SB Nation - Login for mobile commenting

Athletics Nation

Back to the Future

Slide on into the Delorean next to me (um, ignore that suspicious parcel in the trunk) and get ready for a short trip back in time, McFly.

We're going to perform a little experiment. It's a cliched little number called "Player A vs Player B," where I provide the blinded trendlines, and you try to identify the players and note (or dispute) the similarities.

I'll make this one easy on you, McFly. I'll give you the first similarity: Players A and B both suffer/suffered from chronic back problems. OK, another one: both are/were regarded as among the better-fielding players at their positions.

Here goes. Strapped in? Helmet strap tightened? Flux capacitor ready? 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

< temp card on screen: SFX TO COME >

<industry leader>

Whew, yeah, those unfinished special effects can be really taxing on the ol' taxonomy, eh, McFly. Well, here we are in some unspecified ancient time. Now, I brought along a box full of statistics from our own time, so we can compare 'em against whatever we're looking for here.

Ah! There he is! Player B! Ugh! Look at those disgusting sideburns, and that declasse mullet. What a disgrace to his owner. Sorry, mixing fictional voices there. Happens sometimes when we pass through certain zones of temporal disruption.

OK, McFly, pull out that box. Let's see what we have from Player A from our own time.

Player A

Age   OPS    OPS+
21    .798    94
22    .760   118
23    .850   131
24    .878   122
25    .861   132
26    .864   132
27    .898   106
28    .795   106
29    .786   103

Alright, McFly, now pull that big, cartoonish, men-in-white-jackets-from-the-institution-style butterfly net out of the Delorean. Now, you go snag Player B. Because I'm running this experiment, that's why! Good lad. E-e-e-e-excellent. Whoa! Bbpbpbpbpbpbpphhhhh! Sorry, temporal-fictional cross-flux again. OK, now extract the statistics from Player B. No, it won't hurt him. He'll just wake up in the morning thinking that he's been probed by aliens. Ah! Yes. Very nice. Here we are:

Player B

Age   OPS    OPS+
21    .321    -11
22    .742    107
23    .918    156
24    .938    156
25    .967    161
26    .937    146
27    .815    128
28    .828    133
29    .643    81
30    .733    103
31    .743    108
32    .809    118
33    .808    113
34    .754    97

Of course, yes, McFly, you're right -- our Player A never hit the heights that Player B did. Yes, sometimes the history books are  true -- not every single element of society steps forward in even, measured increments. The ancients had their secrets, too.

But McFly, you're not seeing the forest for the trees! Don't look at the specific highs and lows, but the trendlines, m'boy -- the trendlines! Especially that OPS+ -- look at that drastic drop in production in the Age 27 year, and the apparent inability to recover. Oh, sure, a small Renaissance there near the end, but too little, too late.

What's that, McFly? What does the future -- our future, that is -- I mean, the future we -- I mean, you -- have yet to see -- what does the future, that future hold for Player A? Ahhhhh, McFly, m'boy, there are some things you have to wait to see for yourself.

0 recs  |  30 comments

Comments

Ok, I'll bite ...

who are you comparing Eric Chavez to?

Don Mattingly.

I assume the parallel is great talent derailed by chronic injury.

I looked up the numbers and they don't match

Mattingly.  Unless the numbers I looked up were wrong.  But that was my first guess too.

um... they do

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml

stupid internet

whichever random site I looked up has different numbers.  Or I can't read.  Both are very possible.

Didn't Mattingly also

suffer from chronic back problems throughout his career?

Yes.

It's Mattingly.  The numbers match.  Also, the mullet and sideburns quip is a reference to the hair-cutting controversy he had with Steinbrenner, immortalized on the Simpsons.

I thought I told you to trim those sideburns!
I'm guessing a certain

third baseman from the early seventies....one who played for the A's?

or....

what about another pretty-good-but-not-great and rather inconsistent A's third baseman:

Age    OPS+

21    113
22    108
23    94
24    133
25    114
26    133
27    122
28    107
29    110
30    123
31    95
32    132
33    87

Carney's not a bad comp.
I'm almost afraid to ask...

but did anyone hear anything about Swish?  I assumed the worst, because really, with this team how could you not?

His right arm was amputated last night.
This comp doesn't take into account

Chavy's sterling .640 OPS in 108 career postseason ABs.

Oh yeah

by comparison, in Mattingly's lone postseason appearance against the Mariners--after he was "washed up"--he went 10 for 24 with four doubles, a homer, and six RBI.

This comp also doesn't take into account

defense.  While both have very good reps, a sterling third baseman is always better than a sterling first baseman.  

Offensively, yeah, it's a neat exercise.

Ah! But, McFly ...

... the back problems will likely cause Chavvy to have a defensive dropoff in proportion to the skill/opportunity differential between the two positions, no?

And all of this fails to account for Chavvy's familiar shoulder/forearm troubles.

Sure, da-da-daddio. But we really need Crosby

to make like a tree and... get out of here.  His bat and, lately, his "D" are killing us.

i don't know that all things would be equal

but lackluster 3b defense would surely be a bigger liability than at 1b.

then again, you'd expect less offense from your 3b than your 1b.

Oh, and if anyone has graph-posting skilz ...

... the trendlines become much more obvious/parallel in a line graph. I have an .xls file I could send someone.

Sure, I could screenshot it.
Wow, you're right.

Here's their OPS+'s.

It's too large to post here, and making it smaller makes it unreadable, so just clicky clicky. Blue is Mattingly, red is Chavvy.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...

Does this mean that Chavvy

is going to be a future manager of the Yankees?

For that matter Joe Torre makes both of 'em look pedestrian.  That 1971  MVP line (.363/.421/.555) is pretty imposing.  

pedestrian? yes, Chavvy does at least still walk
Well

we know he won't be managing any expansion franchises in Monterrey.

Something I find interesting to note ...

Don Mattingly is almost universally beloved in New York and considered one of their all-time greats (though he's more than a bit overrated) ... Oakland fans, on the other hand ...

On the other hand...

the Yanks weren't very good during Donny baseballs tenure.  He's all they had to cheer for.  They made the playoffs the year before Donny's rookie year and didn't go back until his last year....or so I think anyway.

They were frustrating.

They finished second just about every year during that time, until they bottomed out in the early '90's.  They  actually had the best cumulative record in the AL in the '80's--just with nothing to show for it.  Their offense was always great, and their pitching was always a patchwork of terrible free-agent signings (Andy Hawkins and Dave LaPoint leap to mind).

I haven't looked up numbers to back this up

but having grown up in that area during Donnie Baseball's time, one of the main reasons he was so loved is that he was deadly with runners in scoring position.  You expected him to get a hit with runners on.

Another Mattingly fun fact.

Dude never struck out more than 43 times in a season, despite being very aggressive at the plate.

You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.