From: thornley@giga.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly & Murray vs. Milligan  was: Re: Oriole News -
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:29:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

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:
>>
>>>[Milligan is having a mediocre year for anybody, so Murray is having a
>>> better year, unless you think the walk is the most important offensive
>>> stat.]
>>
>>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.  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.
>
Yeah, but what is Murray doing better than Milligan?  Using the latest
MacWeekly, they have the same batting average.  Murray, in somewhat more
playing time (451 to 414 AB+BB), has 4 more HR, 1 more triple, and 13 more
doubles.  Milligan has 39 more walks.  As batters, Murray is responsible for
306 outs while Milligan is responsible for 249, a difference of 57.  Murray
gets credit for hitting the ball harder, but Milligan makes a *lot* fewer
outs.  I'd take Milligan.  I'd also bat him higher up in the lineup.  If
you want to argue that he's a worse #5 hitter than Murray is a #4 hitter,
you'd have a good case, but I'd argue that Milligan is having a better year
since he'd be a better player if used properly.  Would Vince Coleman
suddenly become a worse player if he batted in the cleanup position, or
would he be as good a player but misused?
>
>>
>>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.  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).
>
>>
>>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.
>
Outs are extremely important.  There are various ways of not making outs,
the best being HRs and walks being way down on the list.  Walks are generally
good things, but certainly not the most important.  The question is whether
Murray does enough other things better than Milligan, and the answer is, in
general, no.  Cecil Fielder doesn't walk as much as Milligan, but he does
other things much better (mostly HR), so he's more valuable than Murray
and about as valuable as Milligan.  (If his BA were 5 or 10 points higher
than it is, I'd definitely prefer him.)

Another reason I like Milligan is that there is one thing he does very
well:  get on base.  IMHO, a player with strengths and weaknesses is
better than a player who's generally mediocre, since you can try to
accentuate the strengths and offset the weaknesses.  Milligan has the
ability to be an excellent #2 hitter, since he gets on base a lot for the
big bats to drive him in, while Murray has no great strong point, and
is merely a fair cleanup hitter.  Of course, the #5 slot for Milligan has
the effect of accentuating his weakness and offsetting his strength, but
neither he nor I make out the lineup cards.
>>>
>>>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.
>
Mattingly has a batting average of .284, which is good but not outstanding,
and more doubles than the average first baseman.  Those are his advantages.
He is deficient in HRs and has not walked much.  He is responsible for 335
outs as a batter, which is a *lot*.  His extra RBIs came at a very high cost.
Mattingly is having a below-average year for a first baseman, and is definitely
having a worse year than Milligan.

David Thornley

NOTE:  As a Twins fan, I must ask you to visualize me as having a bag over my
head as I post this.