< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 350 OF 485 ·
|Feb-09-12|| ||keypusher: <Bill James' book on the Hall of Fame named a lot of guys he thought were marginal electees at best. I don't remember if Lindstrom was one of them.>|
Yes, as I recall Lindstrom was one of his candidates for "worst player in the Hall of Fame."
<Jim Bartle> I'd be interested in hearing you describe how Cowens played. I remember Parish very well, but not Cowens. He drove a cab for a while?
|Feb-09-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Dave Cowens was only 6-9 but strong and fast, and a real banger. He played super, super hard, really intense. |
He was a good defender and rebounder, could handle bigger guys more or less. And he was one of the first centers who could pop out and hit a 15-to18 foot jumper consistently.
He was clearly better than any center in the league today except Dwight Howard. He, Barry and McAdoo were probably the best players in the league the three or four years before the ABA teams joined.
Cowens had a really good game seven of the 74 finals when the Celts beat Milwaukee. He scored 25 points or so and got lots of rebounding, playing Kareem at least even. Which of course was a huge advantage for Boston.
|Feb-09-12|| ||King Death: <Jim Bartle> Cowens was small even then for a center but like you say he played a physical game and today he'd be a monster at power forward, I don't think there's any coach that would try him in the middle.|
|Feb-09-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I looked and found a scan of the box score for game 7 in 1974. May 12! The finals end in June now:|
Cowens' stats were better than Kareem's, though Kareem averaged 32 for the series.
And the Celts won despite a 6 for 20 from Havlicek, who was the series MVP. Then again Oscar Robertson went 2 for 13 which didn't help. Robertson really wasn't such a great player when he went to the Bucks in 1970, and was really faded by 1974. But through the 60s the guy was just great, on a par with Magic or West.
|Feb-09-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I do wonder if Cowens could play center today. I think he could, but I might be dreaming. The closest to him today might be Garnett, and not because they're both Celts. But he was never the big scoring threat Garnett was in his prime. Maybe you could compare him to Stoudemire.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||WannaBe: News: Lakers won on the road, at TD Garden over Boston.|
Reaction: In 4 qtrs and OT, Lakers, as a team had 13 assists, that is correct, thir-teen.
Magic Johnson would have had that by the end of first quarter...
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: <WannaBe> The Lakers "point guard" Fisher had a great line, 0-7 from the field and 2 of those assists. That lineup is a mess after trading Lamar Odom for basically nothing. No real point guard and they're a little small plus their main man has knees that won't last forever. These aren't the teams that met two years ago in the Finals that's for sure.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I think the Lakers would be worse if they'd gotten Paul and given up Pau. (And Odom.) I just don't see how you can win with an all-World backcourt and hardly any strength up front. They would have ended up with the inconsistent and oft-injured Bynum and little more in the frontcourt. Somebody has to defend and rebound, and present some sort of offensive threat inside, or the team is simply not going to win.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||keypusher: Thanks, Jim, that was fascinating. Funny that Cowens got only two free throws to go with his 25 shots in that Game 7!|
Wasn't Olajuwon only 6'9"?
<Now only 5,000 or so more points to go to overtake Havlicek.>
If you'd asked me who the all-time Celtic leading scorer was, I would have said Bird in a heartbeat. Or Russell -- he was a low scorer compared only to Wilt. Shows how much I know.
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: <Jim Bartle> In the short run I agree that the Lakers would have been in worse shape if they traded for Paul. That's an even smaller lineup and they'd have gotten pushed around. The only forwards they'd have had then would've been off waivers. If Bynum could stay healthy for a whole season that would help. The team they have now isn't going anywhere, they may be one and done this spring.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||WannaBe: <Jim Bartle: ... Somebody has to defend and rebound, and ...>|
What, are you nuts, this is the NBA!! Not Duke! =)
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I happened to watch Golden State vs. Denver last night, and with the exception of some play by Nene the game was played almost entirely on the outside. No toughness at all, just running up and down the court and hoisting up bombs. Of course neither of those teams is going to get very far.|
|Feb-10-12|| ||drukenknight: Hello baseball fans...They've run the numbers on Brock over on the website and yes in terms of statistics and career value, he does come up a little short. As mentioned previous; stat geeks, sabermetricians, etc. tend to undervalue: Peak value (e.g. John Tudor or Randy Lerch for a couple years were real tough); Fame (Maris is of course famous but they dont care for him at all; Jack Morris will be the next test) Defense (measurements are still in infancy); Park effects (Mazeroski in Forbes; Goose Goslin in Griffith were robbed of HR), LIvely ball/dead ball eras (they understand it, but they are still in awe of Arky Vaughn and dont appreciate like guys like Ray Schalk)...|
If you go there a glossary of terms is useful. I'll give you a starting pt. so you wont freak:
ERA+ and various + stats are measure relative to the league. 100 being average a 120+ ERA being well above average.
Runs against Replacement (and various "replacement" formulas) is how much offensive contribution this guy made vs getting a replacement from AAA to sub in. It's typical when talking all stars and greatness. 7 games above replacement during a season is like MVP; 10 games would be like 1927 Babe Ruth. 80 wins (whether hitting or pitching) is in the neighborhood of Hall of Fame.. It's subtle distinction because if instead you measure vs the league you get different answers, because like good fielding SS might be easier to find in AAA..Very subtle
OPS. I think this an offensive measurement of which combines OBP and slugging. Good for overall offensive measure instead of RBIs; or just slugg. or just bat avg. OPS+ would be this same stat vs the league avg. thus a very good broad offensive tool.
BABIP. A new one; someone figured out that batted balls land for his 30% of the time; a CONSTANT throughout history, parks etc. Therefore if some one is at .350 babip he's just lucky and overrared, if someone's BABIP was .275 in Portland he's due for a breakout, get it?
This will get you started; and happy to help you wade through that morass.
|Feb-10-12|| ||drukenknight: that should be "land for hits" above. Remember it's not batting avg. its how many fly balls, ground balls, line drives, bunts, land for hits. The rate is constant through history so it's very interesting way to tell if someone has just been lucky last couple months or is really having a breakout year for example..|
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I'm going to guess that BABIP means "batting average balls in play." Guys who strike out a lot must just love it. |
Years ago I remember Will Clark had some ridiculously high average when not striking out.
Somehow that reminds me of an article I read saying a guy hit .350 on the first pitch, so he really should swing at the first pitch more.
That just seemed so silly for a couple of reasons: if you swing and miss it doesn't count, and of course it's .350 only on pitches the guy likes--he can let tough ones go by.
|Feb-10-12|| ||OhioChessFan: <BABIP. A new one; someone figured out that batted balls land for his 30% of the time; a CONSTANT throughout history, parks etc. Therefore if some one is at .350 babip he's just lucky and overrared, if someone's BABIP was .275 in Portland he's due for a breakout, get it? >|
I'm going to look up Rod Carew. I have memories of him being the luckiest hitter ever.
|Feb-10-12|| ||WannaBe: BABIP = Bishop Against Bishop Isolated Pawn|
|Feb-10-12|| ||YouRang: <drukenknight> Re: BABIP |
<Remember it's not batting avg. its how many fly balls, ground balls, line drives, bunts, land for hits. The rate is constant through history so it's very interesting way to tell if someone has just been lucky last couple months or is really having a breakout year for example..>
Hmmm. It may be constant from year to year or park to park, but I have my doubts that it's a constant from player to player.
There are different ways to put the ball in play, for example:
Type A: line drives and sharp grounders, etc.
Type B: pop ups, rollers and lazy fly balls, etc.
I suspect that that the good hitters have a higher [Type A/Type B] ratio than the lesser hitters, and that the Type A balls end up being hits more than the Type B balls.
Or am I misuderstanding something?
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Yeah, that Carew, the balls he hit somehow falling in. Same with, you know, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, Pete Rose...|
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Continuing my complaining about this year's NBA schedule, Lakers played Boston last night. Great, exciting, big event.|
And then tonight, vs. Knicks in New York. Should be huge, great game. Lakers getting crunched at halftime (this guy Lin has 18), it's tough to play in two cities in two nights.
|Feb-10-12|| ||WannaBe: <JB> Playing back-to-back games are (or should I use 'is'? Grammar/noun/verb agreement have always been difficult for me) not new, but with a lockout/strike shortened season, it's the back-back-back games that kills a team.|
But I think each team in the NBA have only one b-b-b games. But they may have more b-b games, e.g. b-b rest b-b.
And some of these b-b games are like Lakers host Golden State, and then play @ Clippers, or Mavs play @Houston and then @San Antonio, not really a long flight...
|Feb-10-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I still don't think the Lakers should have to play Boston and New York on consecutive nights.|
Bryant now 1 for 8, and Fisher tried two straight three-pointers, the first barely touching the rim, the second hitting the edge of the backboard from the side.
|Feb-10-12|| ||WannaBe: <JB> I guess that is why the play-offs are so much more 'interesting', guaranteed a day off between games. |
I'm watching the game on espn3.com and Lakers are still hangin' in there, 54-46 6:23 left in the 3rd qtr.
Spike Lee is going nuts on the sideline, and Ron Artest (World Peace) just got into some foul trouble.
|Feb-10-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <WannaBe> It is not new to play back-to-back games.|
I looked up BABIP on Wikipedia. They're usually pretty good at explaining stuff like this:
It seems that the exact formula for BABIP is:
I guess home runs are excluded because the ball is not "in play", but I don't know how inside-the-park home runs are accounted for. Maybe they're rare enough to be ignored. And I can understand why sacrifice flies get counted; they aren't an at bat, but the ball is "in play". But why not sacrifice bunts?
It looks like the idea is to use BABIP as a benchmark which can judge a player's performance independent of era, ballpark, or style of hitter because the baseline figure is constant.
In judging a player's performance, what is significant are not scattered seasons above or below the line, but a consistent performance. Rod Carew, for instance, was .358 lifetime, with a low of .309, so the argument is that he was a consistently good hitter rather than lucky or fluky. Thank goodness. We'd have never known that otherwise.
But there's some counterintuitivity involved. Like <JB>, I figured that players who struck out a lot would also strike out on the BABIP. Not so--striking out a lot actually raises your number!
For example, take a player with 600 ABs, 180 hits (.300 batting average), and 20 HRs. Watch what happens to his BABIP as the strikeouts increase:
BABIP also discounts home run hitters. Ted Williams had a higher lifetime batting average than Carew, but his BABIP was thirty points lower due to the home runs.
Here's the chart again, but this time we'll keep the strikouts consistent at 75 and increase the home runs:
That doesn't seem right, and perhaps not even meaningful. But I suppose a real saber-toothed mathematician would be able to do a better job of justifying it.
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: <Phony Benoni> The function BABIP seems to skew the numbers because almost all power hitters will strike out more than players with less power, the Ozzie Guillen or Alfredo Griffin kind of player that has no power and doesn't walk must get killed in BABIP, even though both of these players had long careers. Griffin had a career number for OPS+ of 67 and Guillen was 69.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 350 OF 485 ·