From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:14:36 GMT

In article <5646@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>
>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.

He slugged well in 1990, but only ran a .400 SLG in 1991.  Not that
much better than what he's doing this year.

>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.

This is true.  He isn't an ideal leadoff man.  But he would be pretty
good, even if he were as slow as Mark McGwire (which he isn't).  He
gets on base an awful lot!

Consider the number of runs he has managed to score from the #5 slot!
He has one of the highest R/PA ratios in the league.  And wouldn't he
be likely to score even more batting second, with Glenn Davis batting
behind him?

Or if Devereaux *has* to bat second for some arcane reason, let
Milligan bat third.  Ripken certainly isn't hitting this year.

>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.

No, I wouldn't.  Batting them leadoff would be a waste of their power.
Milligan hasn't had any power to speak of for the last couple of years.

>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.

Okay, let's bat Cecil Fielder leadoff and then dump on him for not
doing his job.  Or bat Brett Butler cleanup, and yell at him for not
driving in 100 runs.

I agree that he is not doing a good job in his position in the order
(though when looking at RBI totals, remember that he hasn't really
been an every-day player the entire year).  But dumping on Milligan
for that is stupid.  He isn't the one filling out the lineup card.

>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.

Olerud has a better batting average, a higher HR rate, and more walks
than Mattingly.  Again, you are dumping on him because his manager is
too stupid to play him every day and bat him second or third in the
lineup where he belongs.

>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.

Of course there is!  Milligan is average defensively, Mattingly is
very good (though he has less range than he used to).  But how many
plays per game does Mattingly make that Milligan would miss?  Not very
many at all.  First basemen simply don't get that many (difficult)
chances, and so they can neither hurt their team nor help their team
very much.

>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.

This statement is as foolish as saying that teams don't choose a DH
based on offense because the Red Sox feature Jack Clark, who is having
an awful year.

Like it or not, teams *do* for the most part ignore defense when
choosing a 1B man.  The Cubs, A's, and Yankees played miserable
offensive 1B men last year because they had no better offensive
options.  (And besides, Grace, McGwire, and Mattingly *have* been
pretty good offensive players in the past.)

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Ob. woof: Clemens is the best pitcher ever!	tedward@cs.cornell.edu