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 19:58:59 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:
>>In article <5640@transfer.stratus.com> gene@ok.sw.stratus.com (Eugene Loparco) writes:
>>>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.

>>Hmm, well, maybe Milligan should not be labelled as a "slugger".  Maybe
>>think of him as a "table-setter".  Then you can see Milligan's value.  Each
>>team needs to have table-setters and sluggers.  The manager's job is to 
>>put the table-setters ahead of the sluggers.  

>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.

Table-setters can bat 2nd or 3rd, too.  Ever hear of Keith Hernandez?
15-HR power, .390 OBP, no speed.  A wonderful #3 hitter.  

For that matter, consider Wade Boggs, who *has* batted leadoff a lot.

>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.

Right.  So what's your point? Milligan *doesn't* have power.  So it's a
waste to bat him 5th.

>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.

Again, YOU brought up the "leadoff-hitter" argument.  He'd do fine in
the 2 or 3 holes.

>>>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).

>>He has very few RBI because he's not a slugger.  What if he was #1 or #2 in
>>the batting lineup?? Then his walks become very important.  Much more
>>so than his mediocre slugging.  Productive is a bad term to use.  He does
>>do something useful. He gets on base so that someone else can drive him in.
>>Someone else can get RBIs.  Someone has to get on base so that someone else
>>can drive him in.

>That's not his job.  If that WERE his job he WOULD be batting leadoff.  No

His *job* is to produce offense for the team.  That MANAGER's job is to
use him where he'll do the most good.  Unless Milligan makes out the
lineup cards, you can't blame him for batting where he does.  I'm sure
he's doing the best he can; if only his manager would make the best of
*that.*

>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.

Indeed.  What about it, though?  Your argument boils down to "Murray is
better than Milligan because Oates made a mistake."

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

>>Nelson, and a lot of others around here believe that outs are important.
>>An out is like the clock in hockey/basketball/football.  A team is only given
>>so many to use up in a game.  You don't want to waste an out.  Milligan
>>uses up fewer outs than Murray, thus he gives his team MORE of a chance to 
>>win ballgames.

>Yes, but Murray does more with his non-outs.

Which come less often.  You've got to *have* non-outs before what you do
with them becomes interesting.

>>>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.
>>
>>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).

Well, even if you're going to plug your fingers in your ears, would you
do us the courtesy of telling us *why* you think Mattingly's doing
better than these two?  "because I say so" isn't very convincing, and,
besides, this net is for discussion, not shouting.

>>>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?

>>Just how is Mattingly's defense better than Milligan's? And how much better?
>>And how much is good defense worth at first base?  Isn't 1st base where a 
>>team "hides" their weak defensive players? Don't most good hitters become
>>1st basemen when their defense becomes suspect?  (In recent years note:
>>Molitor, Brett, Rose, Gaetti <just a joke>, Ernie Banks is another example).

>MUCH BETTER. Which brings up a point, have you ever seen these guys PLAY?  Yes

Yes.  How often have you seen Joyner or Olerud or McGwire PLAY?  Five or
six times, max, I bet.  Can you jusdge a first baseman on that?  No.
Most 1B's don't see more than one tough chance per game, on average.

>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.

Describe it.  Tell us why it's different from making putouts and
assists, which they do about equally well.  

Mattingly *looks* good out there.  But they don't give points for looks
or hustle.  He doesn't have nearly the range he used to.  So even if you
saw Mattingly tear the place up five or six times in 85 or 86 (I sure
did), it doesn't bear on his usefulness now.

>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.  

Me tell THEM that?  They told ME that!  I remember Banks and Skowron and
even Mantle at the end there.  Sure, a better one is better than a worse
one, but the difference isn't nearly what it is in CF or 2B or SS or 3B.
Only LF is as (relatively) unimportant.  

>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.

They had somebody better?  Look, Grace and McGwire were having slumps,
and the teams knew it.  They also knew it was very likely they'd snap
out of the slumps.  They did.

Roger