Musial and Mays

The Game Room
201

Because that is not relevant to a player’s value. Since Mays and all his teammates and opponents travelled the same way, that effect is the same for Mays and all his teammates and opponents. It’s irrelevant, unless you can show that air travel jacked up offensive numbers (it didn’t.)

We’ve gone over this but I’ll try again. Please, please try reading this with an open mind.

The point to adjusting for era and park factors is that a player’s offensive numbers matter only in terms of how many wins they created for their team. That means that the number of runs being scored in the context a player scores in is immediately relevant to determining how valuable a player’s offensive statistics are.

In 1980, Mike Schmidt of the Phillies batted .286 with 48 homers and 121 RBI. In 2004, Adrian Beltre of the Dodgers batted .334 with 48 homers, 121 RBI. Who had the better years? Believe it or not, if you whittle the numbers down, Schmidt did. What Schmidt did in a league where the average team scored 4.03 runs a game was more valuable, put more wins on the board (not by much, but a little) than what Beltre did in a year when the average team scored 4.64 runs a game.

In 1968, Carl Yastrzemski of the Red Sox batted .301 with 23 homers, 74 RBI, and led the league with 119 walks. In 2000, Carlos Delgado of the Blue Jays hit .344 with 41 homers, 137 RBI, drew 123 walks, and hit 57 doubles to boot. Who had the better year?

In all likelihood, they were about the same in value offensively. (Yaz was a vastly better fielder.) Although his numbers were superfically inferior, Yastrzemski put them up in a league where very few runs were scored, and so his offensive exploits were proportionately more valuable. A home run in the AL in 1968 was more valuable, much likelier to win a game, than a home run in the AL in 2000. A single, a triple, a walk - all were more valuable in 1968.

The same can be done for pitchers. In 2003, Roy Halladay won the Cy Young Award with an ERA of 3.25. In 1968 that wouldn’t even have gotten him into the top 20. In 1968 Blue Moon Odom had a 2.45 ERA. Who was better, Odom in 1968, or Halladay in 2003? Halladay, easily. Halladay’s 3.25 ERA helped the Blue Jays far more than Odom’s 2.45 helped the A’s.

The same is true of park differences. Many home runs are hit in Coors Field. Very few homers are hit in Petco Park. A homer in Petco Park is likelier to help a team win a game than a homer in Coors Field, and so it is perfectly correct to adjust for that when determining which is more valuable - X homers in Petco Park, or Y homers in Coors Field.

The factors that matter in adjusting for context are the ones that matter in terms of determining how much a player helped his team WIN. Yes, a player today has coaching and conditioning Musial and Mays did not have access to, but who cares? When determining whether Yastrzemski’s 1968 was the equal of Delgado’s 2000, it doesn’t really matter WHY offense was higher in 2000 than it was in 1968. All that matters is that it was, so you have to take Delgado’s numbers with a grain of salt and understand that Yaz’s numbers are much more impressive than they seem at first glance.

We’re not talking about imaginary “what would have beens.” Park and era adjustments are trying to figure out WHAT ACTUALLY WAS. There is no comparison at all between a man who hits .300 with 15 homers in 1930 and a man who hits .300 with 15 homers in 1968. The former’s an average hitter at best, the latter is an MVP candidate.

On the whole, park and league factors pushed offense down a bit when Mays was playing versus when Musial was playing. They just did. Sportsman’s Park generally elevated offense; Candlestick generally depressed offense. I’ve pointed out before than the 1960s saw 10% less offense than the 1950s, which is a really big difference. You have to adjust for that stuff.

202

Mays’ fielding skills would elevate his defensive value over Musial’s no matter how versatile Musial was, AND you place a great value on Musial’s “versatility” when in fact it is only a little more valuable than Musial’s choice of anti-perspirant. It’s value is approximately nothing, and that is why no one (other than you) has ever tried to place any quantitative value on it.

203

Charlie Noble, do you really believe that Stan Musial was a better defensive player than Willie Mays? Really? I understand you’re on a crusade of sorts to stick up for Musial’s rep. He doesn’t need it. No one in this thread has said Musial wasn’t an awesome player and an all-time great, first-tier HOFer. We can discuss offensive comparisons all day long (I’ve been clear that I think Musial was slightly more valuable on offense, and others disagree,) but trying to convince anyone that he was a better defensive player is just silly. If you want to put out an argument that he was better overall because of his offense and defense combined, you’d have a better chance. I think you’re wrong, but you have a better argument.

204

Okay, now we’re getting to the root of the argument. Let’s examine this in more depth.

Take Musial and Mays. Obviously you have to keep their bats in the #3 spot in the lineup, but there’s no DH rule, so they have to play somewhere in the field.

Mays was born to play center field – no doubt about it. It didn’t matter whether he he was at the Polo Grounds (depth), Candlestick (winds), or any other stadium in baseball. Write in Mays at #3 playing CF and build the rest of the lineup from there.

Now look at Musial. Here’s a guy who maybe could play center field and not hurt you defensively, but you’re the Cardinals in the 1950s, the kind of team that played Ken Boyer at SIX different positions before finally keeping him at 3rd base – where Boyer won five Gold Gloves.

Musial’s very good at first base, and clearly better than his National League 1950s competition like Gil Hodges, Joe Adcock and Ted Kluszewski. But Musial is also very good in both left and right field. So, if you think like the Cardinals, you can put a slow slugger like Dick Sisler at first and put Musial in left. Or, you can put Wally Moon in left, trade Enos Slaughter for a center fielder like Bill Virdon and replace Slaughter in right with Musial. And if your slugging first baseman doesn’t work out, like Tom Alston, you can always move Musial back to first.

Meanwhile, Mays stays in center field continuing to gain praise which he richly deserves.

In other words, the Cardinals didn’t move Musial around because of his fielding, they moved him around to figure out how to get another bat in the lineup, knowing that anywhere Musial played, he’d be a defensive plus.

And that’s why no amount of statistics ever tells the whole story.

205

How many times must I say it??? I’ve not claimed Musial to be a better defensive player than Mays. The way Musial was used, along with his supurb defensive skills, made him just as valuable to the team in the field as was Mays to the Giants. See my post #151

Also, see kunilou post #202. He nails it.

206

If you look at the part of my last post where I quoted you… you say, “Edge to Musial on defense too.”

207

“Just as valuable” means he’s just as good. If Musial’s value was the same, then he’s just as “good” in the only way that actually matters.

I don’t agree.

kunilou’s point is that by moving Musial between first, right, and left, the Cardinals were able to find places for other guys with bats to play. That’s indisputably true.

The problem in asserting this is an advantage of a center fielder is that Mays, by occupying center field, was always keeping first, left and right open for guys with bats. The value of Musial in making it possible to fit another bat into the left side of the defensive spectrum is clear, but Mays is even more valuable by not even occupying ANY of that side of the defensive spectrum. (I know Musial played some CF, but not much.) When Musial was playing first the Cardinals could put a bat in left. But when Mays was playing center, the Giants could put bats at first AND left, which in fact is what they usually did. Consider what happened when the Giants came up with both Orlando Cepeda and Willie McCovey, they were able to split those two guys between left field and first base while keeping Felipe Alou in right. Stan Musial would have likely pushed one of those guys either out of the lineup, or forced Alou to play center. It’s a pretty weird logical jump to state Musial is somehow more valuable as a result.

Charlie, an honest question; is Stan Musial, in your estimation, the most valuable defensive player in the history of baseball? Because if he was more valuable than, or equally valuable as, Mays, I’m honestly curious as to who would exceed Musial in your eyes.

208

But “good” and “valuable” aren’t the same, at least not exactly the same. Put Mays in right field in 1951 and keep him there, and he’d be just as good. However, by your own definition, he’d be a less valuable player defensively.

Musial’s value was that a succession of managers (Dyer, Marion, Stanky and Hemus) could jackass around with whatever lineup tickled their fancy that day, always knowing Musial was above average defensively wherever they played him.

That same jackassery kept Ken Boyer from playing where he should have for the first five years of his career and irreparably diminished his defensive reputation. The same jackassery might have ended up with Willie Mays playing shortstop, just to shake things up.

Musial somehow managed to be above average in a system that actively (Dick Sisler at first? Boyer in right field?) devalued it. That’s some accomplishment.

209

So you like that OPS+ with its park factor and league averages? Consider this:

  • Mays is exactly .003 better offensively than Charlie Keller (miniscule).
  • Mays is exactly .007 worse offensive player than Pete Browning, Mark McGwire and Dave Orr.
    None of these 4 guys are in the HOF yet they are better offensive players, or with Keller, almost as good as Mays.
    Do you buy that? Are you married to the idea that OPS+ is the most important of the offense stats? Are you a slave to a formula or do you have some reservations?

If You like league averages stuff try this one, and this is done with real stats, no special formula or calculations: Mays career fielding percentage at CF is exactly the same as the league average (lgFLD%). Musial played 4 positions (10% or more) and in all four case his fielding percentage was above the league averages for each position. I know you won’t buy this but why try to sell the OPS+ thingamajob?

210

Okay, but see post #207.

211

Yes, Lord of My Pants, but you kind of jumped in and got things out of context. In his post (#181) ruber was making his case how a .003 edge for Musial over Mays for OPS+ was a miniscule offensive difference between the two. I fashioned a sacrilegious retort by pointing out to ruber that Musial had an .006 better fielding percent than Mays (as in"big deal"…if one wants to start throwing percentages around). But see post #207.

212

Sure. I can absolutely buy that those guys were highly valuable hitters.

However, Keller played just 1170 games, half against war-depleted opposition.

McGwire was a truly amazing hitter but in a career much, much shorter than Mays and, obviously, not the fielder and there’s a big elephant in his room.

Orr did not play in a true major league so who cares?

Browning played his best years in the same sort-of-major-league as Orr and his career was a short as Keller’s.

So sure, they were great hitters compared to the opposition. So what?

I mean, if you want to pick and choose your stats to prove ludicrous things, why stop there? Buddy Bell hit more home runs than Jackie Robinson, why is Jackie in the Hall of Fame but not Buddy? Bob Welch won more games than Sandy Koufax, anyone think Bob Welch was greater?

And I ask again; is Stan Musial the greatest defensive player of all time?

OPS+ is certainmly the closest EASY stat to reflect an offensive player’s true value, much better than batting average or RBI or homers. It’s not perfect - it undervalues on base percentage and doesn’t reflect baserunning - but it’s a nice shorthand.

Of course, it’s kind of silly to compare a guy who played 1170 games with a guy who played over 3000. Get serious.

The thing is that OPS+ is pretty closely correelated with a hitter’s actual value. A guy with a career OPS+ over 140 was a great, great hitter. A guy with a 146 might not have been better than a guy with a 143, but it’s certain he was a better hitter than a guy with a 97.

Fielding percentage has very little to do with a fielder’s value, except in extreme cases where a fielder is extraordinarily incompetent. As I have explained to you, the difference between Mays and Musial in errors, when playing outfield, amounted to about 2-3 errors a year. An outfielder’s arm and range have far more to do with his effectiveness than a couple of errors.

213

Only if you take 5 minutes to actually learn what OPS+ is. And specifically, whether or not accounts for longevity and career length. (Hint: It doesn’t - so comparing a 22 season player to an 8 season player screams out that you’re grasping at straws.)

214

Regarding fielding, it looks like Musial’s biggest season in CF was 1952 (he was 31) when he started 105 games there (if you want to use '48 or '49, that’s fine). He got to about 2.47 balls per game in CF. When Mays was 31, he was getting to 2.73 balls per game. Musial made .012 errors a game, Mays .009/game. I’ll gladly take the guy getting to more balls that would have been doubles, and who made fewer errors per chance. That is why looking at fielding percentage is terrible.

215

Time Out! It’s okay if you want to jump into an exchange between others on the thread, but in the interest of time, please get the drift of the conversation before you proceed with you disertation.

Some posts back, ruber stated that “the most important cumulative area of the 12 stats is OPS+”. He then went on to point out that Musial edge over Mays of .003 is miniscule concluding that there is little difference to be able to make an argument for Musial over Mays, offensively speaking.

To debunk ruber’s grand conclusion I listed a number of players ranking around Mays to show the falacy of drawing any conclusions from OPS+ ranking, at least with respect to determing the relative value and offensive importance of these players compared to Mays. In other words, the four players I listed have no business being ranked ahead of Mays (or .003 behind) but there they are. I was mocking the conclusions that OPS+ makes.

[/quote]

And I ask again; is Stan Musial the greatest defensive player of all time?

[/quote]

And for the umteenth time my answer is NO! Please read before writing.

Therefore what? Is it appropriate to use to measure the value of one player against another or just the player’s true value in a vacuum?

But there they are: Pete Browning, Dave Orr and Mark McGwire OPS+ ranked ahead of Mays even thought they played way fewer games and some even in a different century.

So don’t pay a lot of attention to the ranking of these players’ values against one another, but instead use your baseball intuitive skills to correct what the formula’s overlooks. Works for me.

[quote]

216

Good data. (You mean Musial made .012 Errors per Chance and Mays .009 - not per game). Musial didn’t do bad considering he was a part-time player at CF, plus Mays had better skills than Musial…and experience. No doubt Mays would be able to get to more balls than Musial. When compared to league average, Musial made fewer Errors per Chance which is holding his own.

What’s suprising is that Mays couldn’t make the switch to 1B after his CF skills diminished. He probably could have helped his team by playing more games at 1B. He played in 192 CF games his last three years, whereas Musial averaged over 100/games his last three years at LF. While both of their fielding skills declined they still carried a potential big bat.

217

What’s really surprising is that you think the Giants should have been playing a 40-year-old Willie Mays at first base instead of Willie McCovey. What’s the logic there? I finally got around to looking at the stats and I see McCovey missed 57games in 1971 (the year Mays played 48 games at 1B). Mays was an injury replacement for a Hall of Fame player. It’s not that the Giants wanted to move him to first and had to abandon the plan because he stunk at it. It’s that he replaced a guy who was hurt. It’s true that McCovey missed even more time in 1972; Mays played mostly CF and was traded to the Mets midseason because he wanted to end his career back in New York.

Except the Giants had someone who was a better 1B than Mays would have been in any case. And if Mays was playing an adequate centerfield, which evidently he was, how would he have helped the team more by playing more games at the easier position?

218

[Charlie Noble] Because he would have shown his versatility, that’s how!!! [/Charlie Noble]

When I was equating Mays’ lifetime OPS+ to Musial’s, and coming up with the .003 difference being negligable, I was presuming your awareness that they each played a very long, as-full-as-possible career–I failed to anticipate that I should have stressed that trait, to preclude your supplying everyone with an .003 difference from Mays who played a much shorter career, or played in an inferior era. My bad–I will strive to treat you as a disingenuious arguer in the future and defuse whatever arguments I can anticipate, however disingenuous, to smother your arguments in the crib.

219

I fully understood the path of the conversation.

I thought it painfully obvious that the assumption had been made that we understood Mays and Musial both had very long careers.

Everyone but you seemed to have been proceeding under the assumption that we were talking about the difference between Stan Musial and Willie Mays, and therefore the difference between two men whose careers were effectively the same length.

220

Didn’t you accuse someone else of oversimplification earlier? Funny that you can do that while rejecting sophisticated tools of measuring offense. And then you turn around and use fielding percentage to argue for Musial’s equality to Mays defensively. Really?

True. But I get the argument that Mays or Musial have the same set of skills whatever their position and therefore are just as good. They are the same player wherever they are played. Now I agree that this isn’t a very useful definition of “good”. But I can see instances where someone “good” was being blocked for some reason out of their control decreasing their actual value.

Not that that really applies here. I see no reason to give Musial more credit than his actual measurable value. If he had really been good enough play CF, he’d have played there full time.

Charlie Noble has ignored this. Why (OK, Aside from the fact that it pretty much destroys his argument)?

I’m curious about this too.