Contact
I'm always glad to hear from people who read the site.
If you're interested in talking to me for whatever reason, please feel free to contact me using the Contact form above or directly at lar@wezen-ball.com.
Oh, and don't forget, you can always use the Forums!
Bloguin Baseball Debate
Baseball Bloggers Alliance
Online Flowers Shop for your flowers online at the Online Flowers shop
Party Bets Wanna make baseball a tad more exciting? Check out Party Bets. They have some of the largest online sports betting rooms online. Plus you can just play for fun instead of cash.
Sports Interaction Baseball Fans! Sports Interaction is the best sport betting site on the web to bet on MLB, and if you feel a little adventourous why not try some World Cup betting this year!
|
|
Written by Larry Granillo
|
|
Thursday, 04 December 2008 22:44 |
Well, I'll say it: if you aren't reading Joe Posnanski's blog every day, or buying his book, then you are missing the best sports writing there is. I don't think I'm more excited to see a post show up in my RSS reader than I am when I see a new post from Joe.
Yesterday, Joe posted 4,400 words exploring the make-up of the Hall of Fame, trying to walk us (and himself) through its 75 year history, to see if we can get a handle on what it truly is, and not just what it claims to be. The post is informative, well-written, and thought provoking. I highly recommend it.
As good as the post is, though, the comments are just as good, with people chiming in on what makes the Hall special and why certain people were inducted when others weren't. Reading through the comments, I came across this one from Brent, who is apparently a big fan of second basemen in general. He asks this question:
I think 2B is a hard position for the Hall to judge. The only two recent (if the early 80s are recent) are Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandberg (and the dubious inclusion of Rod Carew as a 2Bman). Why is that? Let me propose two possible reasons. The two reasons he proposes are sensible, and boil down to this: second basemen, due to the unique nature of the base on the field and due to the physical toll one takes turning double plays and the like, play much fewer games than players at other positions. So, when the Hall comes along, their counting stats are inferior to those of other positions, leaving them in the cold.
It seemed like a good theory to me, so I went looking at the data to prove it. For each defensive position on the field, I found everybody who played 1000 games at the given position (it seemed like a decent threshold for a “long-time” player), and then I found the average total games that those players played (for example, Cal Ripken would be on the "SS with 1000+ games" list, but his games at SS and 3B would be added into the average total games, since it shows how long he was able to play the game). I also ran the list for players who played 1200 games at a given position, to try to limit it to longer tenured players. This is the data that I came up with:
………………MIN: 1000 G ……………………MIN: 1200 G ………………#……………Avg Games………………#…………Avg Games C……………109………1406.83……………………67………1576.25 1B…………125………1709.25……………………92………1823.05 2B…………107………1623.43……………………72………1748 SS…………120………1716.86……………………90………1862 3B…………100………1667.15……………………67………1825.64 OF…………424………1583.91……………………288……1754.27 DH…………8……………2181.38……………………5…………2237.6
Taking a quick look at the counts, it seems that the 1200-G group might be the better dataset. The count of players at the infield positions stay pretty steady between the two datasets, but the outfield count seems a little high in the 1000-G group. We would expect the ratio of outfielders to, say, first basemen to be about 3:1, since there are three outfield spots. In the 1000-G group, however, the ratio is a little more extreme. The ratio in the 1200-G group is much closer to our expectations.
Now to look at the games played by position player: Catchers play the fewest games in their career, by far, with more than a season's worth of fewer games played than the next lowest position in each dataset. Besides catchers, the next lowest position is inconsistent between the two, with outfielders taking that ranking in the 1000-G group and second-basemen taking that ranking in the 1200-G group. But we've already established that the 1200-G group is likely the better dataset, so we'll use that. And it does show us that second-basemen play the fewest career games outside of catchers. Outfielders are very close behind, though.
The count of players at each position is also an interesting datapoint. In both groups, the third-basemen give us the least number of players with the qualifying number of games. Does this tell us something about the demands of the position, or is it more a comment on the types of players who play that position (eg, are they more injury prone, etc)? In both groups, however, the count of second basemen is at the bottom of the list.
With the shortest average career besides catcher, and with the fewest number of players even able to play that long, I think it's pretty clear that there's something about the second base position that keeps players from having long careers. Whether its for the reasons Brent brings up - not able to switch to another position, the physicality of turning the double play - or some other reason, I can't really say, but I believe that there's something there.
One final note about the numbers: in both groups, shortstops have both the longest careers and the (second-) most players making the list. I haven't investigated this further to prove this suspicion, but I suspect that this is because both high-offense and high-defense shortstops can hang around for a long time, either as a bopper at another position (Banks, Cal) or as a defensive specialist whose offense can be overlooked (Ozzie, Vizquel). It's good to be the shortstop.
 |
|
About Me
What's with the name? "Wezen" is the name of a star in the constellation Canis Major ("The Great Dog"). It's the star that marks the, ahem, point where the dog's tail meets its hindlegs. It's a name that I've always liked the sound of and so I used it around the internet.
When I started this blog, I didn't expect to put a lot of time into it, so I just gave it the first name I could think of. Now I like it, no matter how strange it may sound, and I just love how the new banner and background make use of it.
What's the site about? There is no real, overriding philosophy guiding the posts here at Wezen-Ball.com. Instead, it's just a place for me to write about what I find interesting in the baseball world. Sometimes that means it'll be original statistical research that I've been working on or some other opinions that I might have. Usually, though, I'll be writing about how a certain player, team, or event from the past was viewed through contemporary accounts.
I do this mostly through the use of my collection of annual baseball preview magazines or other resources available online. So, whether it's looking back to see if Jim Rice was truly "feared"by the people who saw him play, or it's looking back to see how Greg Maddux was viewed early in his career, or if it's just looking back to see what people predicted baseball would be like in the year 2000 (from 1981), you'll find it here.
|