Small sample, but Willy Taveras has put up some unbelievable numbers over the past calendar month or so. In 97 plate appearances from May 15 to June 18, he’s hitting .085/.113/.096, with three walks and 20 strikeouts. Taveras also has been thrown out in two of five stolen base attempts during that span.
Here’s my question: If speed never slumps, then what is the word for this?
Don't be disingenuous. "Speed never slumps" is different than "A speedy PLAYER never slumps." Even the most passionate advocates of the running game would never make that second statement.
As for Taveras, he's just playing to his level... right?
Actually, I've heard several ex-player color commentary guys make *exactly* that argument: that because speedy players always have their speed, they will still be reaching base on infield hits and induced errors, and taking extra bases, when "all or nothing" power hitters would be having slumps and just striking out.
except that when a power hitter slumps, he's still got power, he is still capable of hitting an occasional mistake pitch a mile. And in some cases, that power hitter may still have plate discipline, so he might still draw some walks. So you have a choice of a guy who goes 5 for 40 with 1 walk, 4 of his 5 hits are singles (and one is a triple), and 3 stolen bases, or a guy who goes 5 for 40 with 4 walks and two of his 5 hits are homers and one is a double. end results:
Player A hits .125/.146/.175 (.321 OPS)
Player B hits .125/.222/.300 (.522 OPS)
Hmm... if speed peaks before 21, I imagine other physical attributes might also peak before 21... maybe that's another reason high schoolers appear to have so much potential.
If you watched last night's game on ESPN (Dodgers/Angels) and listened to Joe Morgan and Jon Miller's "analysis" you would have learned that:
a) Speed and bunting ability are the two most important factor in a team's scoring ability
b) We know this because the Angels are 6th in the AL in scoring and the Dodgers are 3rd in the Nl in scoring, and neither team "relies on the home run. "
c) Also, the book "Moneyball" is about walks and on-base percentage and home runs.
d)The winning margin in the game was supplied by a James Loney two-run homer.
e) It's extremely hard to watch an ESPN baseball telecast and not shout at the TV
I have a very good friend, a baseball fan from Cincy, not "sabrmetrically" inclined (sorry, can't think of a better word). He was rejoicing this offseason about how the Reds were finally rid of Dunn and all his strikeouts.
I just shake my head. I could try to explain it, but it's like shouting at Joe Morgan through the TV screen.
I like the way you think/hate Joe Morgan's voice with a fiery passion, David.
I realize I'm saying the obvious but why would a very high OBP guy like Morgan was during his career not give a damn about taking a walk, especially when my viewing of MLB Network last week showed several pitchers walking in runs in bases loaded situations?
...Maybe its not all manly to take a walk, you got to earn it with your teeth-gritted swing through the plate, even when the reliever can't put it in the zone (?)
I think it's a not-uncommon but irrational condescension of the notion that some nerd can tell a Real Baseball Player(TM)the elements of winning baseball. Never mind that by this logic, a rocket scientist is incompetent to build a better spaceship unless he's flown in space.
If pressed I assume he'd rationalize it as his having been a little guy who didn't see as many strikes as most players.
I think that's the real irritation : Joe Morgan was the ideal player for the "stathead" generation (again, I can't think of a better term).
Morgan was a career 271/392/417 hitter with superb 2B defense. His 1975 season is one of the very best non-Rickey leadoff seasons in baseball history:
107 Runs scored, 27 2B, 7 3B, 17 HR, 94 RBI, 67/10 SB/CS, a Gold Glove, and an insane 132/52(!) BB/K ratio.
Slash stats - 327/466/508. He won the MVP.
I understand that he thinks current players are beneath the levels he and his teammates achieved - that's a common veteran baseball player thing. What I don't understand is his disdain for the walks and high OBP - the very hallmarks of his career. He finished with 800 more walks than strikeouts. That's huge. And somehow, in his mind, the bunts and hit-and-run are more important. It's frustrating.
If Morgan was playing today he would be a stathead's dream player - as he should be. He's not a HOFer for nothing.
Baseball isn't a game of thinking. It's a game of instincts and Joe Morgan had great instincts and (obviously) excellent physical talents. The idea that doing things like taking lots of walks and having a good SB/CS ratio (for players who steal a lot anyway) is the hallmark of an intelligent person is appealing and often true, but it just isn't true a lot of the time.
As a disclaimer, I'm a Cubs fan, so my view on Baker is skewed... I think he appeared to be a good manager because he had Barry Bonds on his team, and then had Sosa for a few of his dominating years. Great players have a tendency to make their managers look better than they actually are.
It's a bit ironic, though, that with all the recent emphasis on team defense that his moves like playing Neifi Perez and Cesar Izturis look better in hindsight.
Koufax only managed to really learn how to pitch after about 5 years in the majors - so once Willy gets the hang of the curve, he may be a useful member of a major league team after all.
"He finished with 800 more walks than strikeouts. That's huge. And somehow, in his mind, the bunts and hit-and-run are more important. It's frustrating. "
Of players who debuted in the last 80 years:
Williams +1312
Collins +1213
Speaker +1161 Roy Thomas +1031 (career .413 OBP and .333 SLG!)
Bonds +1019
Musial +903
Cobb +892
Morgan +850
Yeah, I could see why he might want to distance himself from that crowd... they were all too busy taking walks and not striking out to focus on being great players :)
Bonds is the only one in front of him in the last 68 years years. Discount IBB to any significant degree and Morgan moves ahead of Bonds.
Not that it takes away from your argument in any way, but I think you've got the wrong Roy Thomas on there. There was a Roy Thomas who debuted in the last 80 years, but it's not the one who had a .413 OBP. Plus, the Roy Thomas who posted that OBP did so in an era for which we don't have SO records for batters. Consequently, he likely didn't have anywere close to 1000 more BBs than SOs.
Exactly. Look at almost any list of bonafide, first-ballot Hall of Famers, and one thing you can almost count on is that they had great walk and OBP numbers. (The exceptions would seem to be be dead-ball era guys and middle infielders, although Ozzie Smith finished with 500 more walks than strikeouts. He just didn't do much of either. But Ozzie is in the Hall for his defensive accomplishments, anyway).
And Morgan just seems to have either forgotten what made him a great player, or in his mind he was great player because he bunted a lot and backed up third base on a throw from right field, or whatever.
Or who knows, maybe he's never looked at his statistics?
39 comments have been left for this post.
"You can't steal first base."
A.J. Pierzynski stole first in the '05 playoffs against the Angels.
Another good one, Richard.