From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:16:19 GMT

In article <5640@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.192806.15977@leland.Stanford.EDU> claudius@leland.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>In article <5605@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>>
>>>How is Milligan having an above average year and Murray a subpar year for
>>>first basemen?  Last time I checked Milligan was having a pretty mediocre
>>>year FOR ANY POSITION, let alone first base.  And although I don't have any
>>>stats in front of me, I thought that Murray was having a decent year.  Are
>>>you one of those walk devotees who thinks that a walk is the most important
>>>offensive stat there is?  That's the only way I can understand your statement.
>>
>>Murray:		.323 OBP, .421 SLG
>>Milligan:	.394 OBP, .362 SLG
>
>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.  

Actually, the walking is only part of it: Milligan is doing a much
better job at avoiding outs.  

For every time Murray reaches, he makes about 2.1 outs.  Milligan makes
only 1.5 outs for every time he reaches.  You think that doesn't add up?

>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.

How about runs?  Do you value them?  Milligan is doing a good job
setting up runs.  Murray does a good job AVOIDING setting them up, and
keeps all the guys behind him from coming up with men on base.  He takes
the bat out of his temmates' hands.

>>Milligan's stats, although hardly earth-shaking, is hardly mediocre.  Murray,
>>however, makes an out 68% of the time he goes up there.  That won't do.

>I would say a .245 avg and a .362 slg is VERY mediocre.  

Where does the average come in?  We already know the SLG; what does the
average tell us? 

>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).  

Uh, right.  So if he got that many EB and RBI over, say, two or three
years, that would be just as good?  If he grounded into a DP every time
he made out, that would be just as good?

Not.

We evaluate players based on what they do 100% of the time.  Sure, it
would be fun not to count Eddie Murray's outs (like Christine Lavin's);
but baseball doesn't work that way.  You make 3 outs, the inning is
over.  You make 27, the game's over.  No more chances.  Outs are the
clock of baseball, so to speak, and a player who uses up a lot of outs
on the way to getting some nice numbers (like extra base hits) is
spending his team's at-bats at a high rate.  He ensures that his
teammates will produce less.  

And baseball, last I looked, was still a team game.

>Milligan gets out 61%
>of the time and is hardly productive the other 39% of the time.  

Nope, sorry.  Try again.  He's not much of a slugger, but baseball is
more than slugging.  Most managers would *drool* over the prospect of
Milligan's bat in the #2 slot.  .394 OBP is *wonderful* thing to have
batting ahead of your sluggers.  

Leads to runs scoring, dontcha know?

>Last time I
>checked he had under 45 RBI and very few extra base hits (as is evident by
>his .362 slg).

So?  Eddie Murray and Cecil Fielder and so on get lots of RBI, but they
keep their *teammates* from getting them in exchange.  You can't just
look at the benefits and ignore the costs for one player, then turn
around and look at the costs for another player while ignoring the
benefits.  That's not evaluation, it's prejudice.

>>A walk is definitely *not* the most important thing out there.  It is much

>Then I don't understand your claim that Milligan is better than Murray.

Go look up "most" in your dictionary.  Something may not be the *most*
important thing, but can still be mighty important.  

Walks are a *hell* of a lot more important than outs, when we're talking
about things that make an offense go.  About 98% of walks increase a
team's scoring chances substantially; about 955 of outs *decrease* those
chances.

>>less important than homers, triples, and doubles, and somewhat less than
>>singles.  However, when you are not walking and are not hitting, you eat up
>>bundles of outs.

>>>This will probably clear things up...

>>>Who's having a better year, Randy Milligan or Don Mattingly?

>>Milligan.  No doubt about it.

>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.

By which you mean that there are only about 6 or 7 better ones in the
AL?  Or what?

>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?

Well, tell us about Mattingly's defense, and how you know it's so good
this year...


Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball