Chris Carter
Posted by Andy on June 25, 2011
A quick chronicle to counter Chris Carter confusion:
Vernon Christopher Carter, known commonly as Chris Carter, just joined the Athletics for his third stint in the majors. He's the guy who started off last year with a lot of strikeouts and no hits in his first bunch of games.
William Chris Carter, also known commonly as Chris Carter, just joined the Atlanta Braves' organization after opting out of a deal with the Rays. He was with the Mets last year (traded from the Red Sox for Billy Wagner) and with the Red Sox before that (traded for Wily Mo Pena, who himself has just resurfaced in the majors.)
Joseph Chris Carter, known commonly as Joe Carter, was a good but massively overrated outfielder in the 1980s and 1990s. His career WAR of 16.5 puts him in an 8-way tie for 919th all-time among position players. That's not a typo.
June 26th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
@99 Any stats on players that drop out of school and in which grade? I would find that fascinating!
June 26th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Moneyball credits Beane for taking advantage of "market inefficiencies," which isn't really true.
The advantage Beane had over most of his contemporaries is he already KNEW what these were.
Look at it as being the baseball version of insider trading.
The biggest thing Beane had over his GM peers, and one he still has today, and the one which gave him the biggest "inside advantage" is that he is a former player.
Everyone's a genius with a $200 million payroll, or with the first pick in the draft every year.
Do you think Brian Cashman would be as successful with Oakland's payroll?
I'd bet Boston would be more successful over the past six years if Beane had taken the Red Sox job.
I guarantee you he doesn't sign John Lackey, or even Dice-K, or AJ Burnett if he was in New York.
You sign players because they fit a need, not because you can afford them.
Beane gained that knowledge by playing the game, not by sitting in his basement with a spreadsheet and a flashlight.
June 26th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@97 @99
Chuck, thank you for expanding on your thinking in your earlier posts.
June 26th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
@97
"......but us traditional old farts....."
Gee, I don't know about the "traditional" part but I may resemble the rest of that remark ........ 🙂
June 26th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Still finding good players batting 4th that don't always drive in 100. Andre Dawson 1988 drove in 79 in 157 games. He did hit 3rd more that half the time also.
June 26th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
@100, Timmy P. -- It's hardly surprising that teams with a lot of RBI tend to be more successful than teams with fewer RBI. But it does not necessarily follow that individuals with a lot of RBI are more effective offensive players than individuals with fewer RBI.
Another point: Here are the top 5 AL teams in OBP:
-- BOS, NYY, DET, KCR, TEX.
Four of five currently hold a playoff spot.
And here are the top 5 AL teams in scoring average, followed by their rank in walks drawn:
-- BOS (2nd), NYY (1st), TEX (10th), TOR (5th), DET (3rd)
So, what now?
June 26th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Toronto's walk numbers are skewed because of Baustista. A hit with a man on base is much better than a walk with a man on base. I'm not disrespecting the walk, just trying to give love to the RBI.
June 26th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
The subject of Joe Morgan came up. I have to be honest, JM is near the top of my all time greatest players list. I also enjoyed his smooth voice and the fact that he reminds me of Lou Rawls, that is Lou Rawls as my avatar. Joe was a great player that played a game unlike anyone. He had a combination of power and speed and walks unrivaled. He was a great defensive player and the way he would clutch his arms while in the batter's box still gives me goose bumps. I and many others knew back in the 1970's that walks were important, and Joe made the Reds special. Joe knew the game, and was a smart player. Joe is 67 years old and all the criticism he got when he was announcing really makes me sick. At Joe's age and with his experience, I seriously doubt reading a Bill James book would made him see the light.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:03 am
@97
I do not feel my posts here have either been insulting or condescending. I remind you that in post #67 that I used the word "Ignorant" to mean "lacking in knowledge and NOT meaning stupid." I used it mean simply not knowing something. It's okay to not know something. It's not okay to call someone stupid.
"I still hear baseball announcers make reference to the book Moneyball, and admit that they have never read it. Are you kidding me? Your job is (to) broadcast the game to the masses and you have not read the most important baseball book written in recent history?"
How is that comment insulting to you Chuck? Are you a baseball announcer? Whether you agree with what is in Moneyball or not, I think it should be required reading for anyone who works in baseball at the announcer level simply because of how much it has been talked about since its release. If you are selling beer at the concession stand or directing people in the parking lot or tearing tickets at the gate then you get a pass. But if your job is to talk about the game, and bring insight to those listening or watching and you have not read a book as talked about as Moneyball then you are going to leave me scratching my head. It would be like a film critic, a person who talks about movies for a profession, admitting he never got around to seeing Titanic.
For the record, Joe Morgan SHOULD feel insulted. Your comment Chuck read:
"So, the suggestion is Joe Morgan would have been a better announcer if he had read Moneyball?"
I never said it would have made him a better announcer, but it would have made him a more INFORMED announcer - since Moneyball was the book everyone, including Joe Morgan, was talking about. Again, this would be like Roger Ebert talking (or typing) about the year's most talked about movie without seeing it.
"Moneyball has made such an impact in professional baseball that the term itself has entered the lexicon of baseball." (wikipedia)
The fact that Morgan on numerous occasions was critical of the book even though he had not read it leaves him open for harsh criticism.
And for the record the announcer that made the comment about Moneyball that elicited the, "Are you kidding me comment?" from me was not Joe Morgan. It was John Sterling - the radio voice of the Yankees.
Another comment by Chuck I must take issue with is from post #99
"And whether a player is a high school or college product has no bearing on his free agent 'clock'."
Yes it most certainly does - for teams that cannot afford a player once he becomes a free agent.
"A player is bound to the team that drafts him for three seasons in the minor leagues. Contracts are automatically renewed on a year-to-year basis. After three years, a player must either be on a team's 40-man roster (as he is then considered as having a major-league contract) or he is eligible for what is called the Rule 5 draft." (baseball.about.com)
"The first three years of a player's major league career are considered the 'league minimum' years, in which the player's organization can pay the player anything close to the league minimum salary. After three years of service time, the player is eligible for arbitration." (buccofans.wikispaces.com)
The clock towards free agency starts when the player is drafted. So a team like Oakland is much better off drafting college players since those players are closer to being Major League ready than high school players are.
I will close by saying that flame wars are also not my thing either Chuck. I come to this site specifically because it does not have the kinds of exchanges that dominate other sites. I honestly do not know how my comments are insulting to you or anyone else, but if you feel insulted, then I apologize.
For me, this puts this thread to rest. One of the cool things about this blog is that each blog thread only stays on the main page for couple of days or so. Then, it's the next man's turn to bat.
"Batter up... Let's play ball!!!"
June 27th, 2011 at 6:20 am
"Without such guys as Bill James and other sabermetricians, most fans would be picking a team of Joe Carters to defeat a team of Bobby Abreus. Now we know better. We are no longer ignorant. Give credit where credit is due."
Uh, I didn't Bill James to figure that one out either. While we're at it, can someone inform the same sabermetricians who "know better and are no longer ignorant" to stop debating (or even thinking) that Abreu will be a borderline HOF candidate when eligible? Let's give credit WHEN credit is due.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:24 am
When I was young and graded players based on "feel" Joe Carter didn't rank up there with Frank Thomas, for sure. Especially since I am an Orioles fan and despite what the actual stats are Thomas batted like .650 with 300 HR against Baltimore.
But whatever concept I had of Joe Carter being a "clutch" player disappeared when he played for the O's in 1998.
I think you could have plugged any number of early '90s sluggers into the Jays lineup in Carter's place and they would have had over 100 RBI. Carter had some power but I wouldn't say he stood out as a top player at any one time, just a bunch of pretty good years with a ton of RBI.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Mr. Court @#109,
Thank you for your response and expanded explanation of your opinions expressed earlier.
As I said earlier, I don't take things personally, I wasn't offended as an individual about a couple of the comments you made, but moreso the implication or attitude statheads are somehow smarter than us non-believers because they read a book.
I agree with you on one thing.
Once an article falls off the front page, the "thread is dead" so to speak, and it's time to move onto something else.
I enjoyed are little debate, and if I came across harshly that was not my intent.
Thanks,
Chuck
June 27th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Group hug, everyone? 🙂
June 27th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
[...] that's the way many MLB front offices are trending. There are some who still think that -- in the words of a B-R reader -- sabermetrics is the "tank top and shorts" at MLB's "black tie dinner." It's time for that crowd [...]
June 27th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Joe Carter came to the plate 388 times with runners on 1st and 3rd. He batted .320 and slugged .491. In those 388 PAs, he walked 9 times, hit 9 homers and had 38 Sac Flies.
Mike Schmidt came to the plate 329 times with runners on 1st and 3rd. He batted .316 and slugged .623. In those 329 PAs, he walked 39 times, hit 20 homers and had 39 Sac Flies.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:02 am
If the fourth and fifth place hitters have done their job, then the sixth spot comes up with the bases empty, or with fewer runners in SP than the fourth spot would.
No, that's just not right, and exemplifies why people have such different conceptions of the roles of different lineup spots. The job of the 4th and 5th place hitters isn't to hit sac flies, or ground runners to 3rd. If they are among the team's best hitters, they will be getting on base as well as driving runners in. If the 4th and 5th hitters are doing their jobs, the 6th hitter will see tons of runners on base.
JA/83, good post
***
So, are you suggesting the Yankees would be better off with Robinson Cano hitting third?
As a moderate OBP, good power hitter (relative to his team), he probably would make sense batting #3. The advantages to be gained by batting him there are so slight that there's no reason to do it if the rest of the team won't be comfortable with it.
***
I've got a cool stat for newstat folks, Team RBI's.
You've just proven you have no understanding of how this game works. Whenever I've seen telecasts showing where a particular team ranks in RBI, I've mocked it, and I won't give you any leeway in this. Team RBI means nothing. Runs, runs, runs, all that matters is runs. Whenever someone tries to look at team RBI, I have to assume they just don't get it. That's OK, we can talk about whatever misunderstandings you have, but please stop spreading "team RBI" as an explanation of anything.
***
The clock towards free agency starts when the player is drafted. So a team like Oakland is much better off drafting college players since those players are closer to being Major League ready than high school players are.
That's not quite right. Chuck is quite correct in stating that the best draft picks have been high schoolers. Now Oakland hasn't recently had the top pick in the draft, so they're not necessarily missing out on the best players if they purposely avoid HSers. But younger players can be protected for longer depending on the age when they were drafted. (I don't know the exact rules, but some players can be protected for 4 years instead of 3.) Moreover, if a college player hasn't proven himself worthy of a 40-man roster spot after 3 years, he's probably not worth protecting anyway.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:11 am
And I should clarify my first point in 116....of course if the 4-5 hitters homer, the bases will be clear, and that's a good thing. But that's not a common occurrence. If they are truly productive hitters, it is far more likely that one will end up on base.