From: gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:20:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Aug18.154912.14699@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) writes:
>In article <5640@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>>I would take Murray with his .421 slg, higher batting average and more RBI's
>>any day over a "slugger" with a .362 slg.  The ONLY thing that Milligan is
>>doing better than Murray this year is walking.  Now I understand where you
>>are coming from.  I don't value a walk as much as you and most people on the
>>net do.
>
>Hmm, well, maybe Milligan should not be labelled as a "slugger".  Maybe
>think of him as a "table-setter".  Then you can see Milligan's value.  Each
>team needs to have table-setters and sluggers.  The manager's job is to 
>put the table-setters ahead of the sluggers.  

I was just going by his past performance which was that he DID have a high
slugging percentage and was thought of as a slugger.  Just because he gets
alot of walks does not mean he would be an ideal leadoff man.  Milligan is
not the fastest human being on earth to say the least.

Would you bat Mark McGwire, Frank Thomas, and Mickey Tettleton leadoff just
because they get alot of walks?  Of course not because they have power.
Milligan used to have power but no longer does (at least this year).  Does
that mean that all of a sudden he has turned into a great prospect for a
leadoff hitter?  *I* don't think so.

>>I would say a .245 avg and a .362 slg is VERY mediocre.  So what that Murray
>>makes an out 68% of the time, it's what he does the other 32% of the time
>>that's important (alot of extra base hits and RBI's).  Milligan gets out 61%
>>of the time and is hardly productive the other 39% of the time.  Last time I
>>checked he had under 45 RBI and very few extra base hits (as is evident by
>>his .362 slg).
>
>He has very few RBI because he's not a slugger.  What if he was #1 or #2 in
>the batting lineup?? Then his walks become very important.  Much more
>so than his mediocre slugging.  Productive is a bad term to use.  He does
>do something useful. He gets on base so that someone else can drive him in.
>Someone else can get RBIs.  Someone has to get on base so that someone else
>can drive him in.

That's not his job.  If that WERE his job he WOULD be batting leadoff.  No
matter whose to blame, he is NOT a leadoff hitter and he is NOT doing a good
job in his current position in the order.


>>Then I don't understand your claim that Milligan is better than Murray.
>
>Nelson, and a lot of others around here believe that outs are important.
>An out is like the clock in hockey/basketball/football.  A team is only given
>so many to use up in a game.  You don't want to waste an out.  Milligan
>uses up fewer outs than Murray, thus he gives his team MORE of a chance to 
>win ballgames.

Yes, but Murray does more with his non-outs.


>>That's what I thought.  In my opinion, Mattingly is not only having a far
>>superior year than Milligan but he is having a good year for any first baseman.
>
>Hm. Now why do you say that about Mattingly?  A good year for ANY first baseman?
>He's got a lot of doubles but only 10HR.  For a LH hitter in Yankee stadium,
>that's not very many.  I can name quite a few first baseman who are having
>better years. In no particular order, Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, John Olerud,
>Cecil Fielder, Kent Hrbek, Paul Molitor, Wally Joyner.  That's just the AL. 
>I purposely left out Milligan for this discussion.  

Yes, Thomas is god.  McGwire is having a career year (better than '87).
Molitor and Fielder are having another great year.  But Olerud and Joyner?  
I disagree.  (You can't convince me otherwise so don't bother).


>>Did you ever think of defense as an important aspect of the game?  Your first
>>post said nothing about Milligan being better than Murray OFFENSIVELY.  You 
>>just stated that he was better.  This means that you factored in defense.  
>>So would that make you reconsider or do you still hold the same views?
>
>Just how is Mattingly's defense better than Milligan's? And how much better?
>And how much is good defense worth at first base?  Isn't 1st base where a 
>team "hides" their weak defensive players? Don't most good hitters become
>1st basemen when their defense becomes suspect?  (In recent years note:
>Molitor, Brett, Rose, Gaetti <just a joke>, Ernie Banks is another example).

MUCH BETTER. Which brings up a point, have you ever seen these guys PLAY?  Yes
that's right, actually play.  If you did, you'd understand that there is a
big difference between Don Mattingly's defense and Randy Milligan's defense.

As far as your other statement goes - yes some teams give up a little defense
by playing a good offensive player there who doesn't really belong there.
But try telling the A's, Yankees, Cubs, and Giants that a good defensive
first baseman doesn't make a difference.  And you can't really use the
argument that those teams start their 1st basemen because of offense because
Mark Grace and Mark McGwire had awful years last year.


-Gene
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball