 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » How different would the careers of Mays and Aaron would be had they played for the Yankees?
tworoosters
Wow, just wow.
You never saw either play, their OPS+, designed to compare league versus others thus eliminating the era issue is, differ by 4%, their 162 game average gives Gordon the edge in runs, extra base hits, homers and RBI.
Gordon missed two prime years due to WWII, won an MVP and is in the Hall of Fame - voted in by guys who have had the chance to put the "better offensive player" in, and yet there is not even room for debate.
OK, you're the new King of arrogance and nobody else, BBWA, VC, whoever has to vote on that one.
Chess has to send his crown.
February 19, 2010 at 10:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Tyles
Ron Santo was a better offensive player than Joe Gordon. There is not even room for debate.
Wow, just wow.
You never saw either play, their OPS+, designed to compare league versus others thus eliminating the era issue is, differ by 4%, their 162 game average gives Gordon the edge in runs, extra base hits, homers and RBI.
Gordon missed two prime years due to WWII, won an MVP and is in the Hall of Fame - voted in by guys who have had the chance to put the "better offensive player" in, and yet there is not even room for debate.
OK, you're the new King of arrogance and nobody else, BBWA, VC, whoever has to vote on that one.
Chess has to send his crown.
dirtdevil
February 19, 2010 at 10:15PM View BBCode
there is nothing in the numbers to suggest that either guy is clearly superior. which is the point i was making in the first place, actually. asnd when did one mvp award become a major metric for hof inclusion? dale murphy is now off crying in a corner somewhere. i hope you're happy!
shep1582
the debate is brooks, rizzuto, maz. santo is demonstrably better offensively than those 3.
why do you not assail their marginal stats, good sir?
February 19, 2010 at 10:39PM View BBCode
the debate isn't about joe gordon vs ron santo. however... you say they are very similar, tr,so why is santo "marginal"? stand and deliver.the debate is brooks, rizzuto, maz. santo is demonstrably better offensively than those 3.
why do you not assail their marginal stats, good sir?
tworoosters
My point on the MVP and championships is that given a lack, unless you are Tyles, of conclusive statistical evidence of superiority those sort of things are going to influence decisions.
I've actually always been surprised that Murphy never got more support, I don't think he deserves the Hall but his overall numbers are within the range of guys like Rice and Dawson, he won the two MVPs and yet he never got higher than 23.8% .
February 19, 2010 at 10:44PM View BBCode
I live to make Dale Murphy weep.My point on the MVP and championships is that given a lack, unless you are Tyles, of conclusive statistical evidence of superiority those sort of things are going to influence decisions.
I've actually always been surprised that Murphy never got more support, I don't think he deserves the Hall but his overall numbers are within the range of guys like Rice and Dawson, he won the two MVPs and yet he never got higher than 23.8% .
dirtdevil
February 19, 2010 at 10:47PM View BBCode
rizzuto is in because he was a yankee and all yankees with multiple championship rings belong in the hall. everyone knows that. robinson is in because of his defence. maz hit a really big home run in the world series and was also a defensive whiz. so they aren't the greatest comparision to use, just as ozzie smith won't be the offensive standard for shortstops.
Tyles
Your case for Joe Gordon has meandered all over the place. First, the OPS+ thing: 100 is the baseline, so Santo's five-point edge is 25 percent better, not 4 percent. That's significant. His actual OPS (and, separately, his OBP and SLG) are nearly identical to Gordon's, despite playing in a much tougher era for hitters. He has about 100 more career home runs and 700 more hits. Gordon missed time to the war, true. He also padded his stats against replacement-level talent in '42 and '43 before enlisting. And he was washed up at age 35; Santo was done at 34 due to complications from diabetes, so call that a push. The fact that the VC elected Gordon and not Santo is irrelevant; no doubt the pinstripes and World Series titles helped his cause, which say nothing about his actual value as a player.
February 19, 2010 at 10:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by Tyles
Ron Santo was a better offensive player than Joe Gordon. There is not even room for debate.
Wow, just wow.
You never saw either play, their OPS+, designed to compare league versus others thus eliminating the era issue is, differ by 4%, their 162 game average gives Gordon the edge in runs, extra base hits, homers and RBI.
Gordon missed two prime years due to WWII, won an MVP and is in the Hall of Fame - voted in by guys who have had the chance to put the "better offensive player" in, and yet there is not even room for debate.
OK, you're the new King of arrogance and nobody else, BBWA, VC, whoever has to vote on that one.
Chess has to send his crown.
Your case for Joe Gordon has meandered all over the place. First, the OPS+ thing: 100 is the baseline, so Santo's five-point edge is 25 percent better, not 4 percent. That's significant. His actual OPS (and, separately, his OBP and SLG) are nearly identical to Gordon's, despite playing in a much tougher era for hitters. He has about 100 more career home runs and 700 more hits. Gordon missed time to the war, true. He also padded his stats against replacement-level talent in '42 and '43 before enlisting. And he was washed up at age 35; Santo was done at 34 due to complications from diabetes, so call that a push. The fact that the VC elected Gordon and not Santo is irrelevant; no doubt the pinstripes and World Series titles helped his cause, which say nothing about his actual value as a player.
tworoosters
Both are marginal, as I said a page back or so I wouldn't be upset if Santo got in.
Gordon has some better "non-statistical" things going for him, like the three rings and an MVP but I certainly don't think either are a slam dunk, I just would've hated to live in a world that enshrined Bobby Doerr without Joe Gordon.
February 19, 2010 at 10:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
the debate isn't about joe gordon vs ron santo. however... you say they are very similar, tr,so why is santo "marginal"? stand and deliver.
Both are marginal, as I said a page back or so I wouldn't be upset if Santo got in.
Gordon has some better "non-statistical" things going for him, like the three rings and an MVP but I certainly don't think either are a slam dunk, I just would've hated to live in a world that enshrined Bobby Doerr without Joe Gordon.
Tyles
(It's the pinstripes, isn't it?)
February 19, 2010 at 10:51PM View BBCode
But, if I do allow that their stats are damn near identical, as you've suggested, please explain what makes Santo's "marginal" and Gordon's "worthy of the Hall of Fame"?(It's the pinstripes, isn't it?)
shep1582
I submit that Santo was pretty close to a whiz, as well. He was so much better than these guys offensively, and his defense was pretty close. I know why they're in.
It's a great comparison, because Maz and Brooks are direct contemporaries, and Rizzuto is a joke. He's one of the worst selections of all time.
I wanna know where tr's outrage of these marginal players is.
February 19, 2010 at 10:54PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
rizzuto is in because he was a yankee and all yankees with multiple championship rings belong in the hall. everyone knows that. robinson is in because of his defence. maz hit a really big home run in the world series and was also a defensive whiz. so they aren't the greatest comparision to use, just as ozzie smith won't be the offensive standard for shortstops.
I submit that Santo was pretty close to a whiz, as well. He was so much better than these guys offensively, and his defense was pretty close. I know why they're in.
It's a great comparison, because Maz and Brooks are direct contemporaries, and Rizzuto is a joke. He's one of the worst selections of all time.
I wanna know where tr's outrage of these marginal players is.
Tyles
February 19, 2010 at 10:57PM View BBCode
Mazeroski's induction was at least as bad as Rizzuto's.
dirtdevil
why? he hasn't once defended any of them or been outraged than anyone else got in, so far as i can recall. he's just said that he feels santo isn't in because he's a marginal case. it's a reasonable enough position to hold and doesn't really have any relationship to other more or less marginal players being in.
February 20, 2010 at 03:17AM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
I wanna know where tr's outrage of these marginal players is.
why? he hasn't once defended any of them or been outraged than anyone else got in, so far as i can recall. he's just said that he feels santo isn't in because he's a marginal case. it's a reasonable enough position to hold and doesn't really have any relationship to other more or less marginal players being in.
ironhorse2ko
Yes it is since they used it. Racist yes. Weak defense, definitely to the up most degree. But to the front office, the weakest defense to not use black ball players turned out to be their strongest one since they could point to all those damn championships at the time.
Point being...the color line allowed racism to keep out some the best players and teams like the Yankees believed in that ignorance and benefitted from it.
February 20, 2010 at 06:56AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Tyles
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
And in the Yankees defense they looked at their success up until that point without the service of black ball players and stated that they didn't need them...until 64 when the dynasty ended.
That the Yankees looked at their success and saw a racial correlation is not particularly defensible.
Yes it is since they used it. Racist yes. Weak defense, definitely to the up most degree. But to the front office, the weakest defense to not use black ball players turned out to be their strongest one since they could point to all those damn championships at the time.
Point being...the color line allowed racism to keep out some the best players and teams like the Yankees believed in that ignorance and benefitted from it.
ironhorse2ko
Yeah, I know this, as well as Vic Power. And Howard was so good that the Yanks couldn't find a regular position for him until 62 after Berra stepped down, and he was so good that they wouldn't let him get away either. Yes he came up in the 55 season, but he really didn't get regular playing time till later. After Berra, he was the 2nd best catcher in the AL from 59 till he left the Yanks. Even with his tools, he was still the only black player at that point (Power was let go) and they still felt justified in not getting more black players.
February 20, 2010 at 07:06AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
And in the Yankees defense they looked at their success up until that point without the service of black ball players and stated that they didn't need them...until 64 when the dynasty ended.
ah, elston howard?
(he was a NEEGROW. he hit about 143 home runs for the yankees from 1955 to 1964)
[Edited on 2-19-2010 by tm4559]
Yeah, I know this, as well as Vic Power. And Howard was so good that the Yanks couldn't find a regular position for him until 62 after Berra stepped down, and he was so good that they wouldn't let him get away either. Yes he came up in the 55 season, but he really didn't get regular playing time till later. After Berra, he was the 2nd best catcher in the AL from 59 till he left the Yanks. Even with his tools, he was still the only black player at that point (Power was let go) and they still felt justified in not getting more black players.
BKCUBS13
Just kidding we all know the old timer has type 1 diabetes. I mean diagnosed at age 18 he was told that he had only 25 years to live let alone play ball. And just let you guys know back in the 70's gauging sugar levels were pretty primitive so the fact that he was able to compete at a high level is a testament to itself. I have relatives who have diabetes and they struggle with all these medical advancements. I mean it is honestly amazing that he was able to do what he did with the disease he had in time where treatment is not even close to comparable as it is today.
Listen, I love Ron Santo and in my heart he is a HOFer for all the numbers and mostly all the intangibles-(I know you guys love things you can't measure). I'm not going to list numbers cause if your baseball savy you already know the numbers, I'm just going to say I can understand not letting him in b/c of the numebrs, i'll even admit they are not overwhelming,although arguments can be made the players with lesser number have benn elected. It kills me but I understand.
By the way if you haven't watched "This Old Cub" Please watch it, it's a great story, amazing movie produced and directed by Jef Santo his son. And if you guys ever get a chance to be at Cubs game or are in the Chicago area during a Cubs game flip on wgn720 and listen to 2 of the greatest tandems on the radio, Ron and Pat.
February 20, 2010 at 08:14AM View BBCode
Ron Santo gave his legs to the MLB! What have they given him??Just kidding we all know the old timer has type 1 diabetes. I mean diagnosed at age 18 he was told that he had only 25 years to live let alone play ball. And just let you guys know back in the 70's gauging sugar levels were pretty primitive so the fact that he was able to compete at a high level is a testament to itself. I have relatives who have diabetes and they struggle with all these medical advancements. I mean it is honestly amazing that he was able to do what he did with the disease he had in time where treatment is not even close to comparable as it is today.
Listen, I love Ron Santo and in my heart he is a HOFer for all the numbers and mostly all the intangibles-(I know you guys love things you can't measure). I'm not going to list numbers cause if your baseball savy you already know the numbers, I'm just going to say I can understand not letting him in b/c of the numebrs, i'll even admit they are not overwhelming,although arguments can be made the players with lesser number have benn elected. It kills me but I understand.
By the way if you haven't watched "This Old Cub" Please watch it, it's a great story, amazing movie produced and directed by Jef Santo his son. And if you guys ever get a chance to be at Cubs game or are in the Chicago area during a Cubs game flip on wgn720 and listen to 2 of the greatest tandems on the radio, Ron and Pat.
thatrogue
In the end, clearly, the VC has a place, and subjectively, that they've selected Gordon and not Santo means the system could use a bit of tweaking.
February 21, 2010 at 10:56AM View BBCode
Originally posted by TylesI believe we have a resident math whiz or two that can probably address this better, but, with things like BAvg, OPS and OPS+, I don't think we say things like "4 percent different" or "25 percent higher". (Is an OPS+ of 120 twice as good as an OPS+ of 100?) I think we stick to things like saying four points higher, and leave it at that. I also think that Santo's OPS+ and Gordon's OPS+ are close enough that arguing which was "that much better than the other" is futile. By measurement of OPS+, Santo was a marginally better offensive player than was Gordon, and that's really it.
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by Tyles
Ron Santo was a better offensive player than Joe Gordon. There is not even room for debate.
Wow, just wow.
You never saw either play, their OPS+, designed to compare league versus others thus eliminating the era issue is, differ by 4%, ...
Your case for Joe Gordon has meandered all over the place. First, the OPS+ thing: 100 is the baseline, so Santo's five-point edge is 25 percent better, not 4 percent. That's significant. His actual OPS (and, separately, his OBP and SLG) are nearly identical to Gordon's, despite playing in a much tougher era for hitters. ...
In the end, clearly, the VC has a place, and subjectively, that they've selected Gordon and not Santo means the system could use a bit of tweaking.
Originally posted by dirtdevilAnd somewhere, Scott Brosius and Paul O' Neill do the happy dance.
rizzuto is in because he was a yankee and all yankees with multiple championship rings belong in the hall. everyone knows that. robinson is in because of his defence. maz hit a really big home run in the world series and was also a defensive whiz. so they aren't the greatest comparision to use, just as ozzie smith won't be the offensive standard for shortstops.
dirtdevil
February 21, 2010 at 09:18PM View BBCode
brosius and o'neil? scrappy white guys? check. championships in pinstripes? check. better offensive stats than phil rizzuto? check. beloved of the yankee mob? check. therefore, coming soon to a hall of fame near you.
tworoosters
February 21, 2010 at 09:43PM View BBCode
Well Nettles and Munson aren't there so I don't think O'Neill or Brosius should get too excited .
tm4559
i am not claiming to be the math wiz, but you need to explain this, because i can't understand it.
what are the two numbers?
if 100 ops+ is a league average hitter, then 150 ops+ means that hitter is as valuable as one and half of those hitters? isn't that what it means? so the 150 hitter is 50% better than the 100 hitter. not 150 percent better. you are setting the 100 to zero.
the 150 ops+ hitter IS 150% of the 100 ops+ hitter. he is all that hitter is, and then half a hitter again (all in one person) but that is not saying the same thing as 150% better.
i believe what you are trying to say is that a 105 ops+ hitter is 25% better than a 100 ops+ hitter. this cannot be. the 125 ops+ hitter is 25% better than the 100 ops+ hitter. he is all that hitter and a quarter of another hitter again.
February 21, 2010 at 11:00PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Tyles
Your case for Joe Gordon has meandered all over the place. First, the OPS+ thing: 100 is the baseline, so Santo's five-point edge is 25 percent better, not 4 percent. That's significant.
i am not claiming to be the math wiz, but you need to explain this, because i can't understand it.
what are the two numbers?
if 100 ops+ is a league average hitter, then 150 ops+ means that hitter is as valuable as one and half of those hitters? isn't that what it means? so the 150 hitter is 50% better than the 100 hitter. not 150 percent better. you are setting the 100 to zero.
the 150 ops+ hitter IS 150% of the 100 ops+ hitter. he is all that hitter is, and then half a hitter again (all in one person) but that is not saying the same thing as 150% better.
i believe what you are trying to say is that a 105 ops+ hitter is 25% better than a 100 ops+ hitter. this cannot be. the 125 ops+ hitter is 25% better than the 100 ops+ hitter. he is all that hitter and a quarter of another hitter again.
tworoosters
February 21, 2010 at 11:18PM View BBCode
The numbers are 120 for Gordon and 125 for Santo .
shep1582
We've settled it, Gordon's a bum and Santo is the awesome.
February 21, 2010 at 11:55PM View BBCode
Hence, 25 is 25% higher than 20, when 100 is the baseline.We've settled it, Gordon's a bum and Santo is the awesome.
Tyles
Santo's edge in OPS+ is all the greater when one considers his edge over Gordon in plate appearances (~9,300 to 6,500). So, Santo was a better player for a substantially longer period of time, despite being finished at age 34. But it was just his luck not to be conscripted by the Yankees, so he was a marginal player and Joe Gordon was a Hall of Famer.
February 22, 2010 at 01:05AM View BBCode
Ron Santo's value beyond the league-average hitter is 25 percent higher than Joe Gordon's value beyond the league-average hitter. Look, I don't think it's particularly useful to examine it that way, as a percentage of a percentage; we all (presumably) have a good understanding of how OPS+ works, and what the difference between a 120 and 125 OPS+ actually means. It's not simply a difference of four percent, because the baseline is not zero, and that is the point I was addressing.Santo's edge in OPS+ is all the greater when one considers his edge over Gordon in plate appearances (~9,300 to 6,500). So, Santo was a better player for a substantially longer period of time, despite being finished at age 34. But it was just his luck not to be conscripted by the Yankees, so he was a marginal player and Joe Gordon was a Hall of Famer.
Tyles
Also this, which I regret I didn't pick up before. When Santo retired in 1974, he was No. 2 all-time in home runs by a third baseman in the majors, behind Eddie Matthews (who hit a few home runs). Gordon, of course, was No. 2 in the majors behind Rogers Hornsby.
But again, Roosters was never interested in judging a player relative to his position.
February 22, 2010 at 01:12AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Of course Santo ... retired as his league's leader in homers at his position ...
Oh wait that was Gordon, my bad.
Also this, which I regret I didn't pick up before. When Santo retired in 1974, he was No. 2 all-time in home runs by a third baseman in the majors, behind Eddie Matthews (who hit a few home runs). Gordon, of course, was No. 2 in the majors behind Rogers Hornsby.
But again, Roosters was never interested in judging a player relative to his position.
thatrogue
(I agree that Santo is getting jobbed...both by the Veterans Committee and by tworoosters.)
February 22, 2010 at 06:07AM View BBCode
Originally posted by TylesI was trying to clarify that it only makes sense to compare their difference in points, not percent. Saying an OPS+ of 125 is 25% better than an OPS+ of 120 just feels odd, considering what that stat represents. Kind of like when we say a hitter batted 25 points higher than his career average, as opposed to saying his average was 8.33 percent better than his career average.
Ron Santo's value beyond the league-average hitter is 25 percent higher than Joe Gordon's value beyond the league-average hitter. Look, I don't think it's particularly useful to examine it that way, as a percentage of a percentage; we all (presumably) have a good understanding of how OPS+ works, and what the difference between a 120 and 125 OPS+ actually means. It's not simply a difference of four percent, because the baseline is not zero, and that is the point I was addressing.
Santo's edge in OPS+ is all the greater when one considers his edge over Gordon in plate appearances (~9,300 to 6,500). So, Santo was a better player for a substantially longer period of time, despite being finished at age 34. But it was just his luck not to be conscripted by the Yankees, so he was a marginal player and Joe Gordon was a Hall of Famer.
(I agree that Santo is getting jobbed...both by the Veterans Committee and by tworoosters.)
cubfan531
I wouldn't call Hornsby a full-on power hitter, just a flat-out amazing hitter. Still, during Aaron's time, second base was mainly viewed as a contact and speed position. Yeah, you had Morgan and Hornsby, probably a few others too, but, for the most part, Ryne Sandberg and Jeff Kent brought the idea of power hitting second basemen to the forefront. Now, a second baseman hitting 20 homers isn't seen as a huge accomplishment in the league. Put them into Hornsby's time, the guy might've made the hall of fame if he'd done it a few times.
Robinson supposedly said that Santo was better on offense and defense than him. But Brooks has World Series rings, which voters somehow associate with team talent. Because one guy wins a World Series.
Anyway, the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to elect players who were the best of all time, and the dominant player(s) at a position during their playing time. You ask anyone who the best third baseman of the 1960's was, you'll almost always get an answer of either Brooks Robinson (HOF) or Ron Santo (HOF snub).
Also proof that the system is flawed is that Jim Kaat is not enshrined in Cooperstown. He may have not been the greatest thing on the planet when he pitched (he was up there, though), but he did rack up 283 wins.
February 22, 2010 at 09:18AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by cubfan531
So perhaps the only thing keeping Hank Aaron from making second base into a power position before Ryne Sandberg was even conceived
The pissed-off ghost of Rogers Hornsby would like to have a word with you, OBCF. Also, Joe Morgan would be very upset right now if he hadn't thrown the computer that his grandchildren bought him out the window because he believed that it was filled with demons.
I wouldn't call Hornsby a full-on power hitter, just a flat-out amazing hitter. Still, during Aaron's time, second base was mainly viewed as a contact and speed position. Yeah, you had Morgan and Hornsby, probably a few others too, but, for the most part, Ryne Sandberg and Jeff Kent brought the idea of power hitting second basemen to the forefront. Now, a second baseman hitting 20 homers isn't seen as a huge accomplishment in the league. Put them into Hornsby's time, the guy might've made the hall of fame if he'd done it a few times.
Originally posted by Tyles
Let me put it another way: Ron Santo was a significantly better third baseman than his contemporary Brooks Robinson.
Robinson supposedly said that Santo was better on offense and defense than him. But Brooks has World Series rings, which voters somehow associate with team talent. Because one guy wins a World Series.
Anyway, the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to elect players who were the best of all time, and the dominant player(s) at a position during their playing time. You ask anyone who the best third baseman of the 1960's was, you'll almost always get an answer of either Brooks Robinson (HOF) or Ron Santo (HOF snub).
Also proof that the system is flawed is that Jim Kaat is not enshrined in Cooperstown. He may have not been the greatest thing on the planet when he pitched (he was up there, though), but he did rack up 283 wins.