Curtis Granderson’s last 162 games
Posted by Andy on August 15, 2011
Curtis Granderson has now played in 162 games since the switch in his batting style that has been largely cited for his vastly improved performance. His stats over those last 162 games:
.269/.362/.579 .941 OPS
697 PA, 23 2B, 10 3B, 47 HR, 127 RBI, 133 R
Those are some pretty impressive numbers.
At the moment of this writing, in 2011 Granderson is first in MLB in runs scored with 107. Jacoby Ellsbury is second with 85. Think about that--Grandy has 25% more runs scored than the #2 guy.
He's also tied for first in homers, and second in RBI and total bases.
A big part of Granderson's success has been due to his reversal against left-handers. They used to be his kryptonite but since last August he's been hitting them hard:
| I | Year | G | PA | AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | BB | SO | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | ||
| 2005 | 16 | 29 | 25 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 8 | .320 | .393 | .680 | 1.073 | .400 | |
| 2006 | 69 | 164 | 147 | 32 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 10 | 49 | .218 | .277 | .395 | .671 | .298 | |
| 2007 | 67 | 133 | 119 | 19 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 40 | .160 | .225 | .269 | .494 | .211 | |
| 2008 | 66 | 159 | 147 | 38 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 9 | 29 | .259 | .310 | .429 | .739 | .292 | |
| 2009 | 86 | 199 | 180 | 33 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 15 | 42 | .183 | .245 | .239 | .484 | .226 | |
| 2010 | 84 | 174 | 158 | 37 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 13 | 41 | .234 | .292 | .354 | .647 | .292 | |
| 2011 | 74 | 158 | 137 | 37 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 33 | 13 | 45 | .270 | .346 | .577 | .923 | .313 | |
| Career Total | 463 | 1017 | 914 | 204 | 31 | 10 | 31 | 99 | 71 | 255 | .223 | .286 | .381 | .666 | .274 |
His BA, OBP, and SLG are all way above career averages and are career bests (save the very brief performance in 2005). If he keeps hitting lefties as he has been, he might win a league MVP before he retires.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:46 am
how is he not even in the top 10 of position player WAR in the AL over here, yet is 5th in that statistic on fangraphs, with similarly devalued defense?
August 15th, 2011 at 8:20 am
It's really gotten weird that I feel better watching him hit lefties than right-handed pitchers. Weird feeling.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:35 am
Amazing turn-around for Grandy. I thought for sure he'd decline when he signed with the Yankees. His early-on 2010 numbers were sort of what I expected.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Andy, these are guys who have R > .90 Hs
Player HR R H Year
B Ruth 54 163 173 1928
B Ruth 54 158 172 1920
B Bonds 45 129 135 2004
C Beltran 41 127 140 2006
E Joost 23 128 138 1949
M Bishop 10 117 111 1930
R Henderson 9 110 112 1996
M Bishop 3 102 110 1929
D Bush 2 107 118 1912
D Bush 1 126 130 1911
Granderson is at 89+%. I think he is a great candidate to make this list. He has a decent walk rate, great speed and stolen base skills, great power, middle to low average (hence, fewer hits), and he hits in the middle of a killer lineup that is getting A-rod back in a 10 days. I say he goes over .9 BB/Hs. What do you think. Pretty short list.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:45 am
PS, has anyone led the league in HRs and 3bs? My guess is Mays?
August 15th, 2011 at 8:45 am
grandy's stats:
Apr 4, 2010 to Aug 15, 2010:
BA: .240 OBP: .306
PA: 317
R: 51
H: 76
2B:12
3B:6
HR:11
RBI: 35
I honestly thought he was a bust for the NYY (ie. Kevin Brown, Burnett in some parts, etc.).
August 15th, 2011 at 8:47 am
Interesting...Granderson is leading the AL in runs and rbis while primarily batting 2nd in the lineup. Wonder how many guys have done that?
I think it was Bill James who observed that 2nd really isn't very good for either runs or rbis (at least relative to some other positions in the lineup).
August 15th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Jim Rice, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Tip O'Neill, maybe someone else, have all led the league in 3b and hr in the same season. Rice is a bit unexpected.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:57 am
@8 Indy And Mantle and Mays did it in the same season (1955).
August 15th, 2011 at 9:11 am
What is the record for winning margin in runs scored? Perhaps it will be Grandy's 2011 season.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:17 am
MVP.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:41 am
@4
Is that with a minimum of 100 Runs in the season? I'm sure Max Bishop isn't the only player to have more runs than hits is a season. Does that list include the 19th C.?
August 15th, 2011 at 9:56 am
@7...Pardon me for being an old timer, but I almost have to laugh at "Bill James" statement. Historically, the number 2 hitter was/is supposed to be a good bunter and one who could move a runner into scoring position. Hence, their roll is/was often NOT to score or produce RBI's, but rather a player that was "team" orientated. Of course that is totally dependent on the "type" of team that was/is fielded. The Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox needless to say, are loaded from top to bottom in their lineup so it's not that unusual for any player in their lineup placed in the number 2 hole to "produce", due to their respected team mates skills. IF this "suprises" Bill James OR anyone else that follows the game that the number two hitter is "often" void of big numbers in the run or RBI department historically speaking, then they need to watch some old baseball reels prior to the mid '80's. Just another reason to "closely" scrutinize a batters OBP in regards to their batting position. BA demonstrates a player can hit major league pitching..OBP demonstrates..well..that's anyones guess..and totally dependant on a host of factors.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:00 am
For RBIs I think the bottom line is that #2 hitters are a lot less likely than #3 or #4 to come up with RISP.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:07 am
I think it had to help when they moved him up to the no. 2 slot, too. Yankees had him batting 7th and 8th last year. On a slightly related note, I just noticed that Ian Kennedy, one of the guys the Yankees traded for Granderson, is now 15-3 with a good ERA playing in Arizona, a good hitters park. I guess they should've traded Joba instead.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:11 am
@14.."normally" that is a correct assumption..unless of course.. your team has players that are getting on base in their lower half of their respected lineups. Here again...a totally "dependant" situation.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:21 am
The only "real" question I would have to ask concerning Granderson producing hitting in the number 2 slot is.."how often does a number 2 hitter hit 30 plus HRS?"
August 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
@MLS
So let me get this straight. To be "team oriented" means to not score runs or knock in baserunners? That seems weird since the goal of the game is to produce more runs than the other team.
In regards to OBP, is it not simply a measure of a players ability to get on base?
August 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
@18..No..it's more of WHAT roll you play for your "team". I didn't mean to confuse you. As far as OBP being a a measure of a players "ability" to reach base...the question is really is just that..was it truly his "ability" OR perhaps the mgr/pitchers "ability" to pitch around certain hitters in certain situations...When one evaluates OBP that's EXACTLY what question to ask.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:44 am
The new Granderson was unleashed on August 12. He has played 164 games now.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:48 am
@5, @8
In addition to Mantle, Mays and Rice there are Tommy Leach, Harry Lumley and Jim Bottomley (since 1901).
August 15th, 2011 at 10:54 am
When it comes to stats, I believe there are stand alone stats, then there are dependant stats. That's where BA guys have an arguement with OBP guys. BA is cut and dried, to say otherwise is superfluous. Whereas OBP is not cut and dried, it "can" be dependant on other factors. That's why old timers like myself have a hard time with the notion that BA is a "useless" stat compared to OBP...they're both important..but anything that has "dependancy" attached to it should be evaluated and scrutinized. To place OBP as a higher standard than BA is insane.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:09 am
@MLS - usually, the players lower down in the lineup are there precisely because they're not that good at getting on base. So I think the assertion that a typical #2 hitter gets fewer RBI opportunities is sound. It takes a stacked lineup to get him those opportunities. It's OBP that (ideally) drives this sort of thing, and not the other way around.
I think OBP and SLG have more going for them than straight batting average does. It takes an exceptional player to consistently amass so many base hits that his relative inability to walk or drive the ball is tolerable - and if the hits dry up, so does a large part of his value. A player who can draw walks reliably and drive the ball hard has more of a cushion to work with, so to speak - less reliant on mediocre fielding and balls falling in for him. Exhibit A is Jeff Francouer. If the hits don't fall in, his value plummets. Even when he does hit .300, he barely scrapes the league average OPB, and his slugging as often as not is also below average - because his batting average drives most of his value as a hitter, his ability to contribute at the plate is much more limited than, say, Ben Zobrist.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Granderson leads the league in runs and runs batted in, I believe, which is a rare accomplishment.
I just noticed how low Adrian G.'s walk total is this year in comparison to past years perhaps relating to the "lineup protection" issue.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Nightfly..all your points are solid and sound! Undisputable actually. But let's look into it further. What you are doing is placing "value" on something..and that's exactly what baseball is all about! BA is ONLY a measurement of the baseball players ability to hit major league pitching..nothing more, nothing less. Mantle's .298 BA is worse than John Kruk's .300 BA..that's ALL it's saying..we all know that Mantle's "value" was far greater hitting .298 than Kruk's .300...in the same token Rose's OBP is far more "valuable" than Killebrew's..is it not? In your example of Francour...I agree him hitting .300 is not that "valuable"..BUT...it's NOT saying the man couldn't hit major league pitching is it? OBP can not be viewed as such..can it? Was it the ball players ability or "could" it be some other factors on why the man reached base? See where I'm coming from?
August 15th, 2011 at 11:40 am
How is Batting Average any less dependent on context than On-Base Percentage? BA is heavily dependent on the opposing defense and sheer luck. OBP of course also depends on the pitching, but batters have clear and consistent discipline-related abilities. Were that not the case, you wouldn't see the same players topping the walk and OBP columns year after year.
The question simply becomes which statistic has a greater correlation to run scoring. Getting on-base is the single most important thing, and since you can do that by other means than the base hit, OBP is the more complete statistic. BA is by no means useless, just as OBP is by no means definitive.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@MLS
I'll concede your idea that BA is a stand alone stat, but to what purpose. Sure if BA was the only stat available to evaluate players then sure you could use it alone, but fortunately this site and others like it provide an abundance of other statistics to evaluate players by. And in my opinion BA provides a solid starting point but ultimately is limited by what it can tell you.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:48 am
MLS I don't have time to read through and digest all your comments. But as Andy points out in @14, players who bat #3 or #4 in the lineup are almost guaranteed to have more opportunities to bat with RISP than someone batting 2nd. Similarly, a batter who hits 1st in the lineup has more opportunities to get on base (and therefore score runs) than someone batting 2nd.
James' comment - if it was in fact James - was a simple factual observation. It has nothing to do with any "new fangled thinking" vs "being an old-timer".
August 15th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@ 26.." greater correlation to run scoring" statement is purely a complete raw stat analysis NOT an individual one. "Getting on base is the single most important thing"...if that were actually the case..please, if you would be so kind, explain the Williams/Papi/Howard/Pena ect shifts...a bunt down 3rd baseline gets you to first almost every time does it not? You "may" want to rethink about that statement.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:57 am
@ 27...BA plus 162 game TB average is a simplistic, yet a solid foundation to evaluate a players "hitting" ability, concerning "value" of the individual player.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
@ 28...LOL...you should read more...to get a "feel" of what really is meant by someones comments.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
@MLS - thanks for the reply. I understand what you're saying. Again, it's certainly possible to be a wonderful hitter who also, for whatever reason, doesn't walk all that much. Tony Gwynn walked a surprisingly-low amount, for example. However, he also rarely if ever struck out - it shows me that he had plate discipline, and preferred to use it to get himself a good pitch to hit, rather than to draw a lot of walks. So, a pitch that he could take the other way (but might be a ball), someone like Wade Boggs would take (even if it might be a strike). A guy like Francouer who walks 35 times but strikes out 110 times doesn't have that kind of ability. So, he may hit .300, or .230. He will get himself out - he won't force the pitcher to give him something he can handle more easily. Those are measurements of hitting ability that aren't necessarily reflected in batting average alone.
Regarding the shift... virtually all the time, those shifts are employed against dead-pull power hitters. The reason they don't bunt to beat the shift is that they (and their teams) are better served by letting them swing away - the people you cited as examples are/were terrible bunters, and exceptional sluggers. On twenty bunt attempts, Ryan Howard might get five singles. He'd pop out a bunch of times, or foul off a bunch of others, and then be stuck trying to hit away with two strikes - and considering that he's already prone to strikeouts, it's a bad idea for him to give away pitches early in the count. If he swings away, maybe he gets six or seven hits. Even if he only gets five (or four) they may all be extra-bases. But if they could reliably bunt to beat a shift, or take the ball the other way, the shifts would disappear.
The larger point I get from Zachary's post is simple - if you never make an out, you will never stop scoring runs. If you look at huge innings, you notice it's not often that a team will just hit a three homers in a row. Much more often it's a sequence like walk-single-single-walk-double-walk-single. That's four or five runs right there, while the homers get you only three, unless you've gotten men on to start with.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
@MLS
Now who is making assumptions? Is it really a sure thing for someone like Big Papi who never bunts to lay down a perfect bunt down the 3B line and with his incredibly slow speed make it to 1B?
I think that you forget that BA is part of figuring a players OBP. Its not like OBP ignores their ability to hit. It simply includes all the ways in which a batter can reach base.
August 15th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@ MLS
I could also make the case that BA is just as dependent on other information as OBP. BA only tells you how often a player records a hit, but it makes no distinction on what kind of hit it was. Bloop single, IF single, a liner up the middle, a double or triple in the gap or a homerun. All of these obviously provide various amounts of value.
a .300 singles hitter is less valuable than the .300 hitter with some slug who racks up extra base hits.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
@26/ Zachary Says: "...The question simply becomes which statistic has a greater correlation to run scoring. Getting on-base is the single most important thing, and since you can do that by other means than the base hit, OBP is the more complete statistic. BA is by no means useless, just as OBP is by no means definitive..."
Every study I've seen as to what particular statistic correlates best to actual run-scoring has the following result:
- On-Base Average (OBA) is the best
- Slugging Average (SLG) is a close second
- everything else is a distant third, that includes Batting Average.
Actually, some stats, such as Stolen Bases, correlate _negatively_ ; that is, the better your ranking, the worse you do scoring runs.
This makes sense if you think about it intuitively in that getting on base (OBA), and moving those baserunners around the basepaths most efficiently (SLG), is what is most important to score runs. Other factors, such as "clutch" hitting, GIDP, and SB affect this to a small degree, but don't hurt or help a great deal except at the extremes of bad and good.
MLS seems to be expressing the "old school" thinking that high walks totals shouldn't be credited much to the batter at the plate, but are a frequently random event that occurs mostly when the pitcher happens to experience a wild streak, and a high batting average is a much more important skill than a high OBA.
Getting on base is an extremely important, repeatable skill,and it doesn't matter if a batter has a very high BA and not that many walks, or a mediocre BA but a lot of walks, if the OBA is about the same.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
How big (small) is the new Yankee Stadium again?
August 15th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Josh, Yankee Stadium may have helped Granderson hit a few homers but his splits are not particularly extreme:
At home he has 19 HR in 269 PAs (1 per 14.1 PA)
On the road he has 14 HR in 245 PAs (1 per 17.5 PA)
Joey Bats has:
At home, 17 HR in 222 PAs (1 per 13.1 PA)
On the road, 17 HR in 256 PAs (1 per 15.1 PA)
Similar edge for the two players...
August 15th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Many are fond of saying that baseball has no clock. But it does. The ticking is not done with hours and minutes but with outs. Once the clock strikes 27, the game is over for your team, and you cannot score any more runs. The goal is to score as many runs possible before the team jet turns into a pumpkin.
The best way to score runs and win games is to not make an out when you step to the plate. Get a hit, "Hooray!" Take a walk, "mild applause" Get hit by a pitch, "Thatta boy Biggio... Way to take one for the team." Beat the double play throw to first, "Nice Biggio... Way to stop that clock!"
Mind you, I would rather watch a game with lots of hits, rather than lots of walks. But to achieve the goal of scoring the most runs an optimal team will have a lot of players who can take a pitch...
which wears down a pitcher's arm.
which forces pitchers to throw more hittable pitches.
which expedites the manager going to the bullpen
which all leads to scoring more runs.
Team A has nine .310 hitters who have a combined OBP of .340.
Team B has nine .280 hitters who have a combined OBP of .390.
Play these two teams against each other for 162 games and Team B is going to "walk" circles around Team A. Team B won't even hit .280 because they will have many more at bats with runners on base - which causes a documented spike in batting average. Team B will face more relievers due to forcing more pitches. And we all know that facing middle relievers is where hitters lick their chops - these are the pitchers that are the closest (in general) to be being sent down.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Granderson is lucky he doesn't play for the other NY team. He'd have Jason Bay stats. If I was a free agent position player I would stay clear of that team.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
@ 34
I kinda disagree.
I think Ichiro is or was the most misused player in the game. Hitting him lead off, even though he was quick and had a high average did not exploit his talents as well as they could have.
Imagine his 262 hit season batting third in the middle of a decent line-up. Think Tommy Herr circa 85. Tommy had 105 RBIs with like 6 homers. And he was hitting in a weak era on a weak offensive team.
Imagine Ichiro batting 3rd on some of those great Yankee teams of the late 90's. He'd have 150 RBIs. He's quick enough to stay out of a lot of DPs and safe enough to play hit and run with.
Batting leadoff on a dead offensive team is the reason he scored 160 runs total in back to back 220 hit seasons with 60 SBs.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I thought Boston made the better signing with Crawford.Oh well.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
41 I meant got the better player.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
@ 39 Josh
Ichiro might fit well with that stadium's dimensions. Besides Jason Bay being a terrible player who got an artificial boost from the Green monster, his overall offense is in the crapper because Citi Field takes away 10-15 homers from a righty/pull guy like him, and also screwed up his swing as he overcompensated for his initial lack of power.
Ichiro could play the odd dimensions and deep lines to his advantage. He'd probably have 15-20 triples a year if he was playing for the Mets.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@40/ DukeoffFlatbush "...Think Tommy Herr circa 85. Tommy had 105 RBIs with like 6 homers. And he was hitting in a weak era on a weak offensive team..."
I do not think of the mid-80's NL as a "weak era"*, and I do not think of the 1985 Cardinals (for whom Herr had 8 HR/ 110 RBI) as a "weak offensive team". That 1985 team LED the NL with 4.61 runs/game, in a league that averaged 4.07 R/G. Maybe they did not have traditional slugger-types (aside from Jack Clark), finishing 11th in HR, but they were the opposite of a weak offensive team.
Herr mostly batted third (151 games), usually behind Vince Coleman and Willie McGee. McGee had a .384 OBP, 44 (2B + 3B), and 56 SB. Coleman had a .320 OBP, but with 110 SB he was in scoring position constantly. Between McGee and Coleman, Herr had many RBI opportunities, because a single would usually score those two from second base.
Ichiro as a non-traditional #3 hitter is an interesting premise, though.
* I've read that some people consider MLB in the 1980's the highest level of competition in MLB history.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Lawrence, I think by "weak" he just meant "low-scoring," and 4.07 RPG is toward the low end, historically. You are right that the Cards were a good offensive team, predicated on OBP and good baserunning.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
@40, @45 - Sorry, my aplogies, I read "weak" as "below-average". Even so (as Johnny Twisto states), there is no way the '85 Cards were a below-average offensive team. Normally stolen bases don't add many runs, but 314 SB versus 96 CS creates a lot of runs, especially in a low-scoring environment.
Ichiro (in his prime) might have worked well as the #3 hitter for a team like the 2011 Red Sox, with Ellsbury and Pedroia not only very good at getting on base, but also getting in scoring position through their frequent doubles and stolen bases.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
@ Lawerence
Grew up watching or listening to every Mets game I could between 1984-1990. Totally agree with whoever's assessment that 80's NL ball was great. There was so many low scoring games and managerial strategies that you never see today. I think playing in that era cost Keith Hernandez the HOF. But I digress.
The 80's Mets were great, not just as far as won/loss. In '86 they platooned almost every important defensive position (Backman/Tuefel 2B, Mitchel/Hojo 3B/SS [both had over 25 games at SS {yes that kevin mitchel}], Dykstra/Wilson CF). Plus you had 2 closers, both with 20 saves. They also had 4 horses, all with 200 + IP and 100 + OPS +s.
Most exciting games I ever saw.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Let's retract and reread what I have posted. Remember, "reading" does NOT equate to "comprehension". BA is a stat that speaks for itself..it measures a players ability to hit the baseball. Nothing more, nothing less.I'm NOT placing a "value" of the type of hits obtained, rather I'm stating BA in its purest form is a product of striking a baseball in areas that are not defended by other players. OBP "can" be a product of a players ability BUT it "can" also be a by-product of circumstances in which a player has little control over. If that confuses anyone, I'm terribly sorry. Now placing "value" on OBP or BA is another story all together. For an example, a double is MORE valuable to a team than a single..why?...because standing on 1st is NOT in scoring position..is it? Thus, a singles hitter with a higher BA "may" not be as "valuable" as someone who hits alot of xtra base hits with a lower BA. OBP on the other hand, can NOT be assigned a "value" like hitting can... why?..because standing on 1st is NOT in scoring position AND (which is my arguement and many others) "may" be situational rather than a players "ability". In other words, OBP HAS to be scrutinized much greater than BA. That's it in a nutshell.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
@40/ DukeoffFlatbush
How can you not agree. I'm not disputing the greatness of Ichiro. But my comparison was with 2 people that have the same BA, one who hits singles and one who racks up extra base hits. In what sense is the singles hitter more valuable than power guy.
Ichiro provides as much value as he does because he's not just a .300 singles hitter. he's a .330 hitter with some power.
Here's an example
Ichiro's slash line: .327/.371/.423/.794
Pujols slash line: .328/.421/.619/1.040
Pretty similar BA, clearly different OBP and SLG
Convince me that Ichiro provides more offensive value than Pujols
August 15th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@MLS
You do realize that as part of the calculation for OBP, you include reaching base by means of hit don't you? OBP takes your ability to hit the ball and in addition includes all the other ways in which a batter can reach base which is primarily walks.
I think the ability to take a walk does take skill in the form of plate discipline but I'll concede that not every single walk is purely the result of the hitter.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@38: The games would be quite interesting if Team A had a significantly higher slugging pct than Team B. You seem to be assuming that all “batting averages” are equal. Also, who do you want at the plate with 2 out and a runner on 3rd? A .310/.340 hitter or a .280/.390 hitter? I’ll take the .310 hitter.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
@ 50...a valid and good point. Yes..I do know this and I might add ,NOT a fan of this grouping together. Here's an example "why" I feel this way. There is NO way Killebrew was a good "hitter" not alone a great one. But...IF you clump his "hitting" with his walks and HBP..an arguement "could" and "has" been made that he was a "good hitter", due to his total OBP. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a great HR hitter ONLY. Outside his HRS, his "other" times on base equated to very little scoring wise. On the otherhand, Ted Williams was a great "hitter" even IF you would take away his "other" times on base...was he not? OBP demeans great "hitters" of the game. One man's opinion tis all.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
@ 51...well stated! Baseball is about situations and always has been.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
@8, Indy wrote: Jim Rice, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Tip O'Neill, maybe someone else, have all led the league in 3b and hr in the same season. Rice is a bit unexpected.
-----
Yeah, but Tip O'Neill was the only one the group to also be Speaker of the House!
(and, yeah, I know it's not THAT Tip O'Neill)
August 15th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
@51 - I'll take the .280/.390 guy. The .310/.340 guy will make the third out of the inning more often.
For simplicity's sake, we'll say that they each get 200 plate appearances in that situation, and have a roughly-equal rate of XBH per H. In this way the Team A guys would have a slightly-better overall SLG.
Your guy: 132 outs; 8 walks; 60-192 (.313 avg): 38 s, 13 db, 2 tr, 7 hr. (.510 SLG, not too shabby.) Total runs for team, 67.
My guy: 122 outs; 31 walks; 47-169 (.278 avg): 30 s, 11 db, 2 tr, 4 hr. (.438 SLG, sorta OK.) Total runs for team, 51.
So far, you're ahead by 16, which is good... but there's more to come. After those at bats, the next guy comes up - say he splits the difference and hits .300/.360. Let's say he get super-lucky and every one of his hits drives in the runner on base - his xhb get the guy home from first, his singles all come with the guy in scoring position.
He gets 61 trips with your guy on base: 39 outs; 5 walks; 17-56 (.304 avg): 12 s, 4 db, hr. Total runs for team, 18.
He gets 74 trips with my guy on base: 47 outs; 7 walks; 20-67 (.299 avg): 14 s, 4 db, tr, hr. Total runs for team, 21.
So you win this hypothetical by 13 runs.... or by eight runs, since this new guy is on base five times more often for the hitter after him, and so on. And that's only with this one change in the lineup, and giving your guy a 70-point slugging advantage. Even out their ISO power (so that .280/.390 guy slugs .480) and the gap narrows. Change it so that you trade that .300/.360 guy for another .280/.390 hitter, and the numbers change again.
In this limited situation (2 out, man on 3d) it might pay to pinch-hit with a high-average guy who makes more outs. Take a database of every base-out situation and crunch the numbers (or just let Tom Tango do it for you!), and that advantage is reversed.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
@39, JoshT --
Jason Bay is not a victim of CitiField. He is a victim of himself, losing his ability to hit for power ANYWHERE. He's hit 4 HRs on the road in 2011. Last year he hit 3 HRs on the road. That's seven HRs total on the road the last two years, or half has many as Granderson has hit on the road so far just this year, and in fact Granderson has almost exactly as many HRs this year on the road as Bay has combined at home and on the road to the last two years. Granderson's OPS at home, 957: on the road, 941.
Bay has just lost it.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
@52 - this is exactly where we disagree, I think. A guy who hits "only" .260 with a lot of power can have either great plate discipline, or lousy plate discipline, and that discipline is itself a valuable hitting skill. It means working a walk when you might otherwise make an out (or two, as Jim Rice was known to do). It means giving your teammates more opportuniies to drive you in, which does not mean "very little scoring-wise." All else being equal, it's bound to mean more runs, not fewer. It means picking better pitches to hit.
I submit that these are related skills, and one can be a better hitter or worse hitter than one's batting average.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
@24, Stan.
"Granderson leads the league in runs and runs batted in, I believe, which is a rare accomplishment."
Actually, it's not so rare. Guys who hit a lot of home runs will (of course) simultaneously increase both their RBI and Runs Scored, so there is a related effect. These guys have led or co-led their league in Runs and RBI.
Pujols, NL, 2010
A-Rod, AL, 2007
Sosa, NL, 2001
Sosa, NL, 1998
Belle, AL, 1995
Bagwell, NL, 1994
Schmidt, NL, 1981
Baylor, AL, 1979
Foster, NL, 1977
Jackson, AL, 1973
Yaz, AL, 1967
F. Robinson, AL, 1966
Aaron, NL, 1963
Aaron, NL, 1957
Mantle, AL, 1956
Snider, NL, 1955
Rosen, AL, 1953
Williams, AL, 1949
Musial, NL, 1948
Mize, NL, 1947
Williams, AL, 1947
Nicholson, NL, 1944
Williams, AL, 1942
Medwick, NL, 1937
Foxx, AL, 1932
Klein, NL, 1931
Ruth, AL, 1928
Ruth, AL, 1926
Ruth, AL, 1923
Hornsby, NL, 1922
Hornsby, NL, 1921
Ruth, AL, 1921
Ruth, AL, 1920
Ruth, AL, 1919
Cravath, NL, 1915
Cobb, AL, 1911
Magee, NL, 1910
Cobb, AL, 1909
Davis, AL, 1905
Wagner, NL, 1902
Lajoie, AL, 1901
August 15th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
@58.
One more I missed.
Griffey, AL, 1997
August 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
@ 49 Chris,
Whoaa!!1
How do you make the fantastic leap from me saying that i believe Ichiro would be better suited as a 3 hitter and has been wasted batting leadoff, to claiming I said a team would be better off with Ichiro, not Pujols as their # 3 hitter?
How did you manage that?
All I said was a guy who is not necessarily a great OBP guy, but a guy who gets bunches of hits would make a better 3 hitter, not a better Pujols.
But since you went down that road, give me Bobby Abreu leading off, Placido Polanco hitting second, Ichiro third, Pujols fourth - and that team'll score a bunch...
August 15th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
@58.
Oops, a couple more.
Maris, AL, 1961
Gehrig, AL, 1931
August 15th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
@ 57...Not sure how to interpret your comment. Would you say Rice was a better "hitter" than Killebrew..or visa versa? Sorry, don't know exactly what your implying here.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
@ 8 Indy,
Yeah, Duh!
I used to think that type of thing was never gonna happen since Reggie (and others) started admiring there shots. Very few guys bust it out of the box anymore. But I forgot about Rice and his back to back 15 triples & 400 TBs.
What I find really crazy about Rice, is in 600 less hits, he has 20 more triples than Rickey Henderson. Henderson who was the best baserunner in the sport, might of been equal in skill to hotdogging. That, or - and I brought this up before - does anybody feel Rickey has relatively few triples and doubles because he chose to pull up short to swipe the bag and pad his stats?
SB is one of the few stats you can pad.
Just take a look at how similar Biggio and Henderson's lines were:
Biggio 3060 H 291 HR 55 3B .281 BA
Hende 3055 H 297 HR 66 3B .279 BA
Almost identical, except the much faster Henderson has over 150 less doubles and over 20 more GDIP, and the more double plays despite batting leadoff half as much as Henderson.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
@52
If you define being a good hitter solely as being able to hit for high average, then sure, Killebrew wasn't great. But I don't see why the definition of a good hitter should be based on anything besides productivity. We don't set up different standards for pitchers - they either prevent runs or they don't. we should judge batters by a similar standard.
You can't simply ignore significant components of the offensive equation because they are non-traditional (in some eyes - Ted Williams, for instance, was praising the walk decades ago) without compromising the integrity of the conclusions you draw. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have sub-divisions, but nobody can be unjustly demeaned by a fuller picture.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
@ 57....and @ 64....Killebrew .256/.376 ... Rice .298/.352...Killebrew scored 34 % of the time he reached base..BUT..that number decreases to 23 % of the time when you subtract his HRS..Whereas Rice scored 39 % of the time when he reached base ..and it only declines to 31 % of the time when you subtract his HRS...you tell me...WHO was the better hitter? You guys do realize that Killebrew once hit 49 dingers in a season and only had 11 doubles and 1 triple to go along with those dingers? Think just how pitiful that is for a "power" hitter...just sayin. No one can convince me that Killebrew was a good hitter...ever...sorry. Nothing against Killebrew...it's just a fact.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
@65
"You guys do realize that Killebrew once hit 49 dingers in a season and only had 11 doubles and 1 triple to go along with those dingers?"
That would seem to accord with remarks attributed to Killebrew that he was swinging for a homer EVERY time he went to the plate.
August 15th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
@ Doug...if you're saying Killebrew was a one trick pony..you'd get no argument from me! IF Doug and I know Killebrew was the "most" dangerous when he was swinging the bat...wouldn't it be a "fair' statement that most mgr/pitchers knew that too? Dependant on the "situation"....wouldn't they rather see the Killer on 1st base rather than in the batters box???? Hence..there is where OBP has to be scrutinized to the max...The Killers OBP is NOT as impressive as Joe Morgans...trust me on this!
August 15th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@ 63..I was too busy defending my OBP vs BA position. Very good points about Rice. Even more so about Hendersons hot dogging for stolen base king status. As far as I'm concerned...you're right on the money with that!Although he can't be denied his due...he left alot on the table for sure!
August 15th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Not only did Rice have 79 triples in his career, and back to back 15 triple years, in '78 he had 406 total bases while no on else had 300 (Murray was 2nd with 293), he led the league triples by 5 and home runs by 12 and runs created by 42, though he just leads in offensive war, the raw numbers relative to the rest of the league are amazing
August 15th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
@67.
I was just listening to ESPN and the host making the case for Jim Thome and the HOF (after Thome got to 600 HR toight).
Guess who the host (sorry, can't think of his name) was comparing Thome to? His conclusion: Thome is close to (but not as good as) Killebrew. But, close enough, so Thome's in.
Some of the comparisons the host mentioned.
- Killebrew and Thome both in top 10 in OBA and SLG a similar number of times (I don't recall the exact numbers)
- Killebrew doing much better than Thome in top 10s in Total Bases.
One other factoid I'll throw in there. Killebrew is one of only a handful of players with a career mark of 3+ RBI for every 4 Hits. These are the guys:
Player, RBI, H
Babe Ruth, 2213, 2873
Harmon Killebrew, 1584, 2086
Mark McGwire, 1414, 1626
Hank Greenberg, 1276, 1628
Dave Kingman, 1210, 1575
Cecil Fielder, 1008, 1313
Jay Buhner, 965, 1273
Ryan Howard, 843, 1016
So, Killer definitely made the most of his hits in terms of driving in runs.
Ryan Howard looks to me like the left-handed Killebrew, even more so than Thome (who is just below the cut line for the group above).
August 15th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Impressive to lead the league in Runs batting 2nd with a not very impressive Jeter batting first.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
47 Ray Knight platooned with HoJo at 3rd base.Mitchell and HoJo also got time at SS and Mitchell played in LF.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:48 am
Killer was limited, but he was so good at his skill, HRs, & that skill had so much value, that of course he was an excellent htter. Unless you qualify things, the proper definition of hitting ability should be how many runs your production would lead to in a neutral environment. I will buy that Thome is about as good as him.
But comparisons that look at someone like Killer in OBP or its component stats are usually unfair to him. You need to adjust for park & era. He played in a low offense environment, hence we have OPS +.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:01 am
Eh, looking at WAR you could give Thomas the edge. Given their total game they are each clearly worthy of the HOF, but not higher tier members.
August 16th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Thome 162 game ave....BA .277...XBH 70...TB 300...W+HBP...117
Killebrew 162 game ave...BA .256 ...XBH 59...TB 276 ..W+HBP...107
Thome...regardless of HOW you calculate performance..is heads and shoulders above Killebrew.. I admit I'm an old timer and "usually" side with the old time players but in this case there is NO reasonable way I could make Killebrew anything more than what he actually was..a one trick pony! It insults Thome to be compared to Killebrew if you ask me!
August 16th, 2011 at 9:30 am
BTW...Both Thome and Killebrew can/could pat his fellow team mates on the back for their fine work in order to get their RBI's and R's throughout their playing careers!
August 16th, 2011 at 10:05 am
@ 73...Your definition of "greatness" or anyone's for that matter,including mine, is totally subjective. I'll define mine (for all to ridicule LOL)... My definition is this...a truly great "hitter" has the overall numbers to "reasonably" assume they would be at minimum at least "good" in any era in which you may want to place them. For instance, Cobb with his career .366 BA (in my day it was .367) it would be "safe" to say he'd still would be a good hitter even if he were to play today. Same could be said about Ruth, Gherig,Mays,Aaron,ect ect..To me Killebrew with his God awful .256 BA just doesn't make the cut, but it doesn't end there. I have always done the "dummy" test on "hitters" if a player has at minimum of 600 score (BA + TB 162 game ave) it probably can be assured that player could hit in any era. Killebrew=532 and Thome=577...Thome being borderline..Killebrew not even close.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am
@75
This comparison is a bit tainted because these players played in different eras.
Thome's best seasons almost exactly correspond with the recent well known power era.
Killebrew's best season almost exactly correspond with the pitching ruled 1960's.
Thome led the league in home runs exactly once.
Killebrew led the league in home runs six times.
If you compare there OPS+, which calculates OPS relative to the rest of the league, the comparison becomes a lot closer.
Thome OPS+ 147
Killebrew OPS+ 143
Thome still comes out ahead - but it is not an insult to Thome to be compared to Killebrew.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:40 am
@78...Please don't get me started on OPS or OPS+...TB kinda tells one everything you need to know of what type of player a player was "hitting" wise. Also...leading the league in anything does not equate to greatness. I concede Killebrew was a great HR hitter...any blind man could tell you that...BUT did he do anything else that was great? If I recall, when Hornsby retired, he was in the top ten in hitting HRS. But do we remember Hornsby as a HR champion? No...because he was greater than just one stat..that's why. Could Killebrew viewed as such? Just saying tis all. (PS I loved the Killer, he was great for baseball...but I always felt he lacked in too many other areas to be called "great")
August 16th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I disagree with most of what MLS has said but will only address one thing:
The word 'hitter' has many definitions and depends upon context. There is of course the definition of hitter as the batter, and, when the ball is put into play, batter-runner, and merely means one that goes up to the plate to hit. There is hitter as a blanket term for all of a batter's contributions at the plate, and there is hitter used as its narrowest: a guy that excels at getting base hits.
Much of the time the second definition is the one being used, and in that instance, one's ability to draw walks as well as slug effectively are part of the assessment of the hitter.
The third definition, which is not always clear by the context, but clearly is what MLS means in his posts, is contrasted (or complemented, as the case may be) with 'slugger' and whatever phrase you choose to use to isolate a batter's plate discipline.
MLS, you should realize that most of the people touting OBA and arguing with you are talking about the broad definition of hitter--the second definition above--as an assessment of the batter's ability to contribute on the whole (whether or not the person making the argument is including slugging in their argument or not), and that OBA will always be a better assessor of a batter's prowess than BA alone in that context, because, firstly, it always includes BA.
Anyway, if you could only have one stat for a batter and your only choices were BA and OBA, much more often than not OBA would be more useful to you.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:46 am
@75, @77 - MLS: Thome vs. Killebrew -
You are completely ignoring the league context of Runs/Game - if we compare players only by raw totals and batting average, we are going to conclude that most of the greatest hitters played in the 1920/1930s, and 1994-present. There are many players who put up better totals in the 1990s than any player in the 1960s - that doesn't make them better (or as good as) than all the players in the 1960s.
If you run both Killebrew and Thome though BB-r's Neutralized Batting, they are remarkably similar:
THOME: .270 BA, 589 HR, 1596 RBI
KILLEBREW: .256 BA, 596 HR, 1681 RBI
Thome has 80 more games and 35 more plate appearances than Killebrew.
I donn't really know how I can convince you of this, since you believe that batting average is more important than on-base average, but Killebrew was about as good (or better) an offensive player as Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew or Roberto Clemente, all of whom you would consider vastly better "hitters" than Killebrew based on batting average. Killebrew has a higher OBA (by 17 points) than Clemente, completely negating Clemente's huge advantage in batting average. Killebrew has 10-15 more Adjusted Career Batting Wins than the three hitters I mentioned above.
I know this runs counter to accepted mainstream belief by many such as you, but Killebrew was just as good (or better) an offensive performer as his contemporaries Carew and Clemente; he just went about creating those runs in different ways.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:58 am
@MLS - no, I didn't say either Rice or Killer was preferable... Just saying that a guy who walks a lot is not hitting into double plays, which was something Jim Rice did prodigously.
When it comes to how often Killebrew scored from the bases vs. how often Rice (or Thome) did, I'm not entirtely impressed by that - it only means that Killer did his job getting on, and his teammates failed to do theirs by picking him up. They often enough failed to get on in front of him, too.
I looked it up: Killebrew was followed in the lineup by some decent players, notably the underrated Bob Allison, but none of them were quite the hitters the Sox were able to line up behind Rice: in turns, Carlton Fisk, Dewey Evans, Carl Yazstremski (who hit .274/.357/.439 in his last six seasons, OPS+ of 112, hardly a slouch!), Tony Armas, occasionally Fred Lynn, and in 1986 Don Baylor. They got two excellent seasons from Carney Lansford (.317/.372/.442) hitting a couple spots behind Rice in '81 and '82, a one wonderful year from George "Boomer" Scott.
But look in front of the sluggers, and you really see what's going on - Killebrew didn't get good table setters until the Twins had Rod Carew and Tony Oliva. Rice had Yaz for a couple of years, Lynn, Evans, Wade Boggs... he was frequently coming up with fewer outs, getting on, and thus giving his teammates more opportunities to drive him around without needing a two-out XBH. That makes the SLG %s relatively less important.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:06 am
@78/Thomas Court and @80/Fireworks - sorry for duplicating much of what you wrote, you must have posted your comments when I was researching/ typing.
I'd like to point out another similarity between Thome and Killebrew - both of them played a decent part of their career at third base:
KILLEBREW: 791 games/718 starts
THOME: 492 games/471 starts
Thome followed the usual pattern of being moved from 3B to 1B, he had no games at third after age 25. Killebrew seems to have been bounced between third, first, and left field as a sort of "super utility" player for most of his career. As late as age-34, he played 138 games at third.
This would make his offense somewhat more valuable as a third baseman.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@81
It's funny, I was just about to post about their neutralized comparison. Killebrew's average is actually higher than .256 here - .262 by my reading.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:50 am
Grab your calulators boys this is going to be fun..LOL..1) @82 refer to my #76 post. Don't evaluate accumulative players stats over their careers and try to plug them into day to day activities..in baseball that doesn't work.Allison, Carew, Boggs..ect is totally irrelevant..someone had to score..someone had to be driven in on a daily basis...nice try however. As far as playing in a different era..refer to my # 77 post.. Aaron, Mantle, Mays,and Robinson all managed to accumulate 600 plus score on my "dummy" test, not to mention countless others who had a greater average than Killebrew (532) during that SAME era. It's NOT like I'm comparing apples or oranges over here. Killebrews "overall" hitting was lame even in his own era. I will repeat for the sake of repeating..Killebrew was a one trick pony...he hit a whole bunch of HRS..and I applaud him for that...but to grab a calculator and try as you might to compare Killebrew to some of the truly greats is futile. The man hit 573 HRS...his TB equated to 276..his BA was .256 his XBH totaled 59 over his 162 game average..it is what it is......other than his HRS..the man could NOT hang his hat on any other "hitting" accomplishment...if I'm wrong..so be it...and as far as his OBP (376) even that is way below par to the truly greats is it not?
August 16th, 2011 at 11:51 am
@84/ Thomas Court says concerning #81:
OOPS! - you're right! - I even wrote down ".262" on my scrap paper, but I guess that ".256" is engraved in my mind as Killebrew's BA
August 16th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
I'd like to take a moment to talk about Curtis Granderson since that is the topic of the post and I am a Yankees fan and Granderson was one of my favorite players even before the Yanks acquired him. If you keep in mind that I would love to have Granderson's babies even though I am A) not equipped with a uterus and B) heterosexual, then you need make no mention of my severe bias and just let me have my say on The Grandy Man.
While WAR wouldn't indicate that Granderson is a very strong MVP candidate, I personally think he should be a front-runner (especially if one prefers a candidate on a postseason team):
Bautista: His team isn't going anywhere.
Gonzalez: His team is full of batters with high WAR. Boston's offense has carried their blah pitching to the best record in the American League, whereas, last I looked, the Yankees were split pretty evenly between batter and pitcher WAR.
Pedroia/Ellsbury/Youkilis: See Gonzalez.
Cabrera: Wouldn't you rather pick Verlander as MVP?
Verlander: But he's a pitcher!
Weaver: No one Mike Scioscia manages should be MVP. Ever. Yes, I have a vendetta against Scioscia.
Sabathia: He was more valuable last year and he didn't come close to MVP.
...
Granderson has done what he's done hitting mostly at the bottom of the order for the first couple weeks, then in the 2 hole, and has now stepped into the 3 hole with A-Rod's absence.
Not only that, unlike almost everyone else on his team, you can't point to a month where he was not producing. At worst he's had a week or two here or there where he wasn't doing much but overall he's been reliable for a team that has had a few guys with up and down years: Jeter was very blah pretty much until July; Gardner was blah in April and had a recent blah stretch before picking it up again; Swisher was blah until June; Posada has been blah every month except June, I think; Teixeira has had stretches of blah; Martin has been Posada-esque blah after his hot April; A-Rod's was blah for a while before he picked it up then went on the DL, and overall has had a little bit of a power outage; and Cano was blah for a while after teams realized that the next couple guys in the order behind him weren't doing anything at the plate (that is to say that they were blah).
This is a good offensive team, no doubt, but Granderson's presence is stablilizing to it (that probably seems weird to say but it is absolutely true if you've been watching the games), and his season has been such that his K rate is the worst it has ever been but even when he goes 0-4 with 3 Ks Yankees fans barely care. We have faith in him and the Granderson of the first four months of 2010 is a distant memory to us. When he hits the ball very often he hits it hard, with authority. Some will be tempted to say, "oh ya but he plays in Yankee Stadium with that short front porch," and while that it true as it has been shown above by a poster that his splits show that he can get it done on the road--further, if you take all his splits as a Yankee the gap lessens to nothing at all, I think, not to mention that hittrackeronline.com (now ESPN's Home Run Tracker) credits him with 10 no doubt HRs (their definition of a no-doubter: "Means the ball cleared the fence by at least 20 vertical feet AND landed at least 50 feet past the fence. These are the really deep blasts.") tied with Bautista and Stanton and second only to Justin Upton, who I am almost positive has the longest average "true" distance on his homers--over 424'--according to HTO.
Granderson's defense is underrated and the ratings hurt him a bit (though I will admit he has the rare adventure with reading balls or losing them in the sun), and until someone tells me specifically that UZR/TZR prevents this upcoming point, I will believe it to be true.
Granderson has a clearly excellent defender to his right, a left fielder that is a natural centerfielder who is going to lead the league in dWAR for a second season in a row, a left fielder that is arguably the best outfielder in baseball, and to his right he has Nick Swisher, who is now second in dWAR in the AL though his career defensive ratings give no indication that he is that good a defender (though it is clear that he has improved since he first came to the Bronx). So why do I bring that up? I think fielding metrics have a tough time sometimes correlating a proper eye assessment of a player's defense with his rating. This is best exemplified in 1B--everyone that watches Teixeira easily rates him as an excellent 1B, both in fielding and throwing, but defensive metrics aren't as kind. I think it is a combination of the fact that he abdicates some balls to the right side to Cano and the fact that though I don't watch many other teams than the Yankees, I'd have to rate Yankees pitchers as well below average in remembering to cover 1B on a ball fielded by the 1B. Looking at Granderson's defensive metrics this year I have considered that perhaps an outfield with smart fielders that know each other's strengths can end up 'gaming' the metrics a bit (this is just an opinion--if you disagree or the way the fielding metric formulas work say this isn't true/possible, then that's fine) because they will play effectively as a group of fielders (Gardner/Granderson/Swisher together rate at almost 3 dWAR), and obviously do so without regard to how they will be rated individually. While Gardner is great, and being compared to the average left fielder certainly allows him to excel as a defender, I think Gardner "steals" a little dWAR from Granderson and that Swisher does as well. Part of the way Granderson is going to position himself is based upon what the other guys out there can do. But maybe I don't understand UZR/TZR enough and what I've mentioned about Granderson being 'hurt' by his mates in the outfield is pure hogwash. However, before this season dWAR said that Granderson was a marginally above-average centerfielder and I still believe that to be true.
Lastly, to make a simpler, perhaps more compelling point--Granderson has been the single most important player on his team this year.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
@MLS - this has been a great conversation, first off.
To go from there, I think I see a flaw in your 'dummy test': in effect, you are counting batting average twice, because total bases is already dependent on all base hits. You are also entirely discounting the number of walks+HBP, since they are not included at all in either BA or SLG. It's no wonder we're getting different answers on offensive evaluations. When it comes to giving your teammates an opportunity to drive you in, however, there's no difference if you got to first on a single or a walk. Your run will count the same.
That leads to the reason I brought up the different lineups regarding Killebrew and Rice. These are career comparisons, not "day-to-day situations," so it becomes extremely relevant.
If Killer's on first, he only has Allison, Lemon, or Battey to drive him in. If Rice is on first, the team has a more dangerous set of hitters coming up.
Since Killer's teammates make more outs than Rice's, he's on first with two outs more often than not - his not-as-effective teammates have to string together two-out hits or hit an XBH to get him in. Rice's teammates have more margin for error because they still have an out or two to give, and they don't make that out as often, giving the guys further down the lineup more opportunities.
This is all in specific answer to your criticism of Killebrew, that he didn't score as often as Rice from the basepaths. There's a big reason why not, that has nothing at all to do with their own ability, and everything to do with everyone else's. His ability to walk had real value. You're right that his relative lack of db and tr lowers that value relative to a guy like Jim Rice, who (as mentioned before) led the AL in doubles and triples from time to time. It's always easier to score from second or third.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Fireworks, acknowledging your well-intentioned overstatements, a fine post. The Yankees have their best defensive outfield that I can remember.
August 17th, 2011 at 11:57 am
@Dukeofflatbush
I made that gigantic leap by clearly overreacting to your response. Sorry about that.
@MLS
Basically your argument boils down to the fact that you don't like walks or at the very least acknowledge the idea that the hitter has anything to do with them. That's really the only your dummy test that you made up is missing.
OBP is made up of BA and Walks (essentially)
and SLG is made up of TB
Thus OPS is made up of BA, Walks, TB, all of which most people agree are the important things to evaluate a hitter on. Apparently you don't like OPS. Is that because of the walks? Would you rather be some similar stat that is BA+SLG? That is what your dummy test is.
We are really only talking about the outliers here. Generally guys with a high average are also going to have a high OBP. However there are the cases of guys who hit with a high average and don't take many walks and guys who hit for a lower average who somehow manage to consistently drawing a lot of walks.
an example of each:
Ichiro has a career .326 BA with just a .371 career OBP only topping .400 once
Thome has a career .277 BA but a .403 career OBP only topping .300 3 times but topping .400 in OBP 10 times
August 17th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@ 88..Thanks..it has been a pleasure...I'm "attempting" to view a player on what they actually do, independant of their fellow team mates,,BA and TB , I feel gives a "independant" view as such. Walks and HBP "may" or "may not" be totally upto the player himself. @90...no I do not discount Walks at anytime....refer to my post on how I "feel" about them on another article here.."leading the league in triples and Hrs"..I just want them to be put in "context" tis all.