From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: YANKEE REFLECTIONS ANYONE???
Organization: Boo!  
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:16:39 GMT


In <1993Jan26.084552.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> kasper@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:

>In article <2497@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: 
>> Just a nit:  Don Mattingly certainly _is_ an impatient hitter by my
>> standards.  I imagine that at least Gary Huckabay has similar standards,
>> and perhaps a few more netters...

>This seems to be a recurrent theme.  It is true that Mattingly walks
>infrequently, but this could be attributed to the fact that he almost always
>makes contact and puts the ball in play rather than to impatience.  It is
>difficult to walk a lot if you rarely swing and miss.  In any event, this is a
>testable hypothesis, if anyone had the data and the inclination to do the test. 
>I once did a rough analysis of the relationship between Ks and BBs that showed
>some (not huge) correlation between very high Ks and very high BBs but I could
>never figure out whether this was caused by a missing-BB connection or by the
>fact that high Ks are associated with power hitters who frighten pitchers who
>then walk the hitters to avoid worse damage.

Well, it could be both.  I do think some people here use "isn't patient" to
mean "doesn't take walks."  Now, in the end, it doesn't matter why a player
does or doesn't take walks, but the two are not the same thing.

Actually, we're dealing with a number of factors here.  One is plate
patience.  Another is strike zone judgment.  And the third is how
frequently the ball is put into play (as opposed to how good a player
is at putting the ball into play.  Wade Boggs is just as good at
putting the ball into play as Mattingle, but he doesn't do it as
often.  That's why he sees .75 more pitches per pa, which is a huge
amount.

Random pitches seen per pa 87-92
Azocar 2.87
Mattingly 3.24
Boggs 4.07
R Kelly 3.66
Tartabull 3.99
Deer 4.10
Fielder 3.91
Thomas 4.20
Dawson 3.32
Carter 3.60
Puckett 3.06
M lee 3.74
M Williams 3.38
Juan Gonzalez 3.63
     
>One other Mattingly question:  are the incessant complaints about Mattingly
>that appear here caused by: a) the fact that Mattingly isn't as good as he used
>to be or b)people really believing that he is no good.  All of the stats from
>the last few years do not show that Mattingly stinks - they only show that
>there are other first basemen in the league that have performed better, and
>that there are other first basemen in the league that have performed worse.

Well, yes.  But Mattingly has been a lot closer to the bottom than the
top.  Compare him, for example, to Tino Martinez.

        OBP     SLG
Tino    .316    .411
Matt    .327    .416

Yes, he's better than Tino.  But not by much.
(Admittedly, Tino is platooned) 

Looking at team production at first base:

         OBP   SLG
Milligan .383  .361
Vaughn   .326  .400
Sorrento .341  .443
Fielder  .325  .458
Thomas   .447  .542
Hrbek    .357  .409
Palmeiro .352  .434
McGwire  .385  .585
Olerud   .375  .450
Joyner   .336  .386
Stevens  .288  .349

Of these, Mattingly was better than Vaughn, Joyner, and Stevens.  (Mil isn't
included because there was no regular first baseman, but Mil as a whole at
first was also better than Mattingly.

You might quibble over one or two others, but it's clear that Mattingly
is much closer to the bottom than to the top.

Greg 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball