Comments on: Random Juan Pierre thoughts http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Timmy Patrick http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-2#comment-112508 Sat, 14 May 2011 02:50:16 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-112508 Jack Cust is a marginal player, and Rickey Weeks is a bad player. Doc Cramer was a very good player, that did benefit from WWII as he was 36 in 1942 and so played several more years of slap-hitting and walking. Doc had 345 K's in 20 years, 15 as a full time starter. Doc was not the base stealing threat that Pierre is though.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-2#comment-112469 Fri, 13 May 2011 21:21:11 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-112469 Np, I manually approved those two comments roughly an hour ago so they should be posted. One from Timmy and one from Ken.

]]>
By: Neil Paine http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-2#comment-112467 Fri, 13 May 2011 21:08:43 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-112467 Nobody "cried a river" and nobody was intentionally blocked from commenting. We had a server error that apparently lost 2 comments in the last several hours. I'll try to recover them in WordPress; I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

]]>
By: Tim Patrick http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-2#comment-112461 Fri, 13 May 2011 20:54:42 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-112461 Well I would like to respond, but it appears Neil has cried a river and I won't be allowed to post anymore.

]]>
By: Timmy P http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-2#comment-111963 Thu, 12 May 2011 03:17:22 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111963 Great point JB

]]>
By: JohnBoy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-1#comment-111912 Wed, 11 May 2011 23:00:50 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111912 I am well aware of the value of OPS+.thank you as I do not live in a cave. The ability to create runs is what offensive Sabermetrics measures. If you overlook the basic runs scored (and I was discussing the World Series) you cannot see the forest for the trees. While you obsess over the new way vs. the old way to look at players - you begin to talk about quality players as "marginal" players. While they are not cream of the crop (and I never contended they were), I simply do not believe they are "marginal." Jack Cust is NOT a singles hitter but I he IS marginal - no matter how many homeruns he hits it an 11-0 game while striking out nearly 200 times. Maybe our next thread can discuss Jack?

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-1#comment-111905 Wed, 11 May 2011 21:56:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111905 @97 -- "Last time I checked runs, not OPS won ballgames"

Check again. Runs don't win't ballgames; scoring more runs than your opponent wins ballgames. That's why it's crucial to know how the player compared to others within the context of his time -- in other words, that's why OPS+ is vital.

Doc Cramer had 200 hits in 1940, tops in MLB -- wow, 200 hits! And he batted .303 -- wow, a .300 hitter! But his on-base percentage (.340) was below the AL average (.342, and that includes pitchers), and his .384 slugging average was way below the AL average of .407). His OPS+ was 84.

And that's why the Red Sox, with Doc Cramer batting 2nd, were last in the AL in runs scored from the #2 spot -- even though they were a close 2nd in league scoring.

]]>
By: Doug B http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-1#comment-111889 Wed, 11 May 2011 19:55:02 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111889 and I am contending Doc Cramer was only an average major leaguer who managed to keep a starting job for a long time because people were over relying on batting average and pure number of hits as measures of the skills required to play in the major leagues.

so he got to 2,700 hits as a marginal starting calibre player. Juan Pierre may get to 2,000 hits the same way.

you did say Cramer's 1945 series was outrageous. and I am contending it was hardly exceptional. however you slice a 0.799 OPS over a 7-game span it is nothing spectacuar.

]]>
By: JohnBoy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-1#comment-111885 Wed, 11 May 2011 19:26:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111885 Nobody said he was great or amazing... Nobody said Pierre was either. They were quality ballplayers.

"Outrageous" for Doc Cramer - yes - with 11 hits (tied for most in the series) and 7 runs in 7 games ... Greenberg had a 1.162 OPS and 7 RBIs. Last time I checked runs, not OPS won ballgames and somebody had to be on base for Greenberg to drive in.

]]>
By: Doug B http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10991/comment-page-1#comment-111867 Wed, 11 May 2011 18:26:15 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10991#comment-111867 also... re: Doc Cramer

His "outrageous 1945 WS"? His OPS in the 7 games was 0.799

this kind of proves the point to me about how overated singles hitters are. He had a good 7 games. He scored 7 runs and drove in 4. He did his job well. But people think he was amazing because he hit .379 in 7 games. But a .799 OPS in a 7 game series is a bit low on the amazing scale to me.

]]>