Comments on: Omar Vizquel and 20 seasons under 100 OPS+ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84786 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:14:29 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84786 Cleveland was in the postseason 6 times in 7 years. Vizquel got plenty of face-time.

]]>
By: franco http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84748 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:13:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84748 Lawrence, I agree that we need to agree to respectfully disagree. That's what makes this stuff fun, after all. But your suggestion that I'm "trying to turn this into a steriod (sic) thread" or divide players into "good vs bad" is simply inaccurate. In trying to invalidate Vizquel's HOF status, YOU point out that he played in a more offensive-minded era. I simply, and appropriately, responded that some of the difference between his and previous eras was that he played against guys who used PEDs. That's simply a fact. That fact has something to do with the difference in offense in the two eras. He was playing against some guys who had an edge over him, and over guys from earlier eras. That undermines the notion that his edge over Ozzie and others in several offensive categories is somehow invalid.

Finally, I repeat that anyone who didn't see Vizquel play the position of SS over an extended time simply cannot understand how extraordinary he was ( and still is) in the field. Had he played in abig market with lots of face-time on TV, I truly believe he'd be widely assumed to be a strong HOF candidate. That shouldn't be a factor, but it clearly is.

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84559 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:49:19 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84559 #56/ Franco "I couldn't disagree more strongly. How can one NOT take into account the use of steroids as a contributing factor when comparing stats?... "

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree _very_ strongly... I just find it odd that you are trying to turn this into a steriod thread, when the two players being compared have _NEVER_ been accused of PED use.

I understand what you are trying do, in dividing MLB players into "good" (non-PED users) versus "bad" (PED users), but since it's likely that almost no major league baseball game since the early 90's hasn't contained at least one steriod user on the field, it seems like a futile exercise to me.

]]>
By: franco http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84547 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:05:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84547 marc Says:
January 24th, 2011 at 11:48 am .Throwing two-cents, I'd say that Vizquel is a great player, but not a hall of famer. One point I didn't see raised (perhaps I missed it) is the evolution of the SS position in the 1990's. If HoF voting involves dominance in a player's era (which I believe it always does), Vizquel will never measure up to the other SS's he played with in the post-Ripkin era--A-Rod, Jeter, Tejada, Garciaparra, Renteria, Larkin, Reyes (etc, etc, etc).
===

well, A-Roid got a some of his numbers because of PEDs, as also seems likely for Tejada. As for the others, who knows. I've also read--and it's only speculation, of course--that Garciaparra's injury-prone career may have been due to PEDs. And all Vizquel's defensive dominance is also just that...dominance.

]]>
By: franco http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84545 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:01:11 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84545 53.Lawrence Azrin Says:
January 24th, 2011 at 11:35 am .#49/.. Jimbo Says: @43 "But don't you see, league average was messed up by all the players using steroids in Omar's era, thus his OPS+ suffers in ways that Ozzies doesn't (as much)..."
No Jimbo, I don't see; players should be judged against other players in their time without a "steriod adjustment"; to do that is to engage in nothing but pure speculation about who did and did not use, and what the effects of the PEDs were, if any.
It's hard enough to figure out what the numbers really mean

===

I couldn't disagree more strongly. How can one NOT take into account the use of steroids as a contributing factor when comparing stats? Do ignore that factor is putting one's head in the sand, in this case as a convenient way to bolster a weak argument by choosing to ignore an important issue. Most people, including me, don't give a much credence to, for example, Palmeiro's home run total as to Henry Aaron's home run total, because Palmeiro tested positive for PEDs. It seems very likely that more people in Vizquel's era used PEDs than in Ozzie's era. Hence, offensive numbers against which Vizquel is compared in his era--like those for SS/3B A-Roid--are inflated.

]]>
By: marc http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84541 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:48:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84541 Throwing two-cents, I'd say that Vizquel is a great player, but not a hall of famer. One point I didn't see raised (perhaps I missed it) is the evolution of the SS position in the 1990's. If HoF voting involves dominance in a player's era (which I believe it always does), Vizquel will never measure up to the other SS's he played with in the post-Ripkin era--A-Rod, Jeter, Tejada, Garciaparra, Renteria, Larkin, Reyes (etc, etc, etc).

If he does get in, it will likely be by the veteran committee far in the future, as another post suggested.

]]>
By: franco http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84538 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:41:25 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84538 43.Lawrence Azrin Says:
January 21st, 2011 at 5:07 pm .#42/ franco Says: "... For those who dismiss his superior offensive numbers vis-a-vis Ozzie because Omar was in a more offense-minded era, much of that was because of PEDs, and Omar has never had a hint of scandal there."
I think this is somewhat disengenious, PEDs have nothing to do with comparing the offensive performance of Omar versus Ozzie.
===

Not disingenuous at all. You were the one to say that Omar played in a more high-offense era. To suggest that out without including PEDs in that higher offense is to ignore an obvious, and important, point of differentiation, because Omar didn't benefit from PEDs, and therefore was hurt when compared to so many in his era who WERE/ARE users.

And it's simply a fact that Omar, compared to Ozzie, has more runs, hits, HR, and a better BA, OBP and slugging. Plus, Ozzie got a lot more hype playing in St Louis than Omar got in Cleveland/Seattle/ Texas, etc.

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84536 Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:35:12 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84536 #49/.. Jimbo Says: @43 "But don't you see, league average was messed up by all the players using steroids in Omar's era, thus his OPS+ suffers in ways that Ozzies doesn't (as much)..."

No Jimbo, I don't see; players should be judged against other players in their time without a "steriod adjustment"; to do that is to engage in nothing but pure speculation about who did and did not use, and what the effects of the PEDs were, if any.

It's hard enough to figure out what the numbers really mean without "adjusting" for possible PED use.

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84246 Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:26:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84246 @50 -- If my imagination can time-travel McGee's career backward by 70 years, I think it can do the same for integration.

]]>
By: kds http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9709/comment-page-1#comment-84115 Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:10:21 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=9709#comment-84115 JT #45, as far as I can tell, SF's just disappear from the scoring record from 1931 through 1954, ( don't know about 1939), that is they do not show up separately, just as 1 AB, 1 out, and an RBI. (Very rarely 2 RBI.) I thought that something that helped lead eventually to the 1955 SF rule was Ted Williams' manager noting how all the run scoring fly ball outs Teddy got were hurting his batting average. (Yes, his .406 in 1941 would be even higher by present day rules.)

]]>