Who was better – Don Mattingly or John Olerud?
Posted by Andy on January 18, 2011
On our recent Trevor Hoffman Hall of Fame post, some readers got into a debate about which player--Don Mattingly or John Olerud--had the better career. Let's pick that up here as a more formal discussion.
Right off, such a debate hinges on how one defines "better". It could mean any of the following:
- Who had more talent?
- Who had the more productive career?
- Who had the better peak years?
- Who contributed more to his team's success?
There are lots of different ways of interpreting the question, and that alone makes it tough to answer definitively.
In terms of career WAR, Mattingly finished at 39.8 while Olerud finished at 56.8. Olerud had about 17% more plate appearances than Mattingly, but had about 43% higher WAR, which I think makes a pretty clear case that Olerud had the more productive career.
This is where Mattingly's back injuries come into play, as they obviously limited his productivity and career length. Some people would give Mattingly extra credit due to his injuries, and some wouldn't. (Personally, I don't--what happened happened, regardless of the reasons. If we want to speculate about what type of career Mattingly might have had without major injuries, we can, but that's a different question from what actually happened.)
Olerud also had higher individual WAR seasons. His 1993 and 1998 (8.2 and 8.1 WAR, respectively) were higher than any of Mattingly's individual seasons, the highest of which was 6.9 in 1986. It's true that Mattingly had more of a traditional peak, with his 5 best WAR years coming 1984 to 1988 at a total of 29.2 WAR. Olerud's best years were spread around more and his best 5-year peak was 1997 to 2001 at a total of 27.4 WAR.
Mattingly also got more recognition as a better player, at least in terms of MVP voting. Mattingly finished with 2.22 MVP shares including winning the 1985 AL MVP and 3 other top-10 finishes. Olerud placed 3rd one year, 12th another year, and finished with 0.59 shares. Mattingly also leads in All-Star selections 6 to 2. Olerud's years in Toronto may really hurt him here in terms of national recognition. Even when he went to the Mets, he didn't necessarily get all the recognition he deserved for his earlier feats.
Both guys won multiple Gold Gloves and had good defensive reputations. Mattingly, widely regarded as one of the best first basemen of all time, finished with a dWAR of just 3.1 while Olerud's was 9.7.
Importantly, we need to remember that each guy had his own period of being regarded as a top player. Mattingly was probably the most feared all-around AL hitter from 1984-1987, during which he led the league in OPS+ twice and total bases twice. He also won a batting title, an RBI title, and led the league in doubles three times. He also set the single-season record for grand slams and tied the record for consecutive games with a homer.
But Olerud had his own turn as a mega-star. In 1993, Olerud was hitting .400 as late as August and many fans were tracking his daily progress. We were, that year, also distracted by the offense all over the league, but Olerud was the top hitter from a batting average standpoint. At this point, Olerud was widely regarded as the top line-driver hitter in the game.
When it comes to post-season accomplishments, there's no comparison, thanks largely to the fact that the Yankees made the playoffs just once during Mattingly's time. He played well in the 1998 ALDS but the Yankees were eliminated by the Mariners. Olerud, by comparison, appeared in 14 different post-season series and hit pretty well to the tune of a .366 OBP over 66 games. He was an important part of two championship teams, the 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays.
I am leaving the poll question below quite vague--I'll leave it up to you to interpret as you wish and vote.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Perhaps, but in this case I was not proffering an opinion.
I would try to explain what you are missing, but I doubt you are interested.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Locode, you made some good points in this thread, but #200 was not one of them. I don't really understand what you hope to achieve with such a post. You offered no information and no value. All you did was criticize JT, who happens to be the most insightful and prolific commenter on this blog over the last 3 years. He's been wrong (very rarely) but you at least have to present some additional info if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, I expect you'll be written off by most of the readers here, as apparently JT has done based on #201.
That being said, I don't see how #90 adequately explains why range factor is not important for 1B, particularly since it relates to unassisted PO. JT, I'd appreciate further explanation.
January 20th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
"I would try to explain what you are missing, but I doubt you are interested."
I don't need an explanation from a moron about an untrue opinion. Thanks anyways, "expert".
January 20th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
#202.
Sorry unabomber guy, not interested in your opinion. Don't you have an umpire killer to defend?
January 20th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Richard, the citation of Koufax is significant because he probably represents the shortest prime that a player could enjoy while still garnering Hall of Fame entry. In his case, that prime and peak proved so historically overwhelming that parallels are hard to find: he led the National League in ERA in each of his final five seasons; he led the majors in ERA in each of his final four seasons, never higher than 2.04 and below 1.90 three times; he led the majors in strikeouts in four of his last six years; he led the majors in wins three times in his final four seasons with 25 or more all three times; he led the majors in WHIP four straight seasons. I could continue, but the point is obvious: for the span of about a half-decade, Koufax arguably constituted the best pitcher ever, especially from the left side. Conversely, while Mattingly's run proved elite in his time, he didn't rival the historical level of, say, Lou Gehrig in the 1930s.
Also helping Kofax's case, like Puckett's, is postseason play. Not only did Koufax pitch in four World Series and garner three championships, but he (incredibly) recorded a 0.95 ERA in 57 World Series innings, hurling 4 complete games and 2 shutouts. His 1965 Fall Classic versus Minnesota is the stuff of legend: in his second start of the series in Game Five, he pitched a four-hit, ten-strikeout shutout; then he came back on two days' rest for Game Seven on the road, making his third start in six games, and fired a three-hit, ten-strikeout shutout to win the title for Los Angeles. In 24 innings in that series, Koufax posted a microscopic ERA of 0.375, yielding just 1 earned run. Indeed, in both 1963 and 1965, Koufax played monumental roles in the Dodgers winning those two World Series by recording a 0.86 ERA in five starts, four of them being complete games, and fanning 52 hitters in 42 innings. So again, postseason performance enhances his case and his importance in baseball history.
All that said, I don't possess a problem with anyone advocating an argument on behalf of any player, especially a non-steroidal player such as Mattingly. Personally, I'd rather see debate on a wider range of players that is currently the case and greater emphasis placed on peak or prime performance.
Thanks for the compliments and the book reference; I'll look into it.
January 20th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
That line should have read, "Also helping Koufax's case."
I should add that cosmetically (and cosmetics count in Hall of Fame deliberation, fairly or not), Koufax is helped by the reality of him going-out on top. People's final memories of him are glowing, whereas when Mattingly retired, he was a decade removed from his MVP Award. If Mattingly's worse seasons had preceded, rather than succeeded, his best seasons, folks might feel a bit more compelled by him (see Puckett).
Again, that situation isn't necessarily fair, but it can be influential.
January 20th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
#206. Nice word about Koufax. He definitely deserves his spot in the hall.
The following image is my completely non statistical proof that Don Mattingly was not as good as John Olerud.
http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/uploaded_images/don_mattingly-704776.jpg
January 20th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
... classic poster (however kitsch).
January 20th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Seems to me after reading some of these posts. the topic has become convoluted a tad. Who was better?. Is that to be taken as who had a longer productive career or who dominated in comparison to his peers? Id be prone to look at how each compare to the leaders of his time. for pure dominance Id have to go with Mattingly.
John Olerud had very impressive OBA totals (I didnt expect it) and was in top 10 in BB and or OBA 7 times. lead the league in doubles , OBA, and BA in 1993. what else distinguished his numbers in comparison to his peers ?. Mattingly Lead the league in hitsx2, doublex3,batting average ,SLG and OPS, RBI once each.
between 1984-1989 he was in top ten on most every offesive category (BB excepted) he truly shined amongst his peers. do his numbers seems similar to oleruds ? well they might (even if we overlook the power and rbi difference and attribute it to their team roles) Olderun hardly ever made a dent on the runs, RbI and Homer top 10s of his years. (atomic baseballs for the win) in his many years and all the patience at the plate and juiced ball he twice had a batting average in top 10 for his league (1993, 1998).
Do Oleruds career numbers establish him to be a very productive and steady first baseman, absolutely.
as for the WAR rating stuff, all such things tend to lend themselves to the polluting of stats with preconcived notions of what is more important and thereby "framing" stats to appear to say something different.
Like argueing that a run scored is more important than a run driven in, and on the result of your conclusion you devise a rating system that leans more heavily on one stats than another, depending on the fad of the moment or the point you wish to prove.
mattingly HOF wasnt in the original post so didnt give much thought to it, but id prolly say, Not. that said , GO mattingly.
opinions are like a##hol##, everyone has one, so that was mine.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Hey, just catching up on this thread. So that guy that came by and fired a few insightless broadsides at WAR around 50 posts ago at least got some thoughts churning in my head. Namely, if WAR is an attempt to measure how much 'win value' each player contributes to their team, would we be able to do a comparison of team WAR and team record to see how accurate this is?
Has this been done in the past? I know there are TONS of kinks with the way that WAR is calculated, and I wouldn't expect those numbers to be the same, but if it's ostensibly to measure 'win value added', the sum of the parts should equal the whole, should it not? It could act as a good check, if applied league-wide, on not only how accurate WAR is in predicting team wins (above a team full of replacements), but also of if at least the trend of WAR is accurate (ie. there aren't crazy team fluctuations where a very winning team has a low WAR while another winning team has a high one).
This may be addressed somewhere, but I haven't seen it, and I come here pretty often... although perhaps it could be it's own post.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
@204 by the way, the unabomber wore a hoodie, not a hat/toque. If your observations about baseball are as keen as your sartorial observations, we'll all have to take your posts with a grain of salt.
January 20th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
#211. Who said my observation had anything to do with his head gear or the way he looked at all?
Go easy on the salt, it makes your blood pressure go up.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
I don't see how #90 adequately explains why range factor is not important for 1B, particularly since it relates to unassisted PO. JT, I'd appreciate further explanation.
Sure, Andy!
Range factor is putouts plus assists per game (or per 9 innings, preferably). But for 1Bmen, more than 90% of their PO + A are the PO. And more than 90% of the PO are simply receiving a throw from another infielder. So that's a huge percentage of the plays they are involved in which take little skill to complete successfully. (I mean for a major leaguer. Some of us might have a problem handling a throw whipped from deep short at 85 mph, but even Jason Giambi can catch those about as well as Keith Hernandez.)
Any MLB 1Bman can catch a ball thrown to him. The plays that differentiate them are their ability to field grounders and to throw runners out. These are such a small percentage of their total chances that you can't determine their skill by looking at range factor. The easy PO dominate that number, and those easy PO are greatly influenced by how many groundballs the pitching staff induces and how well the other infielders field them.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
John A., my point about Mattingly's relative defensive versatility would only represent "sophistry" if one were interpreting it with reactionary angst and presumptive haste. I never intended to imply that simply because Mattingly played a few games at other positions, he marked a better defensive first baseman than Olerud. Rather, I was responding to Lou's note that defensive metrics show Mattingly to have been average defensively. I haven't studied these particular metrics, but if true, the versatility that I cited would provide some countering "food for thought." No, his games played at other positions would not "prove" that Mattingly constituted an above-average first baseman, nor would a contrived and perhaps flawed metric necessarily "prove" a different conclusion. But if a guy could receive nine Gold Glove Awards and also play all those other positions, even in minimal portions, then he probably wasn't a statue or an unremarkable defender who just received those honors due to his offense or reputation. Obviously, Mattingly possessed some athletic ability.
Now, without the context of Lou's post leading off the responses, I can see how one could come to your conclusion, but hold your horses. I could have explained the context of my response more clearly, but I was floating "ideas for thought," not making a definitive argument, especially vis-à-vis Olerud's defense. Calm down.
As for your note about 168 players, I included the word "primarily" for a reason. Obviously, there have been some players who've played both first base and center field in the majors, especially utility-types and aging center fielders such as Willie Mays (although in over 100 years, 168 players aren’t that many). But Don Mattingly constituted a Gold Glove/All-Star first baseman in the 1980s and 1990s; during those decades, for instance, how many other Gold Glove/All-Star first basemen started a game in center field? One couldn't just throw Frank Thomas, Jason Giambi, or most first basemen out to center field or second base, even for a third of an inning or a single start. No, this relative versatility doesn't prove anything about Mattingly's defense, but it does suggest that he possessed athleticism and agility and was not just a guy who happened to receive Gold Gloves because he was a great hitter in his prime.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Namely, if WAR is an attempt to measure how much 'win value' each player contributes to their team, would we be able to do a comparison of team WAR and team record to see how accurate this is?
Of course it could be done. I don't know if it has been done. I expect you'd find an extremely high correlation between team WAR and team wins. Which does not prove that WAR is "right," but perhaps only that the easiest thing to measure (batting) is the biggest percentage of team performance, and that beyond that it isn't completely nonsense but has some logic behind it.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
#213
"simply receiving a throw from another infielder"
Oh, you make it sound so amazingly easy. Yet, it really isn't. Amazing how those 1B that are considered andecdotally to be great fielders tend to lead in range factor and putouts, despite what you claim.
A really good 1B will not only make more putouts ON THEIR OWN, by having great range, they will turn bad throws that might have been throwing errors into putouts on a regular basis.
And the amount of groundballs induced will inevitably even out over the course of time.
So, in my opinion it's pretty ludicrous to completely dismiss range factor as being a consideration for a 1B. It's a part of the equation, just as putouts and assists are. No single stat is worthless, just as no single stat can answer every question about a player.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Bells, from what I recall on my last visit to Fangraphs, there were some significant discrepancies between team-wide WAR and some of the more conventional results in the year 2000 (which I was examining). For instance, the 2000 Braves led the majors in ERA but, if I'm recalling correctly, only ranked fifth in pitching WAR. And the Braves leading the majors in ERA wasn't a fluke, because they led the majors in ERA almost every year in those days.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Lou's note that defensive metrics show Mattingly to have been average defensively.
This isn't true, to my knowledge. Total Zone shows him 33 runs above average over his career, which is 26th best since 1950. I don't know where he ranks on a per-inning basis, but he is at around 3 runs above average per full season. Keith Hernandez, who most people probably consider the best defender since at least the deadball era, is around 8 runs per full season. 1Bmen probably don't have the opportunity to separate themselves from the pack as much as other positions.
I seem to recall Total Baseball's defensive numbers back in the day rating Mattingly around average, but I think that was mostly because they just looked at assists, without considering that some 1Bmen take grounders to the bag themselves more often than others who flip to the pitcher. I'm not aware of any other "advanced" numbers on Mattingly.
As someone who watched Mattingly quite a bit, I feel comfortable in saying he was an excellent 1Bman. I don't know how many runs that equals. As I said in #24, TZ may underrate him, but it's not by tons of runs, unless you think he's eons above Hernandez and every other 1Bman ever.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
@196, JoeKidd -- "And the idea that Olerud's 1998 campaign necessarily surpasses Mattingly's best season(s) is dubious."
Granted, Olerud's 91 Runs & 93 RBI in '98 are unexceptional in themselves, and pale next to Mattingly's 107 and 145 in 1985. But consider the context:
-- Olerud was in the NL. And the Mets that year ranked 11th in NL scoring, at 4.36 R/G. They had just 4 above-average hitters -- Piazza, who was superb but didn't join the club until late May and played just 109 games for the Mets; Brian McRae, who had a career-high 116 OPS+; Edgardo Alfonzo, who had not yet hit his stride, with a 106 OPS+; and Olerud. The rest of the lineup, as well as the bench, was flat-out bad; 3 lineup regulars had OPS+ of 76 or below. Their leadoff hitters batted .237, and their #5-6 hitters combined for an OPS below .700. You can't drive in runners that aren't on base, and even a true slugger doesn't get over 100 runs without someone driving him in a lot.
-- Mattingly's '85 Yankees scored 128 runs more than the '98 Mets; they led the majors in scoring that year at 5.21 R/G. Rickey Henderson had a .419 OBP and 80 steals with just 10 CS. (How much of an RBI bonanza did that give Mattingly? He started 58 games batting #2 -- and drove in 50 runs.) Willie Randolph had a .382 OBP. Eight of their 10 regulars had an OPS+ of at least 106, and just one player with 120+ PAs had an OPS+ below 89. (Bobby Meacham was the only "out" in that lineup.)
But what about those 145 RBI? Surely that must have come from raising his game in RBI situations? Actually, no, not at all. Overall, Mattingly batted 324 with 35 HRs, slugging .567. But with runners in scoring position, his BA was down to .314, with just 4 HRs and .463 slugging -- more than 100 points below his overall SLG. The surrounding context was a HUGE part of those 145 RBI.
Also, Mattingly used up 81 more outs than Olerud (441-360), though Olerud played 1 more game.
These are some of the logical reasons why Olerud's '98 season rates slightly above Mattingly's '85 in offensive value. I know the counting numbers favor Mattingly; but if you're not going to look past counting numbers, I don't think you're going to have a lot of fun on this site.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Oh, you make it sound so amazingly easy. Yet, it really isn't.
For a major leaguer, it's about as easy as anything in the game.
Amazing how those 1B that are considered andecdotally to be great fielders tend to lead in range factor and putouts, despite what you claim.
The following players have led the league in range factor this century: Paul Konerko, Chris Shelton, Carlos Delgado, Robert Fick, Jason Giambi. Yes, superb defenders all.
A really good 1B will not only make more putouts ON THEIR OWN, by having great range, they will turn bad throws that might have been throwing errors into putouts on a regular basis.
Yes, I mentioned unassisted PO, twice now. I didn't mention receiving bad throws. How many bad throws do you think the best 1Bman corrals over the course of a season that the worst does not? 20? It's meaningful to our perception of their ability. It has almost no impact on their range factor. (I agree it is a limitation of advanced defensive numbers that they do not, to my knowledge, account for this.)
And the amount of groundballs induced will inevitably even out over the course of time.
No, it won't.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
from what I recall on my last visit to Fangraphs, there were some significant discrepancies between team-wide WAR and some of the more conventional results in the year 2000 (which I was examining). For instance, the 2000 Braves led the majors in ERA but, if I'm recalling correctly, only ranked fifth in pitching WAR. And the Braves leading the majors in ERA wasn't a fluke, because they led the majors in ERA almost every year in those days.
That's very different than correlating with wins. Team ERA is based on pitching plus fielding. WAR attempts to separate pitching out from defense. The Braves tended to have good fielding defenses. (Whether WAR does the separation right is, of course, an entirely different question.)
January 20th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
But what about those 145 RBI? Surely that must have come from raising his game in RBI situations? Actually, no, not at all. ?
I was quite upset when I first realized this. I love Donnie. (I actually didn't love him at the time, but I did the second half of his career.) I must concede he didn't deserve that MVP, and that Rickey or Brett did.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I would be intrigued to learn which metrics Lou was referring to. I own the 2000 edition of "Total Baseball," which relied on "Fielding Runs" as its primary defensive metric. Like many metrics, it seems to be hit-or-miss, making total sense in some cases and less sense in others.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
I just looked at 2010 and the correlation between team wins and team WAR is 0.92. I expect you'll find similar results if you go through all seasons. I'm more interested in how much certain teams vary by, and how much the league WAR varies from league wins, and why.
I just remembered, part of the reason why there will be discrepancy in WAR to wins is that there is a league-strength component. PHI won the most games last season but is only 5th in WAR (2nd in the NL). If you did the correlations by league they'd be stronger, I expect.
January 20th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
@198 Richard Chester,
There's a few things that you left out that might explain Puckett's 2.9 OWAR in 1994.
1-It was a strike year so you have to take into account that Puckett only played 108 games that year.
2-Puckett had a .362 on base percentage which ranked 38/87 in the AL that year.
3-Puckett had 482 plate appearances (16th in the AL) and made 322 outs (19th in the AL)
4-RBI is an extremely overrated stat because its too context dependent and it's a stat that dependent on batting order and the batters who hit ahead of you. Puckett batted third on the '94 Twins and they had two players with good on-base percentages and 29+ stolen bases batting first & second in the lineup: Knoblauch (.381 on-base, 35 stolen bases) & Alex Cole (.375 on-base, 29 stolen bases).
5-Puckett had a 129 ops+ in 1994 which is very good but it ranked 19/87 in the AL that year. Frank Thomas had a 211+, Belle 193+, O'neill 176+, Griffey jr. 170+, those are some huge offensive seasons.
5-I don't really see what's the problem of a 2.9 OWAR in a strike year. Puckett ranked 19/270 in OWAR so by that measure he was on of the 20 best offensive players in the AL in '94 which is very good.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:01 am
I Apologize, for not having read through everything...but, having been busy for days, I'll just "paste" Tony's(#11)comment-
"Had his back not gone out on him, Donnie Baseball would of been in HOF years ago..... And I HATE the Yankees but I thought he was a great player..."
and, yes, maybe Olerud had the career stats.....but, aside, from that summer in '93, he never had that "fear factor" that Mattingly had for 5 seasons. (And, NO, I wouldn't even CLOSE to vote him in the HOF, lol....)
January 21st, 2011 at 12:01 am
@195 There's no way that Alomar was a better defensive player than an offensive player. At best he was an average defensive player for the bulk of his career.
Part of the problem with Alomar's GG was that there were no dominant defensive second basemen in the AL during the 1990's. Guys like Scott Fletcher, Billy Ripken, Jody Reed, Harold Reynolds, Mike Gallego, and Mark Mclemore were the best defensive AL second basemen during the 1990's. Even Chuck Knoblauch when he was on the Twins was one of the best AL second basemen. Something happened when he went to the Yankees and he became a horrible defensive player.
Without a consistent defensive 2b the award went undeservedly to Alomar because he was the most consistently recognizable 2b and he was the best offensive 2b of the 90's.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:03 am
John A., even if one were to just consider OPS+, Olerud's 163 in 1998 is virtually the same as Mattingly's 161 in 1986 (and if OPS+ doesn't adjust for pitchers hitting in the NL, then Olerud's mark would be inflated compared to Mattingly's).
Then, too, the home run is the most consequential play in baseball. Mattingly reached 30 home runs three times, while Olerud never attained 25 and hit 22 home runs in 1998. Home runs aren't everything, of course, but they are important and if the OPS figures are approximate, I'll take the guy who can guarantee more runs via the home run, not just give my team chances of scoring runs. Yes, Mattingly's 145 RBI in 1985 is partly circumstantial, but his 35 home runs, 86 extra-base hits, and 211 total hits possessed something to do with it, too. Olerud's walks and extremely high on-base percentages are valuable, but 22 home runs and 62 extra-base hits compared to Mattingly's 35/86 in 1985 also help explain the discrepancy in RBI. Obviously, the "environmental" factors that you cited cannot be denied, either.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:04 am
#220
"And the amount of groundballs induced will inevitably even out over the course of time.
No, it won't."
Wrong. Again.
To further back up the fact that ground balls do in fact average out over time (which is something anyone with a coherent thought pattern would have already known):
From the advanced fielding stats.
Advanced Fielding -- 1B
GBIP% ▾ -- Percentage of PAs that ended with ground ball in play (not a bunt).
Current players
Pujols 35%
Helton 32%
Overbay 32%
Konerko 32%
Giambi 32%
Howard 31%
Fielder 30%
70's 80's era
Hernandez 29%
Carew 28%
R Jackson 29%
Buckner 30%
Durham 28%
John Olerud was 30%, the league average in his career was 32%
Don Mattingly was 31%, same as the league average.
And yes, the advanced stats break down how putouts were made as well.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am
@216, Locode -- "Amazing how those 1B that are considered andecdotally to be great fielders tend to lead in range factor and putouts...."
I'm sorry -- did you show the stats on that somewhere? That is, a correlation between defensive reputation and raw range factor?
I'll toss some numbers out there from Mattingly's first 2 Gold Glove seasons:
-- 1985: Where did the Yankees rank in the AL in putouts by their 1B? Dead last, 100 below the league average (1342-1442). The Royals ranked 1st, with 249 more putouts than the Yankees. Their 1B was Steve Balboni; and while Bones may have been better than his reputation, I don't recall him making a lot of leaping or diving grabs of line drives. The Yankees also ranked last in the AL in assists by their 1B; Boston ranked 1st, with more than twice as many assists as the Yanks (179-87). Their 1B was Bill Buckner -- famous for always throwing to the pitcher when he had a choice. (Bill James wrote about this years ago.) The Yankees turned 5 "3-6-3" DPs -- half the league high.
-- 1986: The Yankees ranked 4th in putouts by their 1B, and last in assists; they were 11th in total chances. The putouts (and chances) leader again was KC/Balboni; the assists leader again was Boston/Buckner. The Yankees again had 5 "3-6-3" DPs; the league high was 12.
Sure, these are just 2 seasons, and other years may give different impressions. But it's crystal clear to me that raw range factor for a first basement is virtually meaningless, due to all the background noise: the pitching staff's ground-ball and strikeout rates; DPs are profoundly affected by the number of men on base; assists tend to reflect more about personal choice than about range per se.
Or to put it another way: If there's not more noise than meaning in 1B range factor, then someone needs to do a whole lot of explaining to show why Don Mattingly deserved the Gold Glove in 1985-86.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:06 am
if OPS+ doesn't adjust for pitchers hitting in the NL
It does.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:07 am
John Q., upon what are you basing your description of Alomar as an "average at best" defender? Not that "eyes" or "visual testimony" constitutes conclusive proof, but the consensus among people who watched him play and played with or against him seems to be that he was the defensive second baseman per excellence of his era.
Also, Alomar started receiving Gold Gloves before people recognized him as a great offensive player. When he received his first in 1991, he was new to the American League and only hit 9 home runs that season.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:10 am
Locode, thanks for proving my point. Your numbers show Pujols has been groundballs 17% more often than division-mate Fielder. A *huge* difference. I'm glad we could come to an agreement on this.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:11 am
has *seen* groundballs
January 21st, 2011 at 12:11 am
@ #216, 218......I grew up in NJ, and watched both Mattingly, and Hernandez, as a kid. I consider KH to be above Donnie Baseball, defensively- but you'd have to be kidding me, to say that DM is "average" defensively??? No chance. He was money!!!!
I watched him day in and day out.....
January 21st, 2011 at 12:13 am
[ I'm of course, agreeing w/ 216,&218, not arguing:)) ]
January 21st, 2011 at 12:16 am
#234
You're really just a freaking idiot. clearly you know that already, as I'm sure you hear it on a daily basis.
Go twistoff another beer cap and get back to being incoherent.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:17 am
@230- and this is why "WAR" and other "defensive stats" are part of the picture, but not the whole- "it's because he made plays, that no one else could!!(while of course, also making the routine plays)".
isn't that what winning the "Gold Glove" at one's position, means??
January 21st, 2011 at 12:21 am
#227. Mattingly and "fear factor".
1985 and 1986 Mattingly drew a total of 24 IBB.
1993 John Olerud drew 33 IBB.
I think a lot of the fear factor with Mattingly was the fear of pitching to Dave Winfield, so Mattingly saw a lot of good pitches. Olerud had what, Ed Sprague batting behind him? Maybe Tony Fernandez. Not quite as imposing.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:28 am
@228, JoeKidd -- I hear you about Donnie's 86 XBH in '85, compared to Olerud's 62. But for all that, Mattingly's SLG was just 16 points higher -- because Olerud, in addition to drawing far more walks, batted 30 points higher than Mattingly.
I'll grant that the certainty of Mattingly's 35 HRs that year does provide a security blanket. If I'm putting together a team from inside a black box, and I know there's a significant chance that the rest of my offense will be bad, then yes, I'd rather have Mattingly's '85. But if I'm guaranteed a league-average offense in all respects, then I want Olerud's '98.
Also, consider this: What might Olerud's Runs and RBI have been if he'd played for the '85 Yankees? Olerud reached base safely 297 times -- 23 more than Rickey did in '85. Olerud had a .447 OBP; Rickey's OBP was .419. Obviously, Rickey ran a lot better, so I won't try to argue that Olerud would have matched Rickey's historic 146 runs (even though Oley got on base more times). But I'm thinking around 125-130. And how many RBI might Olerud have gotten if his #1-2 hitters had reached base at a .390 clip (as the Yanks' did), rather than the puny .336 mark of the Mets' table-setters?
Final point: Mattingly and Olerud both played every day and hit in the #2-4 spots, but Mattingly got 62 more PAs, due to a better offense. That alone is accounts for about 8 to 10 extra runs and RBI.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:29 am
@199 Joe Kid,
Valid Point on the 1993 MVP, I think Olerud should have won the award but like you said Thomas, Olerud & Griffey were the 3 best offensive players in the AL that year and all had a solid case for the MVP. Griffey jr. was probably the best player in the AL that year.
Thomas' defense at first was normally pretty bad so that should factor into Olerud's favor. The Blue Jays had Molitor & Alomar which cut into Olerud's vote total.
Your point about the 1993 World Series conveniently omitted several important facts. Olerud was "benched" because the Blue Jays were playing in Philadelphia and couldn't use their HOF DH Paul Molitor. You made it sound like Gaston benched him for some back-up 1b.
Secondly, Danny Jackson, a left handed pitcher was pitching for the Phillies. Gaston no doubt wanted to get Molitor into the game because he crushed left handed pitching in 1994 batting .388/.479/.612!!
January 21st, 2011 at 12:31 am
clearly you know that already, as I'm sure you hear it on a daily basis.
No, they don't let me have many visitors.
Go twistoff another beer cap and get back to being incoherent.
Actually, I've been going with liquor tonight.
But really, I am glad you realized players see a different % of grounders over a career. We may not notice it while watching, but those little differences sure add up over the years, huh? I can't wait until we find resolution on our next disagreement, whatever it may be.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:35 am
Johnny Twisto -- I know you don't need my advice, but just speaking as one who has let himself get caught up in a flame war or two ... don't do it! The guy isn't worth your energy -- save it for people who will listen with an open mind and who'll speak with a civil tongue.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:38 am
<>
if you've an argument- good- and, saying this for myself, too.....I don't mind being shown another "way", if you will....but noise is just noise!!
Bring some facts, or at least some solid point of reference.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:39 am
arrrgggh last comment was not an HTML tag, lol, it read "smiles@243"....sry:(
January 21st, 2011 at 12:41 am
"Ed Sprague batting behind him"
kind of funny, Sprague had 13 HRs & 73 RBIs that year.
Exactly what Mattingly averaged after age 26.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:42 am
#243.
You're as thick as it gets, aren't you? Because I can really only consider that you must be clueless. I've yet to see a sign of intelligence, nor rational thought.
Pujols number will go down, Fielder's will go up, and by the end of their careers (or time playing 1B), they'll be within a percentage point or two at most. Just like any other 1B's will be.
My point all along is simple. For a 1B, range factor/9 innings is a meaningful stat, when taken in context with other fielding stats. Your claim that it means nothing is incorrect. And again, like any of this, that's in my opinion. Because making an "end of argument" flat out statement when there's nothing to back it up other than opinion is arrogant and annoying. And that's johnny twisto in a nutshell.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:44 am
"kind of funny, Sprague had 13 HRs & 73 RBIs that year.
Exactly what Mattingly averaged after age 26."
What was the real story with Mattingly's back injury? I've read it was due to a clubhouse scuffle with Al Shirley, then another account said it was Shane Rawley. Supposedly this happened in 1987, then it got much worse by 1990.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:05 am
Alomar at 2B
As a Jays fan and someone who watch a ton of games on TV, Alomar was a guy who made some amazing plays, and did some things that other guys hadn't done. But then there were also balls that got past him that it seemed he should have had.
Alomar 2B
Games 3rd (all time)
Putouts 15th (all time)
Assists 7th (all time)
Errors 79th (all time)
Range/9 91st (all time)
F20% (F2O% -- Percentage of balls fielded (by the player) that resulted in outs)
Alomar 90% (league 92%)
GBIP% 31% (league 32%)
I really like this F20% as a simple tool, especially for infielders. Along with all the other stats, it would indicate that Alomar wasn't as good as his gold gloves would indicate.
Keith Hernandez is 95%, league average for him was 94%
Mattingly 96% to 94%
Olerud 95% to 93%
Prince Fielder 91% to 94%
Cecil Fielder 92% to 93%
January 21st, 2011 at 1:11 am
And yet, for all the ranting and foaming, I see nothing addressed to my post @230, about the actual putout and assist stats for 1985-86. I know it's immodest of me, but I think that was a pretty strong case against 1B range factor being meaningful.
Good night, all.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:12 am
Pujols number will go down, Fielder's will go up
Why is that so certain? These numbers aren't random.
OK, retired players. Andres Galarraga's opponents hit 33% of balls on the ground and 45% were lefthanded. Travis Lee's opponents hit 30% of balls on the ground and 39% were lefthanded. Which one had many more opportunities to make plays? Which one's teammates had many more opportunities to make plays (and subsequently throw the ball to him, allowing him the challenging chance of moving his glove in the direction of the ball and then squeezing it closed)?
January 21st, 2011 at 1:35 am
@240 John A,
The 1998 Mets also had an odd group of 1-2 batters hitting in front of Olerud that year. And because Hundley was hurt they put Olerud in the clean-up spot before the Piazza trade.
The Mets had 16 players bat in the 1 or 2 spot that season. Valentine must have been smoking something because he even batted Rey Ordonez (.278 on base percentage) lead-off TWICE. Here's the list with their respective 1998 on base percentages:
McRae-.360, Lopez-.312, Gilkey-.317, Alfonzo-.355, Becker-.331, Baerga-.303, M. Franco-.360, Tatum-.211, Ordonez-.278, Wilson-.364, Kirby-.219, Agbayani-.188, Harris-.272, Allensworth-.246, Payton-.348, and Tony Phillips-.351.
And there was no stolen base threat in that group as well. Mcrae led that pack with 20 stolen bases and the next player had 8, Edgardo Alfonzo.
So this cast of characters no doubt impacted Olerud's RBI total not to mention they cost Olerud additional plate appearances by their weak on base percentages.
Tony Phillips was actually a very good player and very underrated but he was 39 years old and at the end of his career. Alfonzo greatly regressed after his strong & underrated 1997 season. Gilkey & Baerga were essentially shot by this point in their careers.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:41 am
#251
your post at #231 doesn't exactly show anything against range factor that I can see.
You've got different stats listed, stories, asides, and in the end it doesn't seem to make a definite statistical point. Sorry. Maybe it's me.
#252. You can find any pair of guys that might have a difference. So what? It doesn't mean the stat itself is meaningless.
"allowing him the challenging chance of moving his glove in the direction of the ball and then squeezing it closed"
Again, the way you arrogantly make it out that 1B is simple to play is just annoying. There's a bit in Moneyball about Scott Hatteberg moving to 1B and the troubles he had. You make it out that any lunkhead could play 1B without a problem, and that's simply not an accurate assessment. If you tried it I'm betting you'd fall flat on your feet more often than you were able to get to the bag and make the play.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:59 am
#251 your post at #231 doesn't exactly show anything against range factor that I can see.
I don't see it either. What are you talking about?
You can find any pair of guys that might have a difference. So what? It doesn't mean the stat itself is meaningless.
Right, I explained why it's (almost entirely) meaningless before. You have ignored that, so I was trying to provide extra details responding directly to your post #247. Did you forget that already? I understand, it's late.
If you tried it I'm betting you'd fall flat on your feet more often than you were able to get to the bag and make the play.
Although I didn't think it was necessary, I made the point more than once that I was talking about major league first basemen, not the average insurance salesman. Apparently some folks overlooked that. Let me make this clear: I THINK PLAYING IN THE MAJOR LEAGUES IS INCREDIBLY HARD. I wouldn't get any hits. I can still say that batting .200 sucks. I am talking about major league first basemen, and yes, some players have trouble adjusting to the position, and a few can't do it at all. Most major leaguers would be able to do it, and anyone who does it for an extended period can catch a ball without much trouble.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:59 am
@John Autin 240
So Basically what you are saying is that IF Olerud had say a mattingly hitting behind him to drive him in he would have been better ? and you still dont see why mattingly's hitting was so important?. nice get on base, and then what ? if no one drives you in you get nowhere. mattingly was good at his job and sure he had others around him too.
In an earlier post you also commented about Oleruds low RBI and Runs totals compared to Mattingly single season wise, 85, 86. and explained it away as simple
"You can't drive in runners that aren't on base, and even a true slugger doesn't get over 100 runs without someone driving him in a lot.", Olerud a slugger ? he had OBA sure, yet didnt score runs (so sorry not his fault, he needed a slugger) low RBI ( so sorry , he needed some people on base). I dont detracts Oleruds overall production it is quite impressive. maybe Mattingly was just a lucky fool had all that talent around him and runs just got scored and he went with it :).
No matter how many teams Olerud played for or in what league he never scored or drove runs teh way Mattingly did. Better team ? sure , They had Mattingly instead of Olerud to start.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:01 am
John #243....I can't help it!
January 21st, 2011 at 2:43 am
@214, JoeKidd -- I'll acknowledged that "sophistry" was going too far. I offer my apologies.
It's true that I had not then read (and still have not read) every post in the long thread, so it's quite possible that I missed some context that would have cast your statements in a different light. In my defense, your post @174 (to which I responded unkindly) opens by referring to an argument by "Lou," without saying where it appears; I scrolled up several pages looking for Lou's argument, didn't find it, and so I let that go. I could not have guessed from your #174 that you were referring to the very first comment in the thread.
I did read your post pretty carefully, and since I thought it stood on its own, I responded to it from that angle. And, while I'm sorry for my harsh tone, I still think your points about Mattingly playing 2B (which, as I noted but you did not, he played for 1/3 of an inning under the extraordinary circumstances of the replayed last inning of the Pine-Tar Game), 3B (which as I noted but you did not, he played for 18 innings), and CF (which, as I noted but you did not, he played for 8 innings), not only don't add to our understanding of Mattingly's fielding ability at 1B, but serve as misdirection. You say that you were only floating "ideas for thought." But simply reading your post as a stand-alone (as I did), it seemed to me that you attached some meaning to those facts; and so, I made my case that there was no meaning in them.
As for the 1B/CF issue, unfortunately, the Play Index is not able to search for exactly what we want here, someone who was primarily a 1B but also played CF. I can tell you that 64 players have at least 100 career games at both 1B and CF, and that 38 players have at least 150 games at each position. I can name three who might meet your standard of being "primarily" a 1B: Darin Erstad played 627 games at 1B and 540 in CF in his career; Erstad played all OF in his rookie year, then almost all at 1B in his 2nd year, and mixed it up thereafter. Perhaps a better example for your purposes is Joe Pepitone, whose primary position was 1B in his first 4 full years (1963-66), but who played 51 games in CF in '66 and 123 games in CF in '67; he continued to mix 1B and CF for the rest of his career. Phil Cavarretta is another well-known player who was primarily a 1B, but played over 500 games in the OF.
But I still maintain that Mattingly's OF play, while Olerud played no position but 1B, is of virtually no help in comparing their fielding value at 1B. Perhaps Olerud never played the OF because he was bad at judging fly balls from there, or because he was a slow runner. Either of those things, if true, would have no bearing on Olerud's skills at 1B, a position at which those skills are of little use. That Mattingly was able to play the OF speaks well of his versatility, but to me, does not provide an iota of evidence that Mattingly was a better fielding 1B. George Scott won 8 Gold Gloves at 1B, J.T. Snow won 6, and Mark Grace 4; none of them ever played the OF, and both Snow and Grace never played any position but 1B. (Well, Grace did pitch once....)
Lastly, you say you were trying to show that Mattingly "was not just a guy who happened to receive Gold Gloves because he was a great hitter in his prime." I simply did not realize that anyone had made such a claim about Mattingly; I thought you were trying to puff up his all-around fielding accomplishments.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:52 am
@255, responding specifically to your reaction to my statement that "even a true slugger doesn't get over 100 runs without someone driving him in a lot."
Sorry, I did not at all mean that Olerud was a slugger. I was (I thought) implicitly acknowledging that Olerud was NOT a slugger, but that even someone who IS a slugger can't have a huge runs total without help behind him. (For example, Mattingly only had 2 seasons, 1985-86, wherein he scored over 94 runs....)
The rest of your statements, I leave alone; let them stand or fall according to the judgments of others.
January 21st, 2011 at 2:56 am
@252, John Q -- Wow, I'm a Mets fan, and I'd forgotten that Tony Phillips was with them that year. One of my favorites in his Tigers years, and hugely underrated, but by '98 he was done.
And you're right, my memory was a little off when I said that Fonzie had not yet hit his stride by '98; it was a bit of a down year between a fine '97 and his fairly monster 1999-2000 seasons. (Why is that Mets second basemen seem to age so quickly? Baerga ... Alfonzo ... Alomar!)
January 21st, 2011 at 2:59 am
Johnny -- Yes, you can....
Distract yourself by switching over to the "200+ hits..." thread -- I posted a couple of stats following up on your Tenace/Wynn note.
January 21st, 2011 at 10:07 am
@259 John A,
I'm a Mets fan as well and I totally forgot about Tony Phillips being on that team.
Those late 90's early 00's Mets team were a bit odd in that it seemed like they had a bunch of players went from having career years one year to being average to terrible the following year. They were frustrating teams to follow because it rarely seemed like everybody was healthy and productive for any consistent time period.
Hundley was great in '96-97 with a 140+ & 148+ and then God awful in 1998 with a 40 ops+.
Bernard Gilkey had a career year 155 ops+ in 1996 then to a 100+ in 1997 then a 72+ in 1998.
Lance Johnson had a 125+ with 50 steals in 1996 to a 110 ops+ with 15 steals in a partial season in 1997.
Alfonzo had a 119 ops+ in 1997 to a 106+ in 1998.
Ventura went from a 129 ops+ in 1999 to a 98 ops+ in 2000
And among the pitchers, Al Leiter had a 170 era+ in 1998 and had a 105 era+ in 1999.
There's probably a bunch more but those are the ones that stand out.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:10 am
Not a Mets fan, but Roger Cedeno stands out for me in a similar way. The long-time Dodger prospect came to the Mets in '99 with a career OPS+ of 83, and he bloomed that year with a .396 OBP and 66 SB. (I remember some people crediting Rickey Henderson for his emergence.) Just 25, it seemed he might become a star. He was then traded away in the Mike Hampton deal and never played that well again, especially on returning to the Mets a couple years later. He managed just 634 more games at an 85 OPS+ before he was done.
January 21st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
While some have used this comparison as a critique of WAR, it's actually a case where I think WAR largely agrees with the conventional wisdom.
During his 4 year peak, Mattingly's level is pretty consistent, putting his true talent level around 6 to 6.5 WAR, well above all-star level.
Olerud had a much longer peak, sustaining the same level for roughly 11 years, during which he had a couple outlier outstanding years, and a couple off years. His typical year in that range is somewhere around 4.5 to 5 WAR, or a shade below all-star level.
Looking purely at WAR, I'd call Mattingly a great player who declined to a very good one in his late 20's, then dropped more substantially around 30. Based only on WAR, I'd call Olerud a very good player for a little over a decade, with a couple terrific career years mixed in during that stretch. While there's a case that Mattingly's defense is underrated in the metrics used (which I'd agree it probably is), even without adjusting for that it's pretty obvious looking at WAR that Mattingly was the better true-talent player during their peaks, and it's also pretty obvious that Olerud contributed more overall value due to a much longer peak and career as well as his performance during his career years.
I don't see this as being a sabermetric versus traditional debate so much as a question of what constitutes "better". Mattingly was certainly the more able player, but injuries limited his value outside of his prime. Olerud's ability didn't peak as high (even if his performance did a couple times) but he sustained that ability for over a decade.
I'd take Olerud on the career level, but prime Mattingly was the better player.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
@257 John A., about the defensive issue: yeah, it's okay. I accept your apology and it's not necessarily necessary.
I concur, the fact that Mattingly occasionally played another position here or there does not mean that he was a better defensive first baseman than Olerud. That relative versatility may suggest that Mattingly was more athletic than Olerud, but even that notion cannot be proved by the games played at other positions and greater pure athleticism wouldn't necessarily equate with superior defensive prowess at first base. In these respects, you are absolutely correct and I'm not arguing with you. On the other hand, and returning to my floating of an idea, agility can constitute an underrated and important attribute for a first baseman. The fact that Mattingly, even in a pinch, could play some of those other positions (most notably center field and second base, however minimal the samples) suggests that his agility surpassed that of the average first baseman.
Darin Erstad represents an ironic case. He was really an outfielder by trade, but he moved to first base in 1997 because the Angels featured Garret Anderson, Jim Edmonds, and Tim Salmon in their outfield (in 1996, Edmonds missed 48 games, thus allowing a rookie Erstad some outfield time). After the Angels dealt Edmonds to St. Louis prior to the 2000 season, Erstad returned to the outfield on a more or less full-time basis until 2004, when free agent additions Vladimir Guerrero and Jose Guillen joined the club in the outfield. But Erstad was essentially a speed-based outfielder, one with enough defensive utility to shift to first base if the club's composition seemed to call for it. Joe Pepitone would indeed appear to be more of that rare primary first baseman who also played center field in the majors.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
@263 Wilson C., I concur with your conclusions.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@262, JT -- Re: Roger Cedeno -- In 1999, his BABIP was .393. In no other year was it above .336, and his career mark was .325.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:12 pm
@262 J. Twisto,
Yeah Cedeno was another one with an odd twist in that he was traded and brought back via free-agency. He had that very good 1999 and then was a complete bust in 2002. I think the Mets gave him something like a $10 million dollar contract so the whole thing was a disaster.
2002 was just a complete disaster for the Mets, they traded Ventura, the signed Cedeno, and they traded for Alomar, Burnitz, and Vaughn who were just a complete disaster and also cost the team a lot of money.
Rickey Henderson was another one that fit this category. He had a 127 ops+ in 1999 with 36 steals and then he had a 64 ops+ in about 30 games for the 2000 Mets.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:44 pm
@241 John Q., About Game Three of the 1993 World Series, I didn't mean to seem misleading; I just thought that the context (National League park, no DH allowed) proved self-evident and so I could employ short-hand of sorts. But to your points, the logic behind inserting Molitor proves undeniable. However, in Games Four and Five, Cito Gaston played Molitor at third base and Olerud at first, meaning that in Game Three, Gaston ultimately chose Ed Sprague over Olerud. In 1993, of course, Sprague batted .260 with a .310 on-base percentage and a .386 slugging average and although he was right-handed, he only hit .247/.304/.363 with 2 home runs and 11 RBI versus southpaws that season!
Either way, regardless of whom one wants to cite as Olerud's effective replacement, it was just one game in an otherwise brilliant campaign. Still, for whatever it's worth, I cannot envision Thomas, Griffey, or a prime Mattingly having been benched in that situation. The point may or may not be meaningful, but it conforms to my concept of Olerud essentially constituting an exceptional complementary player who happened to enjoy an MVP-caliber season in 1993, but not necessarily being a superstar who would reliably carry a lineup. Conversely, Thomas, Griffey, and a prime Mattingly fit the latter label.
And I agree that Griffey probably represented the American League's best player that season.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:20 pm
#268.
"I cannot envision Thomas, Griffey, or a prime Mattingly having been benched in that situation."
How about Reggie Jackson in game 5 of the ALCS in 1977? Martin benched him because they were facing the lefty Paul Splittorf.
The decision by Cito is a strange one though, as the left handed game 3 starter Danny Jackson gave up a .296 BA to lefties on the season. And of course like you said, Sprague didn't exactly tattoo lefties that season.
My thought is that because Molitor had only played at 1B that season when he wasn't DH'ing, and only 23 times at that, and also hadn't played 3B since 2 games in 1990, he felt more comfortable with Sprague at 3B. In his mind I'm sure he felt he was getting the better hitting match up, which statistically really wasn't the case.
Then with right handers starting in games 4 and 5, he pretty much had to put Olerud back in and live with what Molitor could do at 3B.
Olerud had never faced Jackson. Sprague never faced him other than in game 3.
Molitor was 6/18 career off of Jackson, with 2 doubles, a triple and a home run (including the post season).
January 21st, 2011 at 4:15 pm
totally agree, WilsonC (#263).
January 21st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
@Joe Kid 268,
I think you're making too much of Game 3 which was a very unique situation. Molitor was insane against left handed pitching hitting .388/.479/.612. Basically it was like having Ted Williams on your bench so you know Gaston was going to find a way to get him in the game. Also Molitor was a veteran and hit .355 in the 1982 WS, Olerud was a fairly young player with his first taste of success.
I think playing Molitor at 1b was more about the fact that Molitor hadn't played 3b since 1989 than a slight against Olerud. And Molitor was about an average fielder at third base.
Griffey would have never came out because of the position he played. You can't just take a DH and put him in CF so that would have never happened.
I could see this happening to Frank Thomas under the right situation. Ventura played 3B so it's not like he would have been removed. If the White Sox had a DH that hit like Lou Gehrig against righties then I think the Sox would pull Frank Thomas.
Mattingly never played in the WS so it's an interesting question. Mattingly had a god-like stature in NY by 1987 so it would have been difficult for a manager to get away with that move even if it was the correct move. Billy Martin probably would have had the balls/stature to make a move like that.
January 21st, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Do these tags work?
Do these tags work?
January 21st, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Thank you Bells, for the below. Johnny Twisto chastised me for my comment.
Like I posted above, Yankee's team WAR for 2010 was 46.2; Blue Jays was 38.4. Also, Red Sox is 45.3
I must be doing something wrong. Maybe I made a mistake in adding.
Johnny T says that there is a .92 correlation between team wins and WAR, which to my understanding is very strong. But I'm wondering how J.T. calculated that.
If the Yankee's players added more wins, they should have won more games. But the Jay's won more. Are they still using the imperial system for runs in baseball?
Bells Says:
January 20th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Hey, just catching up on this thread. So that guy that came by and fired a few insightless broadsides at WAR around 50 posts ago at least got some thoughts churning in my head. Namely, if WAR is an attempt to measure how much 'win value' each player contributes to their team, would we be able to do a comparison of team WAR and team record to see how accurate this is?
Has this been done in the past? I know there are TONS of kinks with the way that WAR is calculated, and I wouldn't expect those numbers to be the same, but if it's ostensibly to measure 'win value added', the sum of the parts should equal the whole, should it not? It could act as a good check, if applied league-wide, on not only how accurate WAR is in predicting team wins (above a team full of replacements), but also of if at least the trend of WAR is accurate (ie. there aren't crazy team fluctuations where a very winning team has a low WAR while another winning team has a high one).
This may be addressed somewhere, but I haven't seen it, and I come here pretty often... although perhaps it could be it's own post.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Joseph, what comment did I "chastise"? (I don't feel like the chastising sort.) There's way too many here now to go back and check.
The Yankees won more games than the Jays, so I'm not sure what you mean.
I just put all the teams' win totals and WAR totals into Excel and calculated the correlation between the two. It was very high (for that one season) which is what I expected. There's no question that WAR rates good players high and bad players low. Whatever problems it may have are going to be on the margins or with random individuals.
January 21st, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Sorry, I remember now. Your comment "I think that MLB should start adding up a team's WAR each year and declare the team with highest WAR the champion" just struck me as pointless. Like the zillionth comment about how "the games aren't played on paper" "get your head out of a spreadsheet and watch some games" "stats are sucking the life out of the game" etc. If that wasn't your intent, I'm sorry for reading subtext based on similar things I've heard elsewhere.
January 21st, 2011 at 11:57 pm
One guy has his number retired and the other doesn't.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:20 am
@240 John A., I understand your preference, but just to continue the conversation, let's compare Mattingly in 1986 (the year after his 1985 MVP season with 35 home runs and 145 RBI) to Olerud in 1998. Their OPS+ proved virtually identical (163 for Olerud, 161 for Mattingly) and they both batted above .350, .354 for Olerud and .352 for Mattingly. Olerud was superior at reaching base, .447 to Mattingly's .394, but Mattingly possessed the edge in slugging average, a league-leading .573 to Olerud's .551. Again, let's turn to extra-base hits: for the second straight season, Mattingly recorded 86 extra-base hits (producing that number in back-to-back years proves highly impressive), compared to 62 for Olerud. Mattingly posted a major league-leading 238 hits, a major league-leading 53 doubles, and 31 home runs, compared to 197 hits, 36 doubles, and 22 home runs for Olerud. The latter's totals are impressive, but Mattingly prolific hitting and extra-base hitting helped push his team to run production, 117 runs scored and 113 runs batted in that season (third in the AL in each category). Obviously, hitting behind Rickey Henderson and ahead of Dave Winfield helped, but so did Mattingly's extra hits, extra extra-base hits, and additional contact. That season, he only struck out 35 times and in his prime, his home run totals almost matched his strikeout tallies. Strikeouts aren't automatically worse than other types of outs, especially for a power-hitter, but the ability to make contact that consistently can also help ensure run production. For instance, given his paltry strikeout totals, I'd be intrigued to learn how many "productive outs" Mattingly made in those years, where he brought that runner in from third base with less than two outs even though he committed an out in the process.
Also remarkable about Mattingly's 1986 campaign was his consistency: he only hit 1 home run in April, but in each of the last five calendar months, he smashed exactly 6 home runs with 16-23 RBI, 7-12 doubles, and a batting average of .325 or higher. He really represented a rock in those respects.
Certainly, Olerud in 1998 proved superior at reaching base, avoiding outs, and providing his team with a greater quantity of moderately better scoring opportunities. But one could argue that that advantage is at least canceled and arguably inverted by Mattingly's edge at giving his team a greater quantity of significantly superior scoring opportunities. He did so, of course, via his power, prolific hitting, prolific extra-base hitting, and ability to make contact. In 1986, Mattingly led the American League in extra-base hits for the second straight season, in doubles for the third consecutive year, in total bases for the second straight season, in slugging average, in OPS, and in the metric Runs Created. He finished second in the AL in sacrifice flies after finishing first in 1985, he led the league in OPS+ for the second time in three years, he led the league in hits for the second time in three years, he finished first in the metrics Adjusted Batter Runs and Adjusted Batter Wins, and he ranked second in the league in times on base with 292. In other words, Mattingly proved elite at reaching base (if not quite as great as Olerud in 1998) while hitting nine more home runs and thus "guaranteeing" a much greater number of runs.
Mattingly was the MVP runner-up in 1986 behind Roger Clemens, meaning that for the second straight season, the voters deemed Mattingly the most valuable positional player in the American League. And based on the numbers and league rankings, that judgment seems worthwhile. Since I believe that the MVP Award should always go to a positional player, Mattingly may well have been deserving of consecutive AL MVPs. In his peak four-year run from 1984-1987, when he received three top-five MVP finishes and four top-seven rankings, he truly constituted a dominant player in his era. Of course, the problem was that his prime only lasted for a half-dozen years.
About runs scored, I should note that in 1985, Rickey Henderson scored a league-leading 146 runs in just 143 games. He of course stole 80 bases in 90 attempts (88.9%); combined with his 57 extra-base hits, Henderson moved himself into scoring position (or further into scoring position, or across home plate) of his own account 137 times. Conversely, Olerud in 1998 moved himself into scoring position (or further into scoring position, or across home plate) of his own account only 64 times (62 extra-base hits, 2 stolen bases in 4 attempts). Then, too, Henderson was far more likely to take the extra base on hits by his teammates, to go first-to-third on a single or score from first on a double or score from second on a single. So considering how much more frequently Henderson moved himself into scoring position and how much more speed he possessed, I'm not sure that Olerud would have necessarily scored 125-130 runs in the same amount of games, even with the additional times on base. Of course, he would have only needed to be at first base to score on a home run by Don Mattingly or Dave Winfield, but Henderson's ability to push the envelope and move himself into scoring position surely made a major difference in his run total. To be totally unscientific for a second, I wouldn't be surprised if his speed and extra-base ability gave him a 25-33% edge over Olerud in terms of scoring once on base. Again, Henderson moved himself into scoring position (or further into scoring position, or across home plate) of his own account over twice as often in 1985 (137 times) as Olerud in 1998 (64 times) despite playing in 17 fewer games. And needless to say, the task of scoring from second or third base is much easier than scoring from first.
Indeed, despite reaching base in about 40% of his plate appearances in his first three years in Seattle (2000-2002), Olerud never scored more than 91 runs in a season, even though he often hit ahead of an MVP-caliber (if steroidal) Bret Boone in 2001 and in front of Boone or Edgar Martinez in 2002. Circumstance may still account for the main reason why he failed to reach 100 runs scored (or even 95) in those seasons, but perhaps his lack of speed played a substantial role, too.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:30 am
@270 John Q.,
However, Gaston played Molitor at third base in Games Four and Five and the risk of playing Molitor at third could have been partly reduced by keeping the smooth-fielding Olerud at first. However, in Game Three, Gaston still sat Olerud and played Ed Sprague.
I agree that that one game is not a big deal overall, but I cannot see Thomas circa 1993 being benched in that situation because in addition to being a high-batting average, high-OBP hitter, he also slugged 41 home runs. In other words, his degree of indispensability and one-swing impact proved greater than Olerud's, with his 24 home runs (which, incidentally, constituted a career-high). If Paul Molitor were playing for the White Sox that year, I'd bet that Ventura would have seen the bench, not Thomas.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:31 am
I'd be intrigued to learn how many "productive outs" Mattingly made in those years, where he brought that runner in from third base with less than two outs even though he committed an out in the process.
You can find those stats here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mattido01-bat.shtml#batting_situational::none
In 1985-6, Mattingly was well above average in productive outs and driving in runners from 3rd with less than 2 outs.
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:50 am
@278 Johnny T., thanks for the link. Yeah, Mattingly was driving in that runner from third with less than two outs about two-thirds of the time in those days.
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:39 am
@276, JoeKidd -- I'm enjoying your points. And just so you know, my arguments are aimed more at elevating the status of Olerud (whom I feel is criminally underrated) than at knocking Donnie Baseball, whom I happily acknowledge was a great player in his prime and was probably on a HOF track if not for the back injury.
"the [1986 MVP] voters deemed Mattingly the most valuable positional player in the American League."
-- This might mean something to me if those same voters hadn't given the MVP to George Bell the very next year, in one of the greatest brain farts in a long and smelly history of same. I'm not saying Mattingly didn't have another great year -- of course he did -- I'm just saying that the MVP vote carries no weight with me when I'm assessing players whose careers I witnessed live. Maybe it's arrogant of me, but I honestly don't think the 28 guys who voted on the 1986 MVP Award have a better grasp on the question than I do.
-- "Mattingly's prolific hitting and extra-base hitting helped push his team to run production, 117 runs scored and 113 runs batted in [in '86] (third in the AL in each category)."
All true. But two things are being overlooked -- or maybe it's just one thing that I'll express in two different ways: One, Mattingly (again) made 81 more outs than Olerud -- that's three full games' worth, or one extra out per game for half a season. And two, a super-high OBP season like Olerud's .447 in '98 usually benefits the team's run production in ways that do not necessarily show up in his own individual stats. Granted, this is less true when the players who bat behind him do not have good seasons -- but that is only known after the fact. I think the numbers Olerud put up in '98 would have had a team run-scoring impact equal to Mattingly's '86 on a great majority of teams throughout history; so I don't think it's fair to downgrade Olerud's season just because the '98 Mets were one of the minority of teams that would be unable to turn his times on base into a ton of runs.
The following might make it more clear just how inefficient the Mets were at converting Olerud's 297 times on base and 307 total bases into runs:
-- In the past 20 years, there have been 11 other player-seasons with TOB and TB within +/- 10 of Olerud's figures. Those 11 seasons averaged 111 runs (20 more than Olerud) and 105 RBI (12 more than Olerud).
Consider the 2009 season of Adrian Gonzalez: 40 HRs, .407 OBP, 160 games -- but just 99 RBI and 90 Runs. Do we say that his 40 HRs weren't as valuable as some other guy's, simply because the Padres put very few men on base in front of him?
Ironically, I think that the '86 Mattingly and the '98 Olerud would have been even more valuable if they had switched teams. The Mets, with no good hitters in the bottom half of the lineup, were more in need of a "finisher" like Mattingly -- while the Yankees, with the solid bats of Winfield, Easler, Pasqua and Pags, could have capitalized on Olerud's 297 times on base.
P.S. I point out the following not because I believe in "clutch" hitting, but because so many people do, and many consider Mattingly a "clutch" hitter because of all his RBI (although I'm glad to say this has not been one of your claims for Donnie): In 1986, for the second year in a row, Mattingly hit much worse with runners in scoring position (.309) than he did with the bases empty (.372). With 2 or more runners on base, he hit .259 and slugged .482.
P.P.S. Everyone remembers that Mattingly hit 6 grand slams in 1987. I would hope they all knew that he hit no other grand slams in any other season, and that his career performance with the bases loaded was well below his overall averages. If you count sac flies as AB (which is only fair for comparing to non-sac-fly situations), Mattingly hit .250 with the bases loaded and slugged .388. For all his doubles, he hit just 3 of them with the bases loaded.
Again, I do believe Mattingly was great before he got hurt. But we have to separate fact from fiction.
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:06 am
P.S. to JoeKidd -- You're right that Olerud's lack of speed was a factor in his relatively low runs total compared to his high OBP. But he didn't get any faster from 1998 to 1999, yet he increased his runs by 16, up to 107, despite a 20-point drop in OBP. Of course, the Mets had a much deeper lineup in '99.
Both our points are true: A slow guy on a weak team will not score as many runs as might be suggested by his high OBP. But on an average or better team, even a slow guy will score a lot if he gets on base a lot.
I think it's a pity that Olerud wasn't a #2 hitter! Even a base-clogger will score a lot of runs from the top of the order, if he has a .400 OBP and some power.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:42 am
This debate on Mattingly and Olerud is a good one. Both were great players in their own right. They also are two of the classiest and more respected people in the game. As a Yankee fan I am in agreement that it gets old hearing about how if Mattingly did not hurt his back he would have done this or that - we have to go on what he did do. I have no problem stating my case for him based on his accomplishments. Just as I am willing to disregard what Mattingly might have done - I also must disregard WAR. This statistic is clearly based on a " what if " theory , just like OPS+. Let's stick with what the players did do on their own merits. I enjoyed watching Mattingly on a daily basis and it was obvious from the very beginning that he was truly a special player on both sides of the ball. Watching Olerud was very much the same and you knew right away that he could field and hit with the best of them. Olerud was a winner and he clearly made his teams better - much better. I recall that when the Yanks got Olerud in 2004 that he shored up the defense and was going to put us over the top. A funny thing happened along the way though - and many people forget- he got hurt in game 4 vs. Boston with the Yanks up 3 games to 0 - and then Boston made their unforgettable comeback - I'm just saying! WHY JOHN WHY!!!
Mattingly was remarkable at his peak and regarded as the BEST PLAYER IN THE GAME during this time. That has never been said about Olerud. In 1985 Mattingly led the league in Total Bases - 370 - that total had only been topped 5 times in the A.L. since 1940, Extra Base hits - 86 - that total had only been topped 2 times in the A.L. since 1940, Runs Batted in - 145 - that total had only been topped 3 times since 1940 and Doubles - 48 - that total had only been topped 5 times since 1940. He was second in the league in hits, slugging and OPS. He also led the league first basemen in fielding percentage and was chose as the Silver Slugger by his peers.
In 1986 Mattingly led the league again in Total Bases - 388 - that total had only been topped 2 times since 1938, Extra Base hits again - 86, Hits - 238 - that total had only been topped 3 times since 1928 in the A.L. and Doubles - 53 - that total had only been topped 2 times since 1950. He was second in the league in Batting average at .352. He led first basemen in putouts and was second in fielding percentage. He was chosen as the Silver Slugger by his peers again. Mattingly is also the only player to be chosen as the Sporting News player of the year 3 straight seasons.
Olerud had a great 1993 season. He led the league in Batting Average - .363 - that total had only been topped 6 times since 1957, OBP - .473 - that total had only been topped 6 times since 1954, OPS - 1.072 - that total had only been topped 6 times since 1954 and Doubles - 54 - that total had only been topped 1 time since 1950. He was second in Hits and second in Extra Base Hits.
Mattingly was once considered not only the best first basemen in the game but also the BEST PLAYER in the game. Olerud was great and I would take him any day of the week - except for when Mattingly was at his peak.
Both Great, Great players - let's not put either one down - or try to diminish their achievements in any way shape or form.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:32 am
Do we say that his 40 HRs weren't as valuable as some other guy's, simply because the Padres put very few men on base in front of him?
Actually, yes I would. Context matters when measuring "value." And you seem to acknowledge that with your very next point:
Ironically, I think that the '86 Mattingly and the '98 Olerud would have been even more valuable if they had switched teams.
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:10 pm
@283
There is a correction for one of your statements. 145 RBI in the AL has been exceeded 10 times since 1940 if I have counted correctly.
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Richard, I think he was saying at the time Mattingly did it.
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@282 John A,
I think Olerud would have been a tremendous #2 hitter but baseball traditions being what they are wouldn't allow a 6'5" first basemen to be a #2 even if it's the logical move.
The same thing happened with the Cubs with Mark Grace and Ryne Sandberg. Grace should have been the #2 hitter but Sandberg batted 2nd partly because he was the second basemen and Grace was the First basemen.
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:22 pm
2 286
I read the post more closely and I believe he did mean up to he time Mattingly did it.
DiMaggio , Williams and Stephens were the three guys.
January 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
To 286 and 288 - you are correct
January 22nd, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@278 Joe Kidd,
I still don't see your point about Olerud being lifted in Game 3. Molitor was hitting .388 against lefties in 1993 with a .479 on-base percentage and a .612 slugging percentage, that's basically Ted Williams circa 1948 or Hank Greenberg 1937 or Lou Gehrig 1928. Molitor was going to play in game three so it was either 1b or 3b. Danny Jackson is left-handed Molitor & Sprague are right handed Olerud is left handed. Molitor hadn't played 3B since 1989 there you go.
Your analogy with Molitor on the 1993 White Sox is a false equivalency because both Molitor & Thomas are right handed.
I never said that Olerud was a better player than Frank Thomas so I don't understand the constant Thomas' references. Thomas was one of the top 25 offensive players in the history of baseball so It would have to be an extremely unique situation for him to lifted.
Hypothetically if the 1993 White Sox had Lou Gehrig circa 1928 as their DH and a right handed pitcher was throwing in a National League park then Gehrig would be brought in to play 1b and Thomas would be benched and Gehrig would be brought in .
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:02 pm
@284, Johnny Twisto -- re: "value" is context-dependent -- I see your point. And I have only myself to blame for using the word rather vaguely (perhaps I've been conditioned by a lifetime of head-scratching MVP Awards), and also for using it in two different senses within the same post.
But while I'm certainly interested in the question of "whose performance created more wins for their team in a given year, with a given set of surrounding performances by teammates and opponents?," I don't think that covers all of what we're talking about under the heading of "who was better -- Mattingly or Olerud?" I'm also interested in abstracting those individual performances onto a hypothetical "average" team for their respective eras.
Also, insisting on a strict linkage between value and context leads to some absurd results in extreme scenarios. Consider a batter who singles in every trip to the plate for a whole season, but is surrounded by hitters so feeble that he never drives in or scores a single run. Do you accept the conclusion that a purely context-dependent value analysis forces -- that his season batting 1.000 had no value whatsoever?
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Re: Olerud being benched for game 3 of the '93 WS:
Isn't it possible that Cito Gaston simply made a bad decision -- that he should have put Molitor at 3B and Olerud at 1B -- but got away with it?
Or, isn't it possible that Gaston had made up his mind that he absolutely would not play Molitor at 3B -- a position he had not played since 2 games in 1990, and would never play again for the rest of his career? If that's the case, then Ed Sprague has nothing to do with the analysis; the only choice was whom to play at 1B, Molitor or Olerud. And given all the circumstances -- Molitor's longer track record, his own excellent season, his status as the team's #3 hitter all year, and the presence of a lefty pitcher -- it does not surprise me at all that Cito went with Molly, nor does it make me think less of Olerud.
It's such a specific set of circumstances, and in the end it was a manager's subjective decision. I can't see drawing any meaning from this one game -- just as I wouldn't knock Mattingly for game 3 of the 1995 ALCS, when he went 0 for 4 with 3 Ks, including a swinging strikeout with 2 out and the bases loaded in the 6th inning with the Yankees trailing by a run.
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:17 am
way back @224 JT - thanks for the 2010 sample, it's interesting to know that it's at .92 (a huge correlation)... for a relative newbie like myself, WAR has a bit of mystique as a stat. So seeing some data on that correlation is interesting, and I would still find it interesting to see a further breakdown at some point. Or do one, if I ever had time enough to do more than read the ridiculously well-thought out arguments and comments here.
@ 273 Joseph - hope you didn't take my comment 'insightless' too personally, but to come on and say 'why don't we just declare the team with the best WAR champions'? seems to overlook what seems to be the main purpose of the stat, which is to measure individual contributions of players to their team environment. Wins are obviously the most important team stat, and no one would argue that.
And I'm not sure if I understand your argument, specifically where you say the Yanks should have won more games than the Jays based on WAR, but didn't... but they did win 10 more games than the Jays this year... so I'm not sure what you're saying.