Top 32 tournament SS Yount vs Stephens

[calsnowskier]

Stephens had a power advantage.

Young had a speed advantage.

Beyond that it was originally name recognition.

I do not equate steals to power. Power is much more important, IMHO.

That said, in the featured time frame, Yount was 142 for 202. For a base stealer to really add value, he should be closer to 75% than 66%. Every caught stealing removes a base runner completely. A successful swipe only advances a runner. The neg is MUCH worse than the benefit.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I do not equate steals to power. Power is much more important, IMHO.

That said, in the featured time frame, Yount was 142 for 202. For a base stealer to really add value, he should be closer to 75% than 66%. Every caught stealing removes a base runner completely. A successful swipe only advances a runner. The neg is MUCH worse than the benefit.

Cal, you seem to be a letter of the law type while I tend to be more liberal with the rules in something like this. While neither of these are right or wrong every time, I believe you are right and I am wrong on this one. So I decided to man up, admit I was wrong, and change my vote.

The more I thought about this one, the more I realized my arguments were weak.

 

[calsnowskier]

Cal, you seem to be a letter of the law type while I tend to be more liberal with the rules in something like this. While neither of these are right or wrong every time, I believe you are right and I am wrong on this one. So I decided to man up, admit I was wrong, and change my vote.

The more I thought about this one, the more I realized my arguments were weak.

By "letter of the law" do you mean mean sticking to his SS years? If not...


What you talkin' 'bout Willis?

 

[obxyankeefan]

Yes sticking to the years they played the position that is up.

 

[Nosferatu]

OBX, how are ties decided?

 

[obxyankeefan]

OBX, how are ties decided?

higher seed

 

[Nosferatu]

higher seed

We need another vote here!

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes sticking to the years they played the position that is up.

Gotcha.

Yea, I guess I am kinda "letter of the law" then. I just don't know why we would count a CFer as a SS. That don't make sense to me.

 

[navamind]

His 1948-1950 season numbers were possibly inflated because offense was much higher in those years..

In 1948-1950, run scoring was 16% higher than in 1943-1945, total home runs were 81% higher (not a typo), and the league OPS was 8% higher.

Stephens' counting stats probably benefitted from batting in a strong Sox lineup (partially aided by Fenway, which was an extreme hitters park). For instance, the 1950 Sox batted .302/.380/.464 as a team and scored over 1000 runs... in a 154 game season. And yet, they "only" had a team OPS+ of 108. Still quite good, but by no means historically good.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Go look at his numbers his 1948, 1949, 1950 were arguably his best seasons.

They were his best RBI seasons. But he also batted behind the guy who led the league in OBP in all 3 seasons.

 

[calsnowskier]

They were his best RBI seasons. But he also batted behind the guy who led the league in OBP in all 3 seasons.

Well, isn't it required for there to be men on base to get lots of RsBI?

One of the reasons RBI is a window-dressing stat these days.