Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmount76
I was watching the Mets game yesterday afternoon and as the D’backs set a new record for a three game series of stolen bases against of the Mets, Gary Cohen and Keith Hernandez got into a debate about saber-metrics, the importance of steals, etc. Gary was making the point that steals have become a virtual nonexistent in the game, as the new metrics are proving that unless you are stealing at a 75% success rate, the art of the steal is ineffective. Keith went into a bit of a tirade. If you watch SNY, this is usually entertaining. He argued about the Cardinal days of the 70’s with guys like Lou Brock. He then tried to explain to Gary that there is more than sheer numbers. I am paraphrasing, as I couldn’t find the actual video of his exact wording, but he said something to the effect of…
“All of these statistics don’t tell the larger picture. How the lead of a potential base stealer can get into the head of an opposing pitcher. How the base stealer can cause a pitcher to rush his delivery. How a base stealer can change shifts in defensive alignments.” He said much more, and with more clarity, but I think his point is valid and can be applied here as well.
An argument/discussion, based purely on numbers doesn’t tell the whole picture. Anyone with 20 minutes can go to Baseball-Reference and create an argument that debunks a counter argument.
Are 3,000 hit an impressive achievement, regardless of longevity? Absolutely. Are 4,500 total bases (or whatever arbitrary number) impressive? Without a doubt. Does one mean “more” to overall greatness or Hall of Fame worthiness? In my opinion, probably not. Like Keith, I am more in line with looking at totality.
(Shameless plug for Keith) – He is not a Hall of Famer, although many, including myself, would argue he should be. His hit total puts him at #192 on the all-time list. His total base totals put him at #229. His batting average puts him at #268. Sheer numbers – not that impressive. But if you look at the totality of his career – Arguably the greatest defensive 1B of all time. 11 CONSECUTIVE gold gloves. The trade catalyst (along with Carter) for bringing a championship to Queens. A team leader, on and off the field. The Captain. These things aren’t quantifiable by numbers solely (well, the Gold Gloves are), but they mean something to overall greatness.
I’m a math teacher. I love numbers as much as the next stat nerd, but let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Want to argue Ichiro? Great. Debate it. But debate his totality to his teams. What did he bring to the table? Did he elevate his team? Did he bring unity to the clubhouse? Did he teach, through daily actions, what it takes to be great? All of the numbers are great, but let’s keep them in the context of what unites all of us – the game of baseball – not the baseball-reference website.
|
I agree with that. Thats why i call some award participation awards. In the NBA, they do talk about total points scored. However, the stats are really more focused on points/rebounds/assists etc per game.
You tell me somebody got a million rebounds in a career, to me its more impressive if he had 13.5 rebounds a game and played 8 years. I think in the NBA changing the amount of games in a season, if they did it, isnt as big a deal as baseball. Less games in baseball it will be harder to get the magical 3000 hits. In basketball, you can still score 30.4 points a game and be called one of the greatest all time scorers and nobody will care that you scored less points in a season or got below the magical whatever number in total points..
Baseball is just different..