OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

OldGiants · 12-19-2002, 10:21 AM

Sixto, good post. And yes, Jason and I have a fundamental difference in how we look at the game. IMO, major league baseball (as opposed to other levels) is all about winning. Players who find ways to win are more valuable than ones who pile up stats and sit next to us on the couch come October.

And, if you re-read my post, I never implied Ellsworth was an authority on anything more than why people did or did not like his roommate, Ron Santo. I did imply that Santo had an ego that might have turned off those who did not vote for him originally. that part you missed.

Personalities are a part of every walk of life, and doing a great job is no guarantee you'll get in the HOF or get a raise or promotion. It's just what it is.

Looking at stats in a vacuum in is just as dangerous as listening to the gripes of old timers. Jason and other sabremetricians (and I like Jason's opinions and analyses, despite disagreeing with him about Santo) are impressed with Santo's OBP. But as I thought it that some more, my old memory tells me the Cub batting order was usually Williams, Banks and Santo. Thus many of Santo's walks were of no real value to his team since it simply brought up a poor hitter who ended the inning.

Also, no one ever plays to lead the league in on-base percentage. Players do go all out to lead the league in BA, when they can. To that extent, Tony Oliva's three batting titles (and five times leading in doubles) are imensely more impressive achievenments than Santo's strolls to first. I don't understand how any one interested in stats can say Oliva's achievements are less worthy than Santo's (Interestingly, they are the same age and both retired following the 1974 season)

Why no mention that Oliva's .304 lifetime BA is is way ahead of the league BA's of his time? Why all the talk of how Santo's mumbers are more impressive because of the good pitching he faced, when Oliva played during the same period? I'm much more impressed by Oliva's .304 BA and titles than Santo's above average stats that led the league in nothing anyone cared about.

And as to your comment on segregation in the 1960's, does the fact that Oiva is black and Santo white enter into the equation of the current debate?

Just asking.

12-19-2002, 10:21 AM	#33 (permalink)
OldGiants Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 211 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	Sixto, good post. And yes, Jason and I have a fundamental difference in how we look at the game. IMO, major league baseball (as opposed to other levels) is all about winning. Players who find ways to win are more valuable than ones who pile up stats and sit next to us on the couch come October. And, if you re-read my post, I never implied Ellsworth was an authority on anything more than why people did or did not like his roommate, Ron Santo. I did imply that Santo had an ego that might have turned off those who did not vote for him originally. that part you missed. Personalities are a part of every walk of life, and doing a great job is no guarantee you'll get in the HOF or get a raise or promotion. It's just what it is. Looking at stats in a vacuum in is just as dangerous as listening to the gripes of old timers. Jason and other sabremetricians (and I like Jason's opinions and analyses, despite disagreeing with him about Santo) are impressed with Santo's OBP. But as I thought it that some more, my old memory tells me the Cub batting order was usually Williams, Banks and Santo. Thus many of Santo's walks were of no real value to his team since it simply brought up a poor hitter who ended the inning. Also, no one ever plays to lead the league in on-base percentage. Players do go all out to lead the league in BA, when they can. To that extent, Tony Oliva's three batting titles (and five times leading in doubles) are imensely more impressive achievenments than Santo's strolls to first. I don't understand how any one interested in stats can say Oliva's achievements are less worthy than Santo's (Interestingly, they are the same age and both retired following the 1974 season) Why no mention that Oliva's .304 lifetime BA is is way ahead of the league BA's of his time? Why all the talk of how Santo's mumbers are more impressive because of the good pitching he faced, when Oliva played during the same period? I'm much more impressed by Oliva's .304 BA and titles than Santo's above average stats that led the league in nothing anyone cared about. And as to your comment on segregation in the 1960's, does the fact that Oiva is black and Santo white enter into the equation of the current debate? Just asking. Last edited by OldGiants; 12-19-2002 at 10:24 AM.