From: sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha)
Subject: Re: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Keywords: Why am I *always* defending Randy Milligan?? :-)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:07:46 GMT

In article <5646@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.154912.14699@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> sinhaa@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Anand Sinha) 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.  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.

His SLG was high in 1990.  But then he missed a good number of games.  Last
year, it was .400.  Worse than Murray's and only slightly above his SLG now.

I didn't say he should leadoff.  But how about #2? He certainly takes
enough pitches to let the leadoff guy steal a base.  If the leadoff guy does
not steal a base, then 40% of the time, Milligan will somehow get the
leadoff guy into scoring position.  40% of the time! That means the "RBI-guys"
have a better chance, with fewer outs, of getting to drive in a run.

>
>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.

No, because it would be a waste of their power.  Milligan has never really
had the power numbers.  He's not a leadoff hitter.  He's a #2 hitter.  He
gets the leadoff guy into scoring position 40% of the time. That's what
you want.  
>
>
>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.

No his JOB is to help his team win.  His abilities help his team not by 
slugging but by setting the table.  You can't make someone do something they
aren't capable of.  He's a good table setter.  Use him there.  Why waste his
table setting ability behind the power hitters? Doesn't make any sense.  
Milligan doesn't fill out the lineup card.  He can't be blamed because the 
manager doesn't recognise *what* Milligan's ability is.
>
>
>Yes, but Murray does more with his non-outs.
Really? What more does he do? Drive in runs.  Good.  That's what his abilities
are best suited for.  Milligan's abilities are best suited for scoring runs.
Both parts are needed to win games.
>
>
>>
>>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).

Joyner was a stretch.  Olerud, most definitely.  He's got a higher BA, higher
SLG, higher OBP.  He's got the same # of HR in 140 few ABs than Mattingly.  He's
walked more times in fewer PAs.  He's got 41 RBIs in the #5/#6 slot in 304 ABs
which is 1 RBI/7.4 ABs compared to Mattingly's 57 RBIs in the #3 slot in
443 ABs (1 RBI/7.7 ABs).  Olerud's got fewer RBIs because he has Winfield
and Carter grabbing RBIs in front of him in the order (and he's been hurt).  
Look at the numbers.  Olerud is having a better year.  He had a slow start
but has been hot since about June.

>
>
>
>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.

Um yeah. I *do* watch baseball.  Hard as it may be to believe. And yes,
I do admit that Mattingly's defense is probably better.  But how much
does it *help* his team more?  Does he cut off more shots down the line?  Does
he field bad throws better?  Maybe he *has* to because he gets more bad throws?
Or does Mattingly's defense just "look" better.  

Individual defense is affected by other players on your team.  For example,
when Mattingly had Sax for a 2nd baseman, he would probably have to play 
further off the line to guard the hole since Sax was fairly immobile.  Milligan
on the other hand, has a far better defensive 2Bman in Billy Ripken.  So
he doesn't *have* to make as many plays to his right as Mattingly does.  This
is an important thing to consider.  
>
>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.

But Grace and McGwire have both had good offensive years in the past.  And
their glovework is good.  Yes it is nice to have first baseman who are good
defensively.  But who would you rather have?  A first baseman who was adequate
with the glove, but a monster hitter or a first baseman who was great with
the glove but an average hitter?   BTW, Andres Galaragga is *supposed* to 
be a great defensive first baseman.  Funny how the Expos let him go for
a young pitcher, and are using many other people to play 1st this year.

Anand Sinha
Blue Jays #1 -> all the way in '92
Roberto Alomar for MVP
Juan Guzman ... please please come back soon......