Career v. Peak Value [Merged Threads]

[timconnelly]

The very nature in which baseball is played means that there is no such thing as a player having career value. I know that idea is going to meet with a lot of resistance but let me ask everybody to at least be somewhat open.

Baseball is divided into seasons. Every season is unique. Every season is individual and distinct. There are no carryovers.

What a player does to help his team that season is the only sensible measurement of that player's value.

To say that Sandy Koufax did not have as great a career value as Warren Spahn sounds good but it is erroneous. All that matters is what either of them did to effect their teams winning, season by season. The career value perspective causes a fan to look at career totals to determine who is the greatest: 3000 hits is exactly 500 more than 2500 so obviously the guy with the most hits is greater. But nobody's team is ever helped one iota by the statistical totals that a player has produced in the past. The only thing that helps is what he does right now.

Cal Ripken, Jr was once a very fine ballplayer. That he managed to hang on long enough to increase his career totals so that he finally passed 3000 hits may impress some people. But I say it is meaningless to his greatness.

It is therefore my contention that you look at players based on how much they did to help their teams win, season by season.

This new way of looking at baseball changes a lot of things. Instead of looking at someone like Darryl Strawberry and see them as a disappointment because they did not create high lifetime totals, you are free to see that they impacted greatly on a number of pennant races and for one moment in time they were a damn good player.

[Skipper Steve]

Could you not look at career value in terms of a great season to total seasons ratio or just total number of great seasons?

[BuzzBuzzard]

Sorry Tim, but I've got a problem with that. A player who contributes to a teams success year after year is far more valuable than a guy who did it once. In the example you use, the argument is not at all erroneous. You can't simply discard what was done in the past.

[timconnelly]

I'm not implying that you discard what was done in the past in terms of year to year value. You look at that, you appreciate it, you celebrate it! But I'm saying that Michael Jordan's greatness with the Bulls will not help the Wizards one bit this season. But he will add merrily to his career point total, career rebounds, and career assist totals.

The problem with the career value viewpoint is that it fails to recognize that ballplayers are replaceable. The new player will hit home runs, doubles, score runs; he may be better at certain things than the veteran player he is replacing. He may not have the staying power of the veteran. But I don't see any reason that having the same guy doing the same job, only not quite as well as when he was younger, makes any difference or adds any value to his team.

[hmrsf]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Sorry Tim, but I've got a problem with that. A player who contributes to a teams success year after year is far more valuable than a guy who did it once. In the example you use, the argument is not at all erroneous. You can't simply discard what was done in the past.

Give me a whole field of the Dwight Evans type, who day in day out, year in year out give you solid and consistant fielding and hitting. One hit wonders do not thrill me in music or baseball.

[Skipper Steve]

I see Tim's point. Just think we need to adjust it to reflect consistency and frequency.

[timconnelly]

I have chosen to write this argument in short bursts rather than in one really long attempt at trying to prove my point. I've noticed when I get real wordy, I get ignored. (perhaps I should be ignored even when I'm not wordy!) (:

I'm saying that the longer a players prime and the greater that players prime, the greater that player is. But it should be measured in a season by season fashion, not by career totals.

Look at the difference between what Bonds did this season as compared to Rickey. Bonds was under the intense pressure of having a cut off date. And what he was doing had terrific value to his team. Rickey was sliding along to an inevitable conclusion. The Padres did not have him in the line up because there wasn't anybody else who could do what he was doing.

I think you are misunderstanding me: I'm not saying Rickey isn't a great player; I'm saying getting or not getting 3000 hits does not make him a great player. All the things he did for years when he was a unique player is what made him great.

Dwight Evans played many years as an exceptional player. I'm saying reduce that to a season by season viewpoint rather than by merely adding up his career totals. There are many people who might say, "Evans wasn't but so good because he only hit 385 home runs. You have to hit at least 400 to be good. " I'm saying that is silly.

[timconnelly]

At least I can feel good for bringing Buzz and hmrsf together on something!!

[sweaver]

I think the argument is about "value above replacement level."

[Skipper Steve]

So maybe we should be looking at peak season to career average season ratio?

[hmrsf]

Do NOT change how you post. You are not ignored...alot of times People not need to reply because you say it all. Imagine you print up a gem...wouldn't you feel insulted if a dolt like me just gave you thumbs up. Some peoples posting abilty is not as strong as yours....so here is your thumbs up Agreed.....don't change.

Back to what I have an opinion about.....I do not misunderstand you (I think)...I just don't agree. Lets stick with Evans so we are on the same page. If you just took the end totals you would not be that impressed. What is impressing is that he hit 20 or more hr for a decade. He had some years better than others but he was very consistant.......hence, a career player...yes? So no, I disagree, there are career players...ie, Dewey.

Also, to back up my orignal post...2 -players, same team same time ....I would choose an Evans over a Rice or Lynn because Evans was a career player.

[timconnelly]

If you were a manager would you prefer 10 consecutive seasons of finishing 3rd and then finally finishing 2nd once, only to slip back to 4th or would you prefer 2 Division titles and a trip to the World Series mixed in with a bunch of 5th and 6th place finishes. If you are like most people, you would accept bad seasons if they led to championship seasons.

As a Red Sox fan you know that nobody knows how many times the Red Sox have finished last since 1918. But everybody knows how many championships they have won!

Consistency is overated. I'll take excellence in short bursts. A Denny McLain will help you win a World Series. Fred Lynn helped the Red Sox make the WS during his short span of near greatness.

A pitcher like Koufax who leads his team to 3 pennants in 4 years has a heck of a lot more value than a pitcher who is consistently better than average for 10 straight seasons. And even if his teams don't win, his performance value is the same. Bonds had no less a season because the Giants did not win.

[TGwynn19]

Tim,

i am not sure i would fill out my roster with a bunch of players that could have 'career' seasons. What are the odds all, or enough, of your players would perform well above their established norms to catapult your team to a WS title? While I agree that it takes a few players having a year above what they normally produce to get over the top ( see Brett Boone, Luis Gonzalez et al ) but counting on players to rise so far above their norm is risky.

i guess i feel that i would rather have Edgar Martinez as my DH than Cecil Fielder, who could pop 52 big flys or hit .222

[timconnelly]

But that's what I'm saying. Martinez is a better player based on his ability to help his team out year after year. I'd choose him also! What I'm saying is that once Martinez does something to help his team this year, it goes into the bank and is stored away forever. I'd rather have Kirby Puckett for 12 seasons than most anybody else for 20.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by timconnelly
I'm not implying that you discard what was done in the past in terms of year to year value. You look at that, you appreciate it, you celebrate it! But I'm saying that Michael Jordan's greatness with the Bulls will not help the Wizards one bit this season. But he will add merrily to his career point total, career rebounds, and career assist totals.

By the same token, Michael is still the best ever to play the game regardless of what he does this season. He could flop, and do nothing to help the Wizzards other than at the gate, but he is still the best ever. Why? Because of what he accomplished years ago with the Bulls.