank on something like that, even on your own criteria
for greatness? Thomas is 27, plays for a pretty good team, and is
likely to see a decent amount of post-season play in his career. Puckett
played in exactly two WS, and will likely never see another. Thomas
also does the sort of stuff I've seen you glorify around here before: hits
for a high average, hits a lot of home runs, and has the big RBI numbers.
He nearly won the Triple Crown this year, which hasn't been done in 27 yrs.
What is it about Thomas you don't like? Is it the fact that he walks so
much? If so, I suggest that you look back at the careers of number one
and number four on your Yankee list. You'll see they walked every bit as
much as Thomas.
Dave Geiser
Gary E5 Huckabay
>I see...
What, exactly, is it you'd like us Carter-bashers to give him?
>"Carter.. plays right field every day with some distinction, nobody ever
>talks about Carter and defence. With Carter, the subject is driving in
>runs and nobody has done it better then he has. Carter is somewhat
>penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
>season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
>100-plus and everybody yawns.
Pretty much. With me, the issue is simple -- IMO, people pay too
much attention to RBI. Not enough credit is given to the players who
make the RBIs possible. Over the past six to seven years, Carter has
hit behind Paul Molitor, Tony Gwynn, Roberto Alomar, Bip Roberts,
Rickey Henderson, Julio Franco, and a lot of other guys who get on
base. That's all.
> ** The number crunchers can whip up a
>melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
>gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
>little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
If he's referring to his own writing, I'd agree with him.
>Regardless of the if's and
>but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does.
Actually, a bunch of guys do. It depends on where you set the bar.
And Carter doesn't do what other guys do, depending on where you set
the bar.
>If what he
>does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
>everybody does. ** (Ed: Commentary - those are my italics to draw your
>attention to the fact that Perkins obviously must read this usenet
>base about Joe Carter and statheads <grin>)"
<Squawk> Want a cracker? (grin). Does my putting the "(grin)" there
mean that my statement isn't meant to be an insult?
>Just s personal observation: I've seen a lot of people pooh-pooh that
>Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
>know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
>team and sat in the clubhouse..
I would guess none. But let me ask you a couple questions about
leadership then...
1) How do you know Carter's a leader? All the information you have is
through the media.
2) If Carter's leadership is so wonderful, how come it didn't get
Cleveland or San Diego to the big dance?
3) Who were the leaders on the 1972-74 Oakland A's? Why?
>I'd be more then willing to bet not too
>many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
>teams..
Why?
>Carter is a leader on this team.. Keeping the team loose and
>having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
Why?
>(The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
>malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
>or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
>George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
>Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
>chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
The fact that the Jays have better position players than these guys in
each spot might have had something to do with it too, I would guess.
>1 other thing: I still see how much Cito Gaston has been constantly
>derided for his management style.. I find it rather ironic that in a
>country where everyone promotes laissez-faire as the best way to go in
>government and economics, if a ball manager does the same thing, he gets
>jumped on here for not managing "aggressively".. If you all applied the
>principles in politics that you all seem to want in baseball, you'd have
>all voted Democrat in your primaries, rather then Republican..:)
Hey, I've never bashed Cito except for one nitpick -- I think his batting
order is weird. But that's a little thing. I *like* Cito as a manager,
and this shouldn't be bundled with my feelings about Joe Carter being
overrated. To me, the most important job of a manager is to keep his
players healthy and happy. Cito's done an admirable job with his
pitching staff overall, and I think he gets everything he can out of his
players.
There was a guy on C-Span last night who looked just like Gaston, too.
I mean *exactly* like him. Did anyone else see this?
>I dont know why Cito gets a bad rap on here.. I considered Fregosi to be
>much of a stand-pat manager as Cito.. and I would put Sparky in his later
>managing years in the same boat, but I never see as much intense
>criticism of them..
It comes and goes. I stay out of the Cito-bashing, because I like
Cito's management. If LaRussa leaves, I'd be more than happy to take
Cito here.
>I certainly would HOPE that it isnt because Cito is a black man, and some
>aspects of American society cant deal with that.. To say that Cito isnt
>smart, smacks of it though...
Yes, I admit it. I bash Cito because he's an African-American. Same
reason I bash Joe Carter. I guess I'm just a Mighty Moron White Power
Ranger.
Please.
>I concede that Cito doesnt do as much strategy as other managers, but he
>certainly is a good communicator and good at handling his players: I dont
>think that anyone can dispute that.. and the results speak for themselves
>- 2 WS championships.
Hey, I just said that! Actually, I believe most managers over-manage,
particularly Jim Leyland. I like the "Let 'em play...We've trained them
well, and they know what they're doing" school of management.
>I have seen many teams over the years that also had
>many superstars on a team, and all the talent in the world, and it went
>nowhere.. I think here specifically of the '92 Mets, Bosox, and Dodgers,
>who all spent as much money or more then Toronto did on salary and free
>agens, but who all ended up last or near last in their divisions..
The '92 Mets had talent? I sure didn't see it, ex ante. If you
spend your mone on BAD free agents, an expectation of winning is
unrealistic.
>That's all I have to say on the matter - I know hardly any of you will
>agree with me, except for the occasional Blue Jay fan.. :) but, I had to
>get it off of my chest, and attempt to counter some of the points I see
>over and over and OVER on here..
Largely because of the type of article you quoted from earlier.
John Poutsma
>Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
>know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
>team and sat in the clubhouse.. I'd be more then willing to bet not too
>many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
>teams..
So, you've been in the clubhouse and seen all the Blue Jays having
serious personal problems that was affecting their performance and
you saw Joe Carter go over and give them a punch on the shoulder and
say "Cheer up, buckaroo" and all of a sudden things got better, right?
As far as I can tell, "good team chemistry" is pretty much orthagonal
to winning. I've heard of great teams with GTC, good teams with
awful team chemistry, awful teams with good team chemistry, and awful
teams with bad team chemistry. It really doesn't seem to me
to matter.
Carter is a leader on this team.. Keeping the team loose and
>having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
>(The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
>malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
>or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
>George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
>Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
>chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
And they won the division once or twice in the Bell era, No?
>I certainly would HOPE that it isnt because Cito is a black man, and some
>aspects of American society cant deal with that.. To say that Cito isnt
>smart, smacks of it though...
>
No, to say that Cito is an idiot is natural when you see guys with
.450 and .380 obp's batting 5th and 6th while your number two hitter
has a .340 obp and no power and your cleanup hitter has a .320 obp
and better-than-average power. That's stupid.
>I concede that Cito doesnt do as much strategy as other managers, but he
>certainly is a good communicator and good at handling his players: I dont
>think that anyone can dispute that..
And I don't remember that anyone has...
and the results speak for themselves
>- 2 WS championships. I have seen many teams over the years that also had
>many superstars on a team, and all the talent in the world, and it went
>nowhere.. I think here specifically of the '92 Mets, Bosox, and Dodgers,
>who all spent as much money or more then Toronto did on salary and free
>agens, but who all ended up last or near last in their divisions..
>
A pretty good indication that free agents don't solve your problems,
it takes _good_ free agents (or _good_ players in general.)
Now, in sum, do you deny that 1) Joe Carter gets more RBI opportunities
than most people year after year? 2) Joe Carter has driven in a lower
percentage of the possible RBI's than others? 3) If Joe Carter would
not get so many RBI opportunities, then he would not drive in as many
runs?
If you agree with these three statements, then you agree with people
you would deem to be "Joe Carter bashers." If you don't agree with
these three statements, then you are either 1) ignorant of the data,
or 2) a blithering idiot.
paul
Cordial Boy
>>penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
>>season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
>>100-plus and everybody yawns. ** The number crunchers can whip up a
>>melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
>>gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
>>little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Regardless of the if's and
>>but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does. If what he
>>does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
>>everybody does.
>And thank you for providing the laugh. That has got to be one of the
>stupidest things I've ever seen. "Those mean old numbers crunchers can
>provide evidence to the contrary, but I'm going to keep on believing
>what I believe." Bleeding briliant. This guy has the analytical skills
>of a nematode.
And of course your ability to read is called into question by your own
"analysis" of what someone else has written. Or perhaps you don't
understand what the quotes around "prove" mean?
The point is valid because the number crunchers operate from the flawed
premise that players are trying to maximize their production according
to the criteria dictated by the number crunchers. The players are not
trying to increase their production by _your_ standards but by their
own. This means that Carter, Gaston and the team all feel that if
Carter goes out there and drives in 100 runs a year then their chances
of winning the WS are greatly enhanced. And who is to say they are
wrong? The same guys who say that Carter's contributin is over-rated
are the same clowns that are just as apt to say that the best team
didn't win the WS. And this of course is the real joke.
>Furthermore, I think few would argue that Carter isn't a good player.
>He's just not a great player, and his RBI "accomplishments" mean a lot
>less than people think. Accepting this fact doesn't mean you have to
>burn your Blue Jay cap.
They mean a lot more than _you_ think, apparently. Of course I'm pretty
darn sure that the WS Championship means a lot more than you think as
well. The reason that your precious OPS has absolutely no more correlation
to the WS winner than my paperboys prediction can lead to only 2 conclusions:
Either the WS means less than it most people think or OPS means less than
most nerds think. First clue: Players are trying to win the WS. Players
are not trying to maximize their OPS.
Take it away. Get your silliness out of here. Baseball players know better.
Sport fans know better.
cordially, as always,
rm
Cordial Boy
>Ummm, I think I can guess who number one is, and maybe number two,
>although I'd disagree with you, even on your own criteria for greatness.
>Maybe I'm a little slow, but for the life of me I can't think of three
>Yankees greater than Mantle.
What a lamer! Ever heard of Joe Pepitone?
>>Counter-example to what? Mickey, Willie and the Duke? It's all hype. The
>>best thing about baseball is the quality of the glory. The hype. That's
>>what keeps the names alive. It's the songs and the films and the memories
>>of old men. It ain't the numbers...it's the books and the names.
>None of the above, Roger. It's the game.
That is what we are talking about isn't it? I can see I haven't lost you
yet.
> 100
>>years from now a lot more people will know about Kirby Puckett than Frank
>>Thomas. You can bank on it.
>Why would you bank on something like that, even on your own criteria
>for greatness? Thomas is 27, plays for a pretty good team, and is
>likely to see a decent amount of post-season play in his career. Puckett
>played in exactly two WS, and will likely never see another. Thomas
>also does the sort of stuff I've seen you glorify around here before: hits
>for a high average, hits a lot of home runs, and has the big RBI numbers.
>He nearly won the Triple Crown this year, which hasn't been done in 27 yrs.
>What is it about Thomas you don't like? Is it the fact that he walks so
>much? If so, I suggest that you look back at the careers of number one
>and number four on your Yankee list. You'll see they walked every bit as
>much as Thomas.
'Cause The Kirb has such a neat name.
Go on back to sleep now...
cordially, as always,
rm
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>"Carter.. plays right field every day with some distinction, nobody ever
>talks about Carter and defence.
God know what "some distinction" means. He's an average mlb right
fielder - what more is there to say?
With Carter, the subject is driving in
>runs and nobody has done it better then he has.
I guess this guy would rate a 15-20 team better than a 10-0 team because
"they're better at winning."
Carter is somewhat
>penalized by his constant productivity. Carter driving in 100 runs a
>season is no more unexpected then tomorrow's sunrise. He drives in
>100-plus and everybody yawns. ** The number crunchers can whip up a
>melange of stats to "prove" that Carter is just an average RBI guy who
>gets a lot of opportunities, but this is what people mean when they say a
>little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Regardless of the if's and
>but's and candy and nuts, nobody else does what Carter does. If what he
>does is easy, everybody would have a Joe Carter and, quite clearly, not
>everybody does.
That is genuinely funny.
Essentially, what he's saying is that no one else has as many at-bats
with risp as Joe Carter, so Joe Carter is a great player.
Kind of like saying that nobody had a father as rich as Sam Walton,
so his sons must be great at making money.
>I dont know why Cito gets a bad rap on here.. I considered Fregosi to be
>much of a stand-pat manager as Cito.. and I would put Sparky in his later
>managing years in the same boat, but I never see as much intense
>criticism of them..
Actually, I don't have a serious problem with Cito. He does some things
I hate, but he does other things I like, like not ask players who can't
steal to steal.
Greg
TSUJI GEORGE
>I see...
>
Well, I suppose some might consider me a Carter "basher", but as a Blue Jay
fan, I'd certainly rather have him out there than Rob Butler. I don't think
anyone's saying Carter is a poor player, just one who receives an inordinate
amount of accolades...
>Just for recollection, I went back thru some of the old articles back
>just after the Jays had won the 93 WS, and I found this interesting
>article by Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star; who was discussing possible
>MVP candidates for the Blue Jays that year.. this following quote is
>Perkin's case for Carter:
Dave Perkins is the Star's beat writer covering the Blue Jays. Now, would
it really be in his best interests to start bashing the team? I don't know
how other teams take to criticism, but a couple of year ago, the host of
a radio talk show made a few critical comments about a few players,
including Duane Ward, which resulted in "Wierdo" (his nickname, not mine)
leading a boycott of the post-game show.
Dave Perkins has always struck me as the kind of writer who bends over
backwards to comment the players and management. It allows him to keep
getting interviews.
[Perkins' comments deleted]
>
>Just s personal observation: I've seen a lot of people pooh-pooh that
>Carter's leadership qualities are of any use in this debate.. I'd like to
>know how many of you "experts" ever played on a professional baseball
>team and sat in the clubhouse.. I'd be more then willing to bet not too
>many.. I myself, put a lot of stock in team chemistry, and leaders on
>teams.. Carter is a leader on this team.. Keeping the team loose and
>having a player to look up to should not be underestimated, I dont think.
>(The BLue Jays also did not really take off until they got rid of all the
>malcontents in '93 and brought in people considered to be "team" players
>or who had good dispositions.. also look at past Jays teams failures when
>George Bell was on there, etc.. management has made a point since the
>Bell era to rid itself of players not considered beneficial to team
>chemistry.. (ie Bell, Gruber, Wells, Derek Bell, etc.)
Hmm... as I recall, Gruber, Wells and Derek Bell were all members of this
team. So you're blaming the Jays' "failures" between '83-'90 entirely on
George Bell? Didn't Toronto have the best record in baseball over this
period? Say in 1985, Bobby Cox didn't keep pulling Al Oliver in the early
innings (the ALCS) and the team wasn't carrying Manny Lee and Lou Thornton
all year, say in 1987 the team's #3 and #5 hitters didn't get hurt in the
last week of the season, would you think any differently?
Toronto was embarrassed in the '91 ALCS despite Carter's leadership, so
what does that prove? The team stunk this year, because the pitching was
awful, and won in '93 and particularly '92 because it was outstanding.
If you think the incredibly post-season performance of the '92 team was
due to leadership, then fine. I'd attribute it to the presence of some
quality pitchers. I don't believe anybody in the '83/'84 Jays bullpen
would have made this team, and this was the single most important difference
between failure and a WS title.
The Jays had better luck in '92 and '93 (and to some extent, '91) because
they were able to add a David Cone, or a Rickey Henderson (I still believe
that Rickey did a much better job in left than Butler or whoever else might
have) to fill a hole. In '85, for the stretch drive the team acquired
Steve Nicosia. 'nuf 'ced.
BTW, I think we're forgetting that Devon White wasn't exactly a model
citizen in California. I also remeber a Sporting News article that off-
season which quoted a GM calling White and Carter "two of the most selfish
players" in baseball. Addressing your other main point, it's pretty
obvious that Cito Gaston made Devon White a personal project, and he's
handles White's delicate ego perfectly. I still think there's no way he
should have been batting second last year with Molitor and Alomar flip-
flopping in 6th, but White would likely have sulked and performed poorly
in his ideal position of 9th.
Still, Cito isn't perfect. I don't recall hearing anything about Sparky
Anderson having problems with David Wells. I always liked him, and felt
that Cito handled him horribly. Cito is not the best in-game manager in
baseball, and it always kills me that he refuses to bring his closer in
the game in a tie game at home, for example. (Case in point, Mike
Pagliarulo's HR in the '91 ALCS). I do think, though, that the way he
took a team last year, with a mediocre pitching staff (A middle reliever
was the club's pitcher-of-the-month in May) and won the title was certainly
worthy of praise. Gene Lamont winning manager-of-the-year was a joke.
The White Sox should have won the division by 15 games, and yet he managed
to keep Kansas City in the race until late in the year.
George Tsuji
ts...@ecf.toronto.edu
Cordial Boy
>Hi Roger. Welcome back. Are you going to join us on .analysis?
Is that where Tate and Valentine have been hiding?
>No joke. There are three potential HoFs though, and that's pretty exciting.
>Four if you count Henke, but I don't think he'll make it.
Would have helped if he could have gotten the second WS ring.
>Nah. The best thing about baseball is the redemption, the power, the
>speed, and the grace.
Sounds like an Andre Dawson fan to me.
>In 1981, I saw Tony Armas personally cost the
>A's a game by dropping consecutive fly balls in the tenth against the
>Red Sox. (In Tony's defense, the sun in RF in Oakland can be positively
>brutal.) The very next day, Armas homered twice, including the game
>winner in the bottom of the ninth. The ball in the ninth hit halfway
>up the steps and ricocheted back on the field, into the LF's glove.
>(For some reason, I don't think it was Yaz, but I don't recall who it
>might have been.)
But can you remember Armas' career OPS?
>I'd take that bet, but I'd have no way to collect. Thomas is going to
>hit balls out of ballparks, and do some things with raw strength and
>hard work that only a very few in baseball have ever done. In 100
>years, I think the arguments will be "Babe, Ted, Frank, or Stig?"
Well I would certainly love to see that. I would love to see anyone
excel to that level. (Is Stig a nephew of yours? or have I missed
something?)
>For me, that's not what sport is about. Sport is about being better.
>And that can mean a lot of things to different people. To me, it means
>two things. One, be the better team or participant on the field. Real
>sport is one on one, either individuals or teams. And two, be better than
>you were last time.
"Winning isn't everything...it's the only thing."
cordially, as always,
rm