Well my friend, you need to take this OPS+ issue up with ruber (post #179) where he kicked off the matter by stating that OPS+ is “the most important cumulative area of 12 stats” and then he proceeded to conclude that Musial’s edge of .003 over Mays was mininscule and hardly any proof of Musial’s offensive superiority. Please understand this; I have in no way ever claimed that OPS+ “is suppose to end the conversation about the better player”. Matter of fact, I’m on the opposite side of that argument. (My post #224)
But here’s the deal Jimmy, I’m only one brain and I’m trying to match wits with 5 or 6 brains at any give time. The challenge is fun and I enjoy the debate. But here’s what pisses me off; and understand you are by no means the first or only culprit. Some members will apparently drop out for awhile and the pop back in and read something I’ve said which is not in the full context, draw the wrong conclusion and then post their comment which is out of sync and misinformed. Just like you did when you concluded that I was using OPS+ to prove Musial’s offensive superiority. If I ignor these misguided comments then it looks like I was wrong and am conceeding the debate point. If I have to go back and reconstruct the issue to determine who said what so I can set the record straight I use up time. Meanwhile, the other brain trusts on the thread keep piling up arguements that I can’t get to.
So go back and read all the conversation on this particular subject (starting at #179) and see if you then wish to make a post that adds something to the coversation.
Ouch! If what you said about me were in fact true, that would really hurt.
Boy, how I hate thread assignments, but I’ll give it a shot:
Brooks Robinson, 3B
Ozzie Smith, SS
Frank White 2nd
Willie Mays CF
Roberto Clemente RF
There are no doubt more and some possibly better than those above.
However, if you’re referring to all-round defensive players that contributed more value to the team than Musial, the only one I can think of right now is Pete Rose. Could be some others…help me out.
I agree. And if there were a runner or two on base ahead of the 3rd spot, there would be a better chance that Musial would drive them in than Mays. Mays will be much more likely to SO, selling out for the HR.
Come to think of it, if we could have Musial bat two slots, like he plays multiple defensive postions, I’d pefer to have Musial bat 3rd and clean-up (HA!)
It’s easy to toss off a dozen stats, and claim your guy is better in most of them, so you win the argument, which is what you tried to do. But does an edge in triples, say, really settle much of anything? Of course not, because it is entirely possible for someone to have an edge in triples and still be the inferior player in a comparison. But OPS+ (of which I’m not a total advocate) seeks to take in triples and EVERY OTHER OFFENSIVE MEASURE so is “cumulative.” And .003 is well within the margin of error, so you’ve demonstrated almost nothing by puking up a bunch of stats and claiming victory, other than making me mistrust your use of stats. If you had a point here, don’t you think you would have made a convert or two already? Instead, you’ve simply annoyed people with your closed-minded advocacy of Musial, whom I still admire nonetheless.
To be fair, it was my OP, and I listed those stats. However, I did not start the thread to decide who was better between them. If you go back and read the first post I just started this to say how I was surprised by how close the two of them were in those stats, after both playing 22 years.
Right. But “close” and “superior” are not the same thing. Those stats demonstrate “closeness” in offensive categories, which I don’t think anyone disputes. But total picture, you need to account for defense too, and on this we seem agreed (everyone in the universe but Charlie Noble and Mrs. Musial) pushes Mays over the edge to “slightly better overall player.” Frankly, I have no idea at this point what he means by “more valuable” and I suspect neither does he. He’s blowing up Musial’s ability to play three relatively undemanding positions into a virtue that’s impossible to be nearly as significant as he claims, and he’s insisting that it’s a deal-changer. No one’s buying that, and he hasn’t made the least headway on persuading me that his principles even make a shred of sense, much less that Musial is a better ballplayer than Mays.
So you’re now conceding Mays was a more valuable defensive player. Well, I really have nothing more to add.
Rose’s ability to change positions was very impressive indeed, but the only one he was actually really good at was right field. Rose was an excellent outfielder. He was not a good second baseman at all, nor was he a good third baseman, but the Reds had four outfielders and no third baseman so they had little choice. At first he had good instincts and a good glove but not a huge amount of range, as I recall, though of course he was getting up in years by the time the Phillies put him there.
But it’s fair to throw out a bunch of stats on Ruth and then claim that Ruth was better than Williams…that’s okay, huh?
If triples were the only issue you’d have a point. But then you’d be ignoring Musial’s body of work as a hitter that has him leading Mays in every state except HR, RUNS and SO. Plus, Mays net SB total of 235 is completely overwhelmed by his excessive SO of 1526
(You’re really hung up on triples) So you don’t totally buy into OPS+ (maybe you’d care to expain that one) but you’ll use it to marginalize Musial while coughing up some strawman triples concept to trash something carried around in your head…and then take an .003 difference of a stat that you not a “total” advocate in the first place to make your anti-triple point.
The stats I’ve “puked up” come right from MLB’s records so if you got a problem with their accuracy take it up with them. I know the stats don’t favor your guy and that’s reason enough for you to become emotional. What you need to do, instead of criticizing factual data, is to totally buy into the world of “number excerising” that purports a comparison base on stuff that never happened on a baseball field, but rather in a program formual processed through a computer…you’d might be delighted with the kind of stuff it pukes out.
[quote}
…If you had a point here, don’t you think you would have made a convert or two already? Instead, you’ve simply annoyed people with your closed-minded advocacy of Musial, whom I still admire nonetheless.
[/quote]
You’d think, but if I can’t win you over there is no hope for the rest. I do apologize that I have annoyed you with facts…but they are stubborn things.
Yeah, but Rose’s ability (and willingness) to move to 3B in order to make room for George Foster in the OF is a testimony to versatility. Foster took off and what about the Big Red Machine? Well, the rest is history.
You might say, considering the WS championships that followed, that a possible fielding shortcoming (according to you) of Rose’s was more than overcome by helping a team win championships. The point I’ve been trying to prove all along. In orther words, would you rather have Rose, an excellent OF, stay in place or move to a position that enables a team to put it’s best collection of players on the field???
And Gregg Zaun was a more valuable catcher than Brooks Robinson. So what? Who was the more valuable defensive player?
Charlie, if your position is that the two most valuable fielders of all time were Stan Musial and Pete Rose, your opinion of the value of switching positions is certainly not in line with, to be honest, anyone else I can think of or with any contemporary observer of the players in question, and that’s more or less the end of the discussion because you’re simply saying “it’s amazingly valuable to switch positions and that’s that.” The argument that Pete Rose or Stan Musial were more valuable defensive players than the likes of Ozzie Smith and Willie Mays assigns an absolutely GIGANTIC level of value to shifting from one position to another - an amount that is far in excess of actual defensive skill. You’re welcome to believe that but you haven’t provided a reason I find convincing that anyone should buy it, and as I’ve pointed out, there is evidence that contradicts such a claim.
Lou Brock (yeah, THAT Lou Brock) was in town last night and one of the TV sportscasters was interviewing him. One of the questions he asked was "You have to build a team from scratch. Who’s the FIRST player you pick? Brock said “Willie Mays.”
So I guess I’ll fold my hand on this.
Next question: Ernie Banks at shortstop or first base?
Reread the question. It was name “five players you feel were more valuable defensive players than Stan Musial” - it didn’t say a damned thing about CF. Stop backtracking.
Says the guy who keeps using Fielding Percentage.
No one is disputing their accuracy, they’re disputing their relevancy.
To apply that to the current discussion, what would the Giants have gained if Mays had been able to play perfect defense at first base? What adequate CF with a better bat than their current 1B could have been added to the roster? The Reds gained being able to use their 4th OF on a regular basis. So what would the Giants have gained for this argument to be even tangentially relevant?
Banks really wasn’t a very good player when he was a first baseman. He had all his really good years at short.
Banks, like a lot of big shortstops (he wouldn’t be considered big for a shortstop now, but he was then) developed a sort of image as being a poor defensive shortstop because he didn’t fit the visual mold of a quick, athletic shortstop. But he was pretty good at it.
Truth be told, the Cubs made a stupid mistake in moving Banks to first when they did; he was still playing good shortstop, and it would have been a lot easier to find a first baseman who could hit than it was to find a good shortstop.
I rounded out my full answer within that very post.
Since Rick didn’t seem to have a problem with this aspect of my response I suggest you take that up with the author of the question.
Fielding Percentage is one of very few defensive hard stats kept over the years. Conversely, Triples are just one of many offensive hard stats available so why get hung up on just that one? Ask ruber, cause I don’t know and you haven’t provided any answers. Besides, why is ruber going off on me about triples? I’ve barely mentioned them if at all.
“They” don’t like accuracy so “they” apparently are wont to replace it with relevancy because relevancy doesn’t have to be troubled with that sticky little matter called accuracy.
They wouldn’t and they couldn’t. The Giants weren’t faced with this kind of problem so the questions are moot.
And that’s okay because I’m not offended if no one else agrees with me.
What I believe, in the sport of Major League Baseball (and other sports too), is that the value of one player over and above another, at any given position, is somewhat at the margins. You might have a Willie Mays playing the best CF of any possible player but if he is the only quality player on that team, the team isn’t going to be very successful. However, if one is fortunate enough to play on a team with talent, Willie included, that team is going to do well but the individual accomplishemnt of any one player is to some extent rightfully blurred within the teams success as a unit. Getting the most out of the players for the TEAM’s benefit far out weighs the importance of any one player alone.
It’s easy to get hung up on triples, because they’re a good argument against the “wall of stats” approach you’ve taken. “Winning” a category like triples is meaningless (as has been explained to you before), especially when the margin is so thin over 22 years. So why do you keep bringing it up?
Could you rephrase this? I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say.
Accuracy where? 1B? What about the lost defensive talent in CF now that Mays isn’t playing there? So tell me again - what is the Giants’ net gain by making that move?