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
Ok, I'll bite ...
who are you comparing Eric Chavez to?
devo - July 21, 2007
Don Mattingly.
I assume the parallel is great talent derailed by chronic injury.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
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.
DMOAS - July 21, 2007
um... they do
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml
rebus - July 21, 2007
stupid internet
whichever random site I looked up has different numbers. Or I can't read. Both are very possible.
DMOAS - July 21, 2007
Didn't Mattingly also
suffer from chronic back problems throughout his career?
alox - July 21, 2007
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.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
I thought I told you to trim those sideburns!
iglew - July 21, 2007
I'm guessing a certain
third baseman from the early seventies....one who played for the A's?
alox - July 21, 2007
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
wilyc - July 21, 2007
Carney's not a bad comp.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
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?
alox - July 21, 2007
His right arm was amputated last night.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
This comp doesn't take into account
Chavy's sterling .640 OPS in 108 career postseason ABs.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
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.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
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.
salb918 - July 21, 2007
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.
monkeyball - July 21, 2007
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.
ohtobe21likehuston - July 21, 2007
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.
rebus - July 21, 2007
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.
monkeyball - July 21, 2007
Sure, I could screenshot it.
danmerqury - July 21, 2007
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...
danmerqury - July 21, 2007
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.
FreeSeatUpgrade - July 21, 2007
pedestrian? yes, Chavvy does at least still walk
monkeyball - July 21, 2007
Well
we know he won't be managing any expansion franchises in Monterrey.
jeepers - July 21, 2007
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 ...
devo - July 21, 2007
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.
alox - July 21, 2007
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).
jeepers - July 22, 2007
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.
jeepers - July 22, 2007
Another Mattingly fun fact.
Dude never struck out more than 43 times in a season, despite being very aggressive at the plate.
jeepers - July 22, 2007
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.