Top 32 tournament C Carter vs Cochrane

[calsnowskier]

For the record, I STILL think it is a close one. Carter never got an MVP while Cochrane got 2. That is pretty big.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I know you werent trying to get me to change my vote. But your arguments were solid. I am not so stuck in my initial findings that they cannot be swayed by good points.

That's why these threads are NOT a waste of time.

yea, that whole thing with beengay was kind of funny... He does realize fantasy is all stats based... and what we are doing here is an experiment to understand stats better... or at least the stats YOU see in evaluating players... Evaluations don't change only time does...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

For the record, I STILL think it is a close one. Carter never got an MVP while Cochrane got 2. That is pretty big.

Yes it is, but I really do think MVPs pre 1960 are tainted a little due to lack of competition... And it seemed like the Voters went a little crazy for against the norm players at a position... Look at Cochrane's numbers as the MVP they were not quite MVP... Heine Manush had a better season in 1928... and he only had a 840 OPS in 1934... He beat out some players who clearly had the better season...

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes it is, but I really do think MVPs pre 1960 are tainted a little due to lack of competition... And it seemed like the Voters went a little crazy for against the norm players at a position... Look at Cochrane's numbers as the MVP they were not quite MVP... Heine Manush had a better season in 1928... and he only had a 840 OPS in 1934... He beat out some players who clearly had the better season...

So maybe he was very dominant at D or he was a "staff manager" for the pitchers...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So maybe he was very dominant at D or he was a "staff manager" for the pitchers...

See, we have no clue... And that is really annoying... We have clearly not seen these players play... We can only base it on the stats we are given(I guess)... He was consistently a good defensive catcher... Don't see anything that ever said he was great defensively...

 

[calsnowskier]

Precisely why I completely disregarded pre-1900 players.

But if we KNOW Carter was elite defensively, and the bats were very comparable, Without knowing exactly where Cochrane falls defensively, we are stuck in a very precarious position.

There are fewer variables with Carter than with Cochrane. I dont like leaving the MVPs on the table, but we need to move forward.

 

[Howie115]

OPS+ favors Cochrane, despite considerably less home run power than Carter. Cochrane with two MVP awards (Carter with a 2nd and a 3rd), and Cochrane played in five World Series. It comes down to whether you put dWAR and longevity ahead of OPS+ and MVP seasons. Tougher than a 10 & 2 battle should be, for sure.

 

[calsnowskier]

OPS+ favors Cochrane, despite considerably less home run power than Carter. Cochrane with two MVP awards (Carter with a 2nd and a 3rd), and Cochrane played in five World Series. It comes down to whether you put dWAR and longevity ahead of OPS+ and MVP seasons. Tougher than a 10 & 2 battle should be, for sure.

I disregard the longevity argument because those are "tag-on years". But all your other points are exactly why this is a tough one.

 

[Cedrique]

This is a real interesting one. I went with Carter, but it is very close. If you want to disregard longevity I think you can cap Carter's career at 1986 and Cochrane's at 1935. (Although he was still putting up some really good hitting numbers in a limited role in 1936-37. I wonder if he could have played on a couple more years as a leftfielder or first baseman or something). Both were very good hitters with a slight edge to Cochrane (I didn't do the math but I know if you eliminated the last 2,000 plate appearances where Carter was kind of hanging on his overall numbers would improve). I gave the edge in defense to Carter. I can understand not trusting defensive stats from 100 years ago but I did see Carter play and I believe his high defensive ratings are legitimate, so I gave him the nod in a close one.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I disregard the longevity argument because those are "tag-on years". But all your other points are exactly why this is a tough one.

that is another debate... I like the way I do my analysis when it comes to longevity... I do agree tag-on-years are not what the player is about... BUT when there ratios are close AND the player has played significantly longer, then I always give the edge to the player with the longevity...

 

[calsnowskier]

But Cochrane has the better OPS+ buckets, in fewer years. Carter was at about 85 OPS+ for his later years. That is BAD!

Comparing rates between eras is completely useless, IMHO.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But Cochrane has the better OPS+ buckets, in fewer years. Carter was at about 85 OPS+ for his later years. That is BAD!

Comparing rates between eras is completely useless, IMHO.

oWAR7-
Cochrane-(6.4,5.5,5.4,5.3,5.1,4.7,4.3)=36.7
Carter-(6.8,6.4,5.8,5.4,5.0,4.4,4.2)=38

Although very close Carter's oWAR7 is higher... so...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

But Cochrane has the better OPS+ buckets, in fewer years. Carter was at about 85 OPS+ for his later years. That is BAD!

Comparing rates between eras is completely useless, IMHO.

I would agree, if you just blindly take rate stats and just say Player A has better Rate stats than player B... But you know that is not what I am doing...

I personally am not a fan of any adjusted stat...

 

[Cedrique]

But Cochrane has the better OPS+ buckets, in fewer years. Carter was at about 85 OPS+ for his later years. That is BAD!

Comparing rates between eras is completely useless, IMHO.

I agree it is hard to compare rates in different eras but I love looking at the stats from the older players because of the story they tell. Look at the "SH" column for Cochrane. Up through 1930 a great hitter like Cochrane is sacrificing about 21 times a year, then after that suddenly he and most of the other players are only sacrificing 3 or 4 times a year. It's like Connie Mack changed his whole philosophy after seeing Jimmy Foxx and Al Simmons start to put up some big HR totals. And once Cochrane stopped sacrificing so much his walk totals and OBP got even better than they already were.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I agree it is hard to compare rates in different eras but I love looking at the stats from the older players because of the story they tell. Look at the "SH" column for Cochrane. Up through 1930 a great hitter like Cochrane is sacrificing about 21 times a year, then after that suddenly he and most of the other players are only sacrificing 3 or 4 times a year. It's like Connie Mack changed his whole philosophy after seeing Jimmy Foxx and Al Simmons start to put up some big HR totals. And once Cochrane stopped sacrificing so much his walk totals and OBP got even better than they already were.

There's something else at play there though. Up until 1931 sacrifice flies were lumped together with sacrifice bunts, but they were eliminated entirely after the 1930 season and not counted at all for the remainder of Cochrane's career. He wasn't sac bunting less, his sac flies were being counted as regular outs rather than sacrifices.

 

[Cedrique]

There's something else at play there though. Up until 1931 sacrifice flies were lumped together with sacrifice bunts, but they were eliminated entirely after the 1930 season and not counted at all for the remainder of Cochrane's career. He wasn't sac bunting less, his sac flies were being counted as regular outs rather than sacrifices.

Thanks! I was wondering about that, and I looked at some other teams and they all started sacrificing way less at that time too. I was thinking maybe that in 1931 they started differentiating between sacrifice bunts and bunting for a base hit, but now with the information you just gave me it makes more sense. That would explain why Babe Ruth had 21 SH's in 1930 and 0 the rest of his career. I have seen players show big changes in SHs after the 1930s but usually it can be explained by a manager change so I was starting to question my theory with Cochrane and the Athletics since they had the same manager for 50 years.

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. I still love looking at the old stats to figure out the story, even though my story turned out to be wrong in this case

 

[wood20ks]

Wow...

It has already been 4 years since Carters death. It seems like that was just a few months ago.

Amazing.

I never knew he passed...... Where have I been.