tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post1016445535251170009..comments2023-10-29T08:25:54.951-05:00Comments on The Daily Something: Happy Birthday...Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07840958382433052735noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-22965778650759570022009-05-28T10:23:53.566-05:002009-05-28T10:23:53.566-05:00That's a good point about how to think about walks...That's a good point about how to think about walks with regards to OPS. I'll have to consider that. I still feel that people who rely heavily on OPS tend to overemphasize walks, but maybe it's for another reason. Or maybe it's a personal bias - I don't know.<br /><br />As for Pujols-Thomas-Bagwell, I did a rough look at the numbers yesterday (just using the "summation" capabilities of the new Baseball Reference over their first 8 seasons). Bags is clearly not the hitter Thomas was who is not the hitter Pujols is (walks aside), so maybe it's a lesser point [First 8 full seasons, OPS+: Bags - 159, Thomas - 174, Pujols - 170]. I still might have to write the piece though, just to investigate the whole "all-around" side of the equation. I'm just afraid that it will too easily come down in Pujols' favor, like comparing Jim Edmonds to Ken Griffey or something. (though, of course, Bagwell is much better than Edmonds)larhttp://www.wezen-ball.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-15807781998964780622009-05-27T13:09:37.123-05:002009-05-27T13:09:37.123-05:00@TCM: 1. I'll have to look at the list again when ...@TCM: 1. I'll have to look at the list again when I get home from work...I remember that being quite the surprise at the time, too. But: Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey maybe, I know James had Eddie Murray ranked preposterously high, maybe #3...and who else? McGwire?<br />2. All good points in Mays' favor. I recognize that I'm probably wrong about this. But I just look at Mickey's peak numbers, and I can't help myself. Not like his defense was bad either, you know. <br /><br />@lar: thanks for sharing the Pujols-Thomas piece. Very interesting. I'll look forward to seeing the Pujols-Bagwell one. :) On OPS, I'm not sure. I mean, a single counts twice as much as a walk, right (1-1 with a single = 2.000 OPS, 0-0 with a walk = 1.000)? And I think the general feeling is that a walk is something considerably more than half as valuable as a single. Also, during Thomas' peak (and career), his AVG and SLG were higher than Bags', too. Anyway, you're certainly right that it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all or anything. <br /><br />@abywaters: thanks so much for that explanation. The world makes much more sense now. Although you'd think he'd want to say a few words in his own defense for ranking an active player that shockingly high...Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840958382433052735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-1618292166354038882009-05-27T10:54:23.213-05:002009-05-27T10:54:23.213-05:00Bill, James' Bagwell comment ("pass") I think rega...Bill, James' Bagwell comment ("pass") I think regards a controversy from Bagwell's rookie year. In the Bill James Stat book (I can't remember what it was called back then), James posted several potential rookies' MLEs along with his usual projections for every Major League hitter. Bagwell's MLE from the year before in AAA ball gave him a higher batting average than any other National Leaguer's projection. The media, not understanding MLEs or projections, jumped on this to proclaim that Bill James was predicting that rookie Jeff Bagwell would win the NL batting title. He tried to explain that he wasn't doing anything of the sort, and it turned into a big issue that ultimately was resolved with Bagwell coming through and winning the rookie of the year. I'm guessing that "pass" was James' way of saying, "I'm through discussing Jeff Bagwell."abywatersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-44067947121241538822009-05-27T09:53:01.081-05:002009-05-27T09:53:01.081-05:00Great post, Bill. I love looking at these two guys...Great post, Bill. I love looking at these two guys' careers. As good as they were and as popular as they were, I still think both of them are underrated. Yes, Thomas was a pretty big star in the late-90s (and Bags was too, to the degree that an Astro is a big star), but these aren't the guys that people talk about anymore when talking about the best players of the '90s. And it's weird, because they were just so darn good.<br /><br />The only real problem I have with looking at the stats of these two guys is Thomas and his OPS+. I'm a big fan of OPS and OPS+ as a metric, and I think it's one of the simplest and easiest way to measure a hitter's performance. I do think it tends to overemphasize the walk, though. I know, I know... that's not necessarily the accepted viewpoint from us saber-friendly guys, but it's just how I feel. Anyway, when you rely on that tool above all else, it seems to give the crown to Thomas hands-down, and I just don't think it's that clear cut.<br /><br />Last winter, I did a little <A HREF="http://www.wezen-ball.com/2008/11/albert-pujols-vs-frank-thomas.html" REL="nofollow">comparison piece on Frank Thomas and Albert Pujols</A>. It's mostly about how, after Thomas' first 8 years, he was being considered as possibly the greatest right-handed hitter of all time. And now, ten years later, we're saying the same thing about Albert. I also put up a <A HREF="http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pfvpF3_Ps4SsaGSXwhyGhbQ" REL="nofollow">simple comparison of the pair's numbers</A>. But now that you bring up the similarities between Thomas and Bagwell, maybe I should think about looking at Pujols and Bags. Especially considering that the two biggest differences between Thomas and Bagwell are that Bagwell plays better defense and walks less, same as Albert...<br /><br />Hmm... I might have to do just that...<br /><br />(and, for the record, I'd call Bagwell the better all-around player [and teammate], but they're both HOF shoo-ins, so it doesn't really matter)larhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314820003835656973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-60535715143993280032009-05-27T09:46:09.858-05:002009-05-27T09:46:09.858-05:00Yeah, if I needed one at bat, I'd probably choose ...Yeah, if I needed one at bat, I'd probably choose Frank (especially early-to-mid '90s Frank). But if I needed a season, or was picking a player to build a team around, I'd have to go with Bagwell.<br /><br />Two other things:<br /><br />1) Bagwell at #4??? I love me some Bill James, but we've got to be able to find four better 1B than Jeff Bagwell, can't we? I can't quite wrap my mind around him being an inner circle HOF guy.<br /><br />2) Mantle over Mays? Really? When you factor in the defensive contribution and the fact that Mantle was hurt a bunch over the last 7 years of his career, and the difference in quality between the leagues (Mantle never had to face the Yankees, after all), I would not hesitate to take Mays in a walk.The Common Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09994070642805307798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-20616664182671239392009-05-27T09:45:17.770-05:002009-05-27T09:45:17.770-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Common Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09994070642805307798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8650264859764006366.post-61507774197232537542009-05-27T07:56:37.167-05:002009-05-27T07:56:37.167-05:00BAgwell. Better all around player.
But if you ne...BAgwell. Better all around player. <br /><br />But if you needed one at bat?Ron Rollinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852012772573977515noreply@blogger.com