11/05/24
September 25, 2010
MLB/ 'Charlie Hustle' gives Ichiro his due ... but he'd like to see more walks: In an interview marking Ichiro Suzuki's 10th consecutive 200-hits season, Pete Rose offered his assessment of Ichiro's achievement: while acknowledging that "Ichiro's a great hitter" Pete reminded us that "I did it 10 times, but I didn't do it 10 times in a row. And I did 198 twice, too, and I did 192 once, so I guess at the time ... if I knew there was going to be someone challenging that I probably would have worked harder and gotten a couple more hits in those two years." Pointing out the difference in their respective accomplishments, Rose added that "the only negative thing I could ever say about Ichiro, would be this; that Ichiro gets a lot of hits but he doesn't get many walks. OK? So you gotta remember I got all those hits but I got close to 1,600 walks too."
posted by billinnagoya to baseball at 10:03 AM - 25 comments
The more I hear from Pete Rose, the less I like him.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:51 AM on September 25, 2010
I don't see where Ichiro getting a lit of infield hits is "lucky". No surprise how ungracious Rose is, but yeah, he's a dick about Ichiro.
posted by rumple at 12:06 PM on September 25, 2010
Eh, walks? Their OBP are nearly identical.
Rose attributes a lot of things to luck, at least when it comes to other players.
posted by justgary at 12:58 PM on September 25, 2010
"If someone had bet me that I couldn't get 200 hits those years, I would have tried harder for sure!
No, you see, that would have involved betting on baseball, a game that Pete treasured and held in the highest regard. Further, it would have required wagering on the team (or at least a player on it) that he was on, and, he absolutely, positively would never have done that. Also...wait...what?...oh. Forget it.
Time to shut up, Pete. A hit is always a line drive on the scorecard, and a man with your history has no business questioning the achievements of Ichiro, who has played throughout with class.
posted by tahoemoj at 01:41 PM on September 25, 2010
The more I hear from Pete Rose, the less I like him.
Totally. Despite Rose's record, I cannot figure why news writers ask his opinion on anything like this because they know they are going to get a smug, self-serving answer. The man just cannot be taken seriously.
posted by roberts at 04:46 PM on September 25, 2010
Eh, walks? Their OBP are nearly identical.
As much as I despise Rose, that's not really a fair comparison. Rose's OBP is where it is because of the tail end to his career (which Ichiro hasn't had yet).
If you compare their age 27 to 36 seasons (which is all we have for Ichiro), then Pete Rose comes out a fair bit ahead (.393 to .376).
Rose was a better hitter than Ichiro during the same time period (both raw stats (avg/obp/slg/ops) and comparatively (OPS+).
Ichiro obliterates him in the running game (SB total and percentage) and fielding (Gold Gloves (as much value as you give them) and stats).
posted by grum@work at 08:28 PM on September 25, 2010
grum,
Since we're talking Ichiro, & given your wizardry with numbers, what did you this of this?
posted by brainofdtrain at 08:44 PM on September 25, 2010
I fully agree with everything Posnanski says.
There are a few litmus tests I use when I'm with a group of people watching as sporting event, to determine their knowledge of the sport and whether I really want to engage them in a discussion about the sport (or simply say "Go team!" every so often).
The baseball one is if the question comes up "Who is the best pitcher of all time?", and they answer "Nolan Ryan" or "Sandy Koufax". I know they are peripheral fans and don't really think rationally about the sport.
posted by grum@work at 10:25 PM on September 25, 2010
I must ask grum, who do you think is the best pitcher of all time?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:21 AM on September 26, 2010
I'd just say Satchel Paige.
Their response would probably tell me if I even wanted to be in the same part of the stadium, let alone engage them in conversation.
posted by owlhouse at 12:38 AM on September 26, 2010
Depending on the mood, it's between Roger Clemens, Walter Johnson, and Lefty Grove.
I assume we're talking about career value, and not single-season or "best 3/5/7" seasons. Otherwise, pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver and Randy Johnson start to muddy-up the picture.
posted by grum@work at 12:49 AM on September 26, 2010
When I think about Ichiro's MLB career, I think about how he represents the other side of the game to his muscle-bagged power-hitting contemporaries. I'm also reminded of that profile of Jim Thome that everyone was linking to this week, and how his physique was described there as 'farm strong', which is a polite way to say that you imagine his workouts involve carrying pigs on his shoulders.
Perhaps that's all deluded, but it's nice to think it.
posted by etagloh at 01:55 AM on September 26, 2010
grum,
Can I get further thoughts on statistics? I've have been getting familiar with the analytical stats Pos/fangraphs uses, and i see their value* for cutting the mythic and the exagerrated to really get at just how good a player was. That said, I still am unsure how it helps us answer the question "is Ichiro a great offensive player" because once we start to interpret the data our biases still creep in.
To use Ichiro: For me, his three fabulous skills of base-stealing, base running, and high average are enough for me to consider him a great offensive player; for Pos it does not. Who is right? More to the point, how can we nail that down definitively?
Since you have given this stuff much more thought than I have, curious to hear your take.
*I really do-not trying to bait into an argument. Some of the new measures i'm already head over heels for. Ex: I loved Greinke winning the CY Young, loved it. Yes, I am a KC fan, but regardless it was so obvious he dominated over half the year in a way few do, but was getting screwed by the name on the front of his jersey. I was glad that whoever the 18-20 game winner with an era of 4.29 for the Yankees was did not win it, and was thankful that more detailed analysis showed just how much better Greinke was.
So, yeah not trying to "prove" that traditionalists are right (rbi's are not the end all be all-again being a Royals fan makes this easier to see), just still trying to make sense out of how to apply them
posted by brainofdtrain at 02:24 AM on September 26, 2010
Rose's OBP is where it is because of the tail end to his career (which Ichiro hasn't had yet).
Ichiro's OBP might not suffer as much as Rose, or hell, maybe it will. But I don't see Ichiro playing enough years where he becomes a slow player (and loses his infield hits). Or maybe he does...
Otherwise, pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Tom Seaver and Randy Johnson start to muddy-up the picture.
I think that's a hard question: where does longevity come into the equation. I think there's a difference between 3-5 years of dominance and 7-10. Clemens has to be in the equation, and he's an easy case to make.
Pedro is ranked 37th here. And yet in his prime (7 years) no one was as good as Pedro.
Clemens was great for a far longer time, but his best stretch wasn't as good as Pedro. 7 of the best years anyone has ever seen is a long time. 7 years when hitters were dominating. If I'm starting a team I'm choosing Pedro first and not looking back. He was a better pitcher in his prime than Clemens, the best I've ever seen. That's who I'd go with.
posted by justgary at 02:45 AM on September 26, 2010
If you don't include some level of longevity/durability, then you have to start considering Mariano Rivera. I don't, in any way, suggest that he's in the discussion for "best pitcher of all time", but his numbers (taken in rate form and not summation) are astounding.
To use Ichiro: For me, his three fabulous skills of base-stealing, base running, and high average are enough for me to consider him a great offensive player; for Pos it does not. Who is right? More to the point, how can we nail that down definitively?
One method that people use is linear regression to determine the "value" (in runs) of the different kinds of hits.
Pete Palmer's "Batting Runs" used that method to determine the following values:
Outs: .10
Walks: .33
Singles: .47
Doubles: .85
Triples: 1.02
Home Runs: 1.40
Also, Palmer calculated "Basestealing Runs":
Stolen Base: .22
Caught Stealing: -.38
Just using this rough estimate, you can see that a player that goes 1-for-4 with a home run would provide more "value" (1.70) to a team than a player that goes 2-for-4 with two singles and a stolen base (1.08).
Of course, that's only one method of determine hitting value.
This is why we'll never really be able to be "definitive" with our declaration of greatness about a baseball player.
I think we'll be able to build ranges of greatness, and be able to say things like "Barry Bonds is greater than Juan Pierre with 99.99945% confidence", or "Roger Clemens is greater than Pedro Martinez with 58.3345% confidence". That's about it.
And I don't think Pos is saying that Ichiro ISN'T a great offensive player. I think he's pointing out that he's not as great offensive player as everyone would like to believe.
posted by grum@work at 12:38 PM on September 26, 2010
One, Rose is a tool, and I don't believe for a second that it would have been possible for him to " have worked harder and gotten a couple more hits in those two years" in order to get to 200 hits.
Anytime one engages in a "who's the best of all time?" discussions, there is always going to be a certain level of splitting hairs. Longevity certainly has a place in the discussion, but how much weight is given to it? In the linear regression model quoted, how much weight is given to sacrifice bunts, sac flies, etc.? Where does how a player was utilized/coached come in? Does Ichiro have more stolen bases than Rose due to pure ability, or was he simply given the steal sign a lot more often?
Maybe that's why I prefer top 10 lists as opposed to who's the best. A bit more room for preferences, however, even then there's no way to give a definitive answer.
posted by dviking at 11:28 PM on September 26, 2010
If you don't include some level of longevity/durability, then you have to start considering Mariano Rivera. I don't, in any way, suggest that he's in the discussion for "best pitcher of all time", but his numbers (taken in rate form and not summation) are astounding
I agree. But we're not talking about a flash in the pan, or a fluke. Pedro pitched 11 seasons with 140 or more innings, 12 of over 130. He pitched from 92 to 09.
Winning precentage? Pedro. ERA? Pedro. ERA +? Pedro. WHIP? Pedro. Strikes per 9 innings? Pedro. Walks per 9 innings? Pedro. K/bb? Pedro. Batting Average Against? Pedro.
The only statistics that Clemens can claim are ones that result from more years at the top.
It's up to the person making the list how much longevity/durability fits into the equation, but I don't think it's ridiculous to have Pedro near or at the top (or to compare him to a pitcher that was great one inning a game).
In fact, it's pretty clear that Pedro was a better pitcher than Clemens, but Clemens was a great pitcher longer. He was a big guy built for the long haul. Pedro wasn't.
posted by justgary at 12:26 AM on September 27, 2010
Does Ichiro have more stolen bases than Rose due to pure ability, or was he simply given the steal sign a lot more often?
Rose played during a time when base stealing was done by almost everyone, regardless of skill. And he was TERRIBLE at it. 198 SB and 149 CS is brutal. You are costing your team so many runs if you can only steal at a 57% rate. He had seven seasons where he was caught more often than he was successful!
Ichiro's 382/88 ratio (81%) is fantastic, and he's doing it in a time when there are about 30-40 less stolen bases per team per year than the heydays of Rose.
posted by grum@work at 01:08 AM on September 27, 2010
In fact, it's pretty clear that Pedro was a better pitcher than Clemens, but Clemens was a great pitcher longer. He was a big guy built for the long haul. Pedro wasn't.
The inning difference, however, is HUGE.
Almost 2100 innings, or another 73% of Pedro's career.
Basically, the difference between Clemens and Pedro can be made up by adding Tim Hudson's career (2300 IP of 128 ERA+) to Pedro's career.
The difference between Clemens IP and Pedro's IP is almost the same as the difference between Pedro's IP and Mariano Rivera's IP (92% of the difference).
posted by grum@work at 01:22 AM on September 27, 2010
The inning difference, however, is HUGE.
Almost 2100 innings, or another 73% of Pedro's career.
No denying that. Pedro wasn't built like Clemens. Clemens is a horse that was built for innings, a bit of a freak (and I'm ignoring the elephant in the room). When it comes to longevity we have two players on different ends of the spectrum, and if you give great weigh to that, Clemens is the guy. I just don't.
If you give me hitter A, great hitter for 20 seasons, and hitter B, a better hitter for 10 seasons, I'd say hitter B was the better hitter, despite statistically having lower numbers than hitter A. It doesn't matter to me that hitter A got 3000 hits and hitter B got 1500. Giving such credence to the longevity factor, for me, turns the comparison into something other than a discussion of the 'best' hitter.
But then again I've never understood the fascination baseball fans have with longevity. Take football as an example. Here's Posnanski on running backs.
Jim Brown is number one. Jim Brown is always number one. He played 9 years and carried the ball 2,359 times. Of course, he quit at the top of his game. But so could have Pedro. There's no guarantee that Brown wouldn't have hit a wall or gotten injured.
Emmitt Smith is number 3. He played 15 years and had 4052 carries. Huge difference. But you won't find many people putting Emmitt ahead of Brown.
Gale Sayers is often in the top ten. 7 Years and 991 carries.
Hell, Posnanski has Bo Jackson at number 9 with 515 carries over just 4 years.
I don't see longevity having nears as much weight in other sports as baseball, and I've never understood, nor agreed with it.
(to be clear, I do believe longevity and time being dominant belong in the debate, but I also believe leading in almost every pitching stat used should carry a lot of weight as well.)
posted by justgary at 03:09 AM on September 27, 2010
Hell, Posnanski has Bo Jackson at number 9 with 515 carries over just 4 years.
I don't see longevity having nears as much weight in other sports as baseball, and I've never understood, nor agreed with it.
(to be clear, I do believe longevity and time being dominant belong in the debate, but I also believe leading in almost every pitching stat used should carry a lot of weight as well.)
Jackson being in the NFL running back debate would definitely mean that Mariano Rivera would have to be in the MLB pitching debate.
If Rivera is in the debate, then there is no question he's the best pitcher of all time. His ERA+ is 52 points ahead of the next highest qualifying pitcher (Pedro).
The reason why longevity counts is just for that reason.
And not just Pete-Rose-hanging-on-for-stats longevity, but contributing in a positive manner longevity.
Lee Sinins publishes a baseball encyclopedia that lets you do lots of interesting database comparisons. He uses RSAA (runs saved above average) to measure pitchers. It's a nice stat because it measures peak (you can accumulate a LOT of RSAA if you have a great year) and positive longevity (you can lose RSAA if you have bad years).
Pedro Martinez: 496 RSAA (he was -3 in 2006, and -18 in 2008, and peaked at 77 in 2000)
Roger Clemens: 732 RSAA (he was -4 in 1999, and 0 in 2002, and peaked at 69 in 1997)
Mariano Rivera: 296 RSAA (he was -5 in 1995, and peaked at 35 in 1996)
CAREER
MODERN (1900-)RSAA RSAA
1 Roger Clemens 732
2 Lefty Grove 668
3 Walter Johnson 643
4 Greg Maddux 552
5 Randy Johnson 527
6 Grover C Alexander 524
7 Pedro Martinez 496
8 Christy Mathewson 405
9 Tom Seaver 404
10 Carl Hubbell 355
AMERICAN LEAGUE
SEASON
MODERN (1900-)RSAA YEAR RSAA
1 Pedro Martinez 2000 77
T2 Lefty Grove 1932 75
T2 Lefty Grove 1931 75
T2 Walter Johnson 1913 75
5 Walter Johnson 1912 74
6 Cy Young 1901 72
7 Pedro Martinez 1999 71
8 Lefty Grove 1936 70
T9 Roger Clemens 1997 69
T9 Lefty Gomez 1937 69NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
MODERN (1900-)RSAA YEAR RSAA
1 Grover C Alexander 1915 69
T2 Dizzy Dean 1934 66
T2 Dolf Luque 1923 66
4 Pedro Martinez 1997 65
T5 Dazzy Vance 1930 64
T5 Greg Maddux 1995 64
7 Randy Johnson 2002 62
8 Christy Mathewson 1905 61
9 Randy Johnson 1999 60
10 Randy Johnson 2001 59
posted by grum@work at 08:00 AM on September 27, 2010
If Rivera is in the debate, then there is no question he's the best pitcher of all time. His ERA+ is 52 points ahead of the next highest qualifying pitcher (Pedro).
In my opinion Rivera shouldn't be in the discussion. No matter the stats the simple fact is that Rivera never had to go through a lineup twice, or 3 times, or 4. If Rivera was as great a starter as he was a reliever, I doubt he would have stayed a reliever. Don't get me wrong, I understand his greatness, but I believe comparing starting pitchers with pitchers that pitched the ninth inning is comparing apples to oranges.
As far as Clemens/Pedro, you're probably going over my head now (and I'm going under yours). I'll just close my side by saying that I believe 'greatest pitcher ever' is a vague phrase that you and I see completely differently.
If Pedro had pitched 3 years, maybe there's an argument that hitters didn't get a chance to adjust. But we're not talking 3 years. Even if you only take his best years, we're talking about 7 years.
Clemens dominated for a hell of a long time, and if you look at the two pitchers you can see why. I doubt tim lincecum will be pitching at 38. But Pedro dominated for a good stretch, and in his prime, he was a better pitcher than Clemens. If I'm asked best pitcher ever, I'm picking Pedro. I saw both pitch 100s of games (and I actually liked Clemens when he was with the Red Sox). In his prime, Pedro was, in my mind, a class above.
If longevity is high on your list, dominating for a longer period of time, I agree, Clemens is the guy.
posted by justgary at 01:26 AM on September 28, 2010
I believe 'greatest pitcher ever' is a vague phrase
Totally agree with that, "The Greastest ______ Ever" will always be a tough label to have everyone agree upon. Only if the two (assuming we've narrowed the field to two) athletes went head-to-head will we have a definitive answer, and maybe not even then.
Clarification from my last post...I really wasn't trying to infer that I thought Rose was anywhere near the runner/base stealer that Ichiro is, it was more of a "player A" vs. "player B" arguement. Clearly, one player might have better stats due to how they were utilized compared to another player. In pitching, does the coach pull the guy after 7 innings regardless, or does he leave them in? 4 day rotation or 5? In hitting is the coach a "small ball" type of guy that does a lot of bunting/stealing/sac. flies? When we're splitting hairs discussing the best of the best, even slight movements in key stats mean a lot, so a .05 swing due to utilization might sway one's thoughts.
posted by dviking at 01:47 PM on September 28, 2010
If I'm asked best pitcher ever, I'm picking Pedro.
If longevity is high on your list, dominating for a longer period of time, I agree, Clemens is the guy.
Agreed.
I just wanted to point out that cool stat that the difference between Pedro's career and Clemens' career is pretty much all of Tim Hudson's career (innings and quality) to this point.
posted by grum@work at 05:23 PM on September 28, 2010
Pete reminded us that "I did it 10 times, but I didn't do it 10 times in a row. And I did 198 twice, too, and I did 192 once, so I guess at the time ... if I knew there was going to be someone challenging that I probably would have worked harder and gotten a couple more hits in those two years."
"If someone had bet me that I couldn't get 200 hits those years, I would have tried harder for sure!"