O's Alltime Team Simulation

[DrungoHazewood]

Another extinct type is the Luke Appling family of hitters.  Guys who wouldn't usually swing hard, but instead would foul off a lot of pitches, work the count, and eventually hit a Texas Leaguer or a little line drive for a single.  They could hit .300, Appling once hit .388.  He once had a year where he had one homer and 122 walks.  Another with 16 doubles, no homers, and 105 walks. 

Chone Figgins in 2009 is the only person this century to have as few as five homers and 100+ walks. In 1949 there were five such players, with just 16 teams.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another extinct type is the Luke Appling family of hitters.  Guys who wouldn't usually swing hard, but instead would foul off a lot of pitches, work the count, and eventually hit a Texas Leaguer or a little line drive for a single.  They could hit .300, Appling once hit .388.  He once had a year where he had one homer and 122 walks.  Another with 16 doubles, no homers, and 105 walks. 

Chone Figgins in 2009 is the only person this century to have as few as five homers and 100+ walks. In 1949 there were five such players, with just 16 teams.

Wasn't a lot of that due to a higher walk rate in general?

[DrungoHazewood]

One type of player that's gone extinct in the last 20-25 years is the Swingman.  The guy who'd pitch in 42 games, 12 starts.  And he'd start twice a month.  You still have players with that line, but because they pitch out of the pen for three months, then pitch two months in the rotation.  But it's very rare today to have a 1982 Sammy Stewart who had appearances on 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 22 days rest.  He started 12 times and relieved in another 26. And in his career he pitched 31 games where he relieved and went at least five innings.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Wasn't a lot of that due to a higher walk rate in general?

In the late 40s and early 50s walks crept up to around four per nine, but for much of the last century walk rates have been relatively constant at closer to three per nine.  The walk rate in the 1920s is almost indistinguishable from the walk rate in the 2010s or the 1960s.

[Frobby]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another extinct class of player, the first base defensive replacement.  Back before relievers took over the roster you have teams carry Mike Squires or Dave Stapleton all year just to play first in the 8th and 9th innings of games they were ahead.

We should have a whole thread on extinct baseball player types.  I think that would be fun, everyone else probably thinks I'm a little nuts.

The O’s had a guy named Tony Muser in the mid-70’s who fit that description.    In ‘75 he played 62 games for us at 1B, only 14 as a starter.   In ‘77 he played 77 games at 1B, 11 as a starter.    

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, Frobby said:

The O’s had a guy named Tony Muser in the mid-70’s who fit that description.    In ‘75 he played 62 games for us at 1B, only 14 as a starter.   In ‘77 he played 77 games at 1B, 11 as a starter.    

I'm all for role players providing niche value, but a tremendous defensive first baseman playing all day every day might not be +15 runs on defense. 

Here's the numbers, over the last five years the spread in defensive value at first (bb-ref) is from a max of +18 to a min of -14.  Converting that to 75 games, three innings a game...  that's 15% of a season, which means you'd be saving a theoretical maximum of five runs.  Half a win (at the very max) seems like quite a stretch to devote a roster spot to.  Although that's probably comparable to a random LOOGY.

[DrungoHazewood]

AL pinch hitters in general are not extinct, but at least on the endangered species list. 

From 1960-69 there were 52 instances of someone in the AL pinch hitting/running 50+ times in a season.  And that was with between eight and 12 teams.

From 2010-190 there were... zero.  When I cut the limit to 40 or more games we get four guys in the 2010s.  Nine with 40+ in the 2000-09 period.  29 in the 90s.  42 in the 80s.  And 34 in just the '73-79 DH period. 

So it wasn't the DH that killed pinch hitting. That has some effect, but it was more relievers crowding out dedicated hitters like Crowley and Jim Dwyer.

Brings me to mind of an old observation by Bill James that the DH increased strategy.  In the 1970s AL teams still pinch hit, just not all of them equally.  They went from a situation where they'd auto-pinch hit for the pitcher and mostly save their PHers for that, to a situation where they structured the roster so they could have multiple pinch hitters for guys like Mark Belanger and Lenn Sakata.  So there was a difference of opinion on how to employ (or not employ) PHers.    When you have different managers using different tactics that's strategy.  When you have everyone automatically pinch hitting for the pitcher that's a robot.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

16 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another extinct type is the Luke Appling family of hitters.  Guys who wouldn't usually swing hard, but instead would foul off a lot of pitches, work the count, and eventually hit a Texas Leaguer or a little line drive for a single.  They could hit .300, Appling once hit .388.  He once had a year where he had one homer and 122 walks.  Another with 16 doubles, no homers, and 105 walks. 

Chone Figgins in 2009 is the only person this century to have as few as five homers and 100+ walks. In 1949 there were five such players, with just 16 teams.

I would rather watch a player like Luke Appling hitting .300 with high OBP over a .240 hitter with 35 home runs and 180 strikeouts. 

[DrungoHazewood]

35 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

I would rather watch a player like Luke Appling hitting .300 with high OBP over a .240 hitter with 35 home runs and 180 strikeouts. 

I think a sport is healthiest where there are competing strategies that can each come out on top.  That's one reason the 1980s are sometimes looked fondly on.  You had people hitting almost 50 homers, you had Rickey steal 130 bases, you had Clemens and Gooden come up but also McGwire and Canseco.  The 1982 World Series with the Cardinals (67 homers, 200 steals) against the Brewers (216 homers, 84 steals).

But the world tends to gravitate towards what are seen as optimal solutions.  Outliers are sanded off.  And today analysis shows pretty clearly that power and strikeouts win more games than speed and contact.  It's up to the powers-that-be to incentivize what is seen as inefficient. And in baseball the powers-that-be are very, very reluctant to step in.

[LA2]

19 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

One type of player that's gone extinct in the last 20-25 years is the Swingman.  The guy who'd pitch in 42 games, 12 starts.  And he'd start twice a month.  You still have players with that line, but because they pitch out of the pen for three months, then pitch two months in the rotation.  But it's very rare today to have a 1982 Sammy Stewart who had appearances on 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 22 days rest.  He started 12 times and relieved in another 26. And in his career he pitched 31 games where he relieved and went at least five innings.

 

I remember that, at certain points in their careers, Bill Monbouquette (played 1958-68) and Lee Stange (1961-70) were effective swingmen, although I'm too lazy too look up the numbers of days rested. I think the O's tried it with Gene Brabender in 1968.

[LA2]

20 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Another extinct type is the Luke Appling family of hitters.  Guys who wouldn't usually swing hard, but instead would foul off a lot of pitches, work the count, and eventually hit a Texas Leaguer or a little line drive for a single.  They could hit .300, Appling once hit .388.  He once had a year where he had one homer and 122 walks.  Another with 16 doubles, no homers, and 105 walks. 

Chone Figgins in 2009 is the only person this century to have as few as five homers and 100+ walks. In 1949 there were five such players, with just 16 teams.

Fun post. I immediately thought, Yeah, there were more players like that, actual regulars, when I first started following in 1965. Names that came to mind were Manny Mota (Pirates), Vic Davalillo (Indians), and Russ Snyder (Orioles). But a surprising difference is that they didn't have high walk figures, unlike Appling and Figgins. There were actually closer to someone like Juan Pierre (played 2000-13) who hit a lot of singles and didn't walk much. But Pierre also stole a lot of bases, which Mota didn't (career high: 11 SBs) Snyder only once (18 in '63), and Davalillo intermittently (3 times in top AL 10 during a 16-yr career). (Snyder also had defensive value.) All three eventually did a lot of pinchhitting, at which Mota excelled, Davalillo was overrated (career: .259 BA), and Snyder stunk at despite many ABs (282 ABs; .177/.266/.248/.514).

P.S. Researching those pinchhitting stats I came across a surprising fact: I had always remembered Terry Crowley as being a more reliable pinchhitter than starter, but his PH OPS is lower than his overall OPS. Looking at his power numbers, it may be because he was trying to cut back on his swing and just get a single more than when he started.)

[atomic]

On 4/20/2020 at 3:23 PM, El Gordo said:

Mainly, why is Blair not in CF? No problem with Boog in LF.  Alomar was the best 2B to play for the O's even if it was only 3 years. Sure would want Raffy's bat in the lineup, but if not DH would you play him over Eddie at 1B? He won the GG at DH. If you replace O'Day with Hoyt, as I would, then I'll take Gus at C.

Grich was better than Alomar.  And if you are including players that only played for a few years how about Reggie Jackson and Don Baylor?

[DrungoHazewood]

47 minutes ago, LA2 said:

I remember that, at certain points in their careers, Bill Monbouquette (played 1958-68) and Lee Stange (1961-70) were effective swingmen, although I'm too lazy too look up the numbers of days rested. I think the O's tried it with Gene Brabender in 1968.

Oooohh.... just reminded me of another extinct pitcher type: the Sunday starter.  This predates me, and I don't know that I can come up with an example off-hand.  But it used to be that teams would have an older starter who couldn't really handle being in the regular rotation any more.  So they'd keep him around and he'd start once a week, often on a Sunday, maybe in a doubleheader that would otherwise mess up the rotation (not that managers cared much about regular rest prior to 1960). 

Another casualty of teams actually trying to get something productive out of every roster spot, instead of keeping a pinch runner, a third catcher, a Sunday starter, Moe Berg, a defense-only first baseman... and really only regularly playing with 15 guys.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, LA2 said:

P.S. Researching those pinchhitting stats I came across a surprising fact: I had always remembered Terry Crowley as being a more reliable pinchhitter than starter, but his PH OPS is lower than his overall OPS. Looking at his power numbers, it may be because he was trying to cut back on his swing and just get a single more than when he started.)

It's the pinch hitting penalty.  Related to the DH penalty.  Of course there are exceptions, but in general everyone loses about 0.024 points of wOBA (which is roughly, what, 0.075 in OPS terms?) pinch hitting and something like half or a third of that DHing.  For whatever reason (and I'm sure people will have no problem speculating) players hit better when they're also playing the field, and especially when they're not hitting cold.

[LA2]

27 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's the pinch hitting penalty.  Related to the DH penalty.  Of course there are exceptions, but in general everyone loses about 0.024 points of wOBA (which is roughly, what, 0.075 in OPS terms?) pinch hitting and something like half or a third of that DHing.  For whatever reason (and I'm sure people will have no problem speculating) players hit better when they're also playing the field, and especially when they're not hitting cold.

When I awoke to baseball in the mid-1960s, the famous pinchhitters were Smokey Burgess (White Sox at the time), Charlie Lau (the O's), and Gates Brown (Tigers). Other dangerous mid-game subs included Dalton Jones (Red Sox) and Jim Davenport (Giants). But only Brown's stats--consistent with the memories of Tigers fans I know--clearly show a superiority in that role over non-pinchhitting or non-starting performance. Jones and Davenport show some marginal improvement and Lau and Burgess, a respected Pirates catcher during his peak, actually show a slight reverse.

Bob Johnson used to be a mediocre pinchhitter/substitute infielder for the mid-60's O's and then went to the Mets in 1967 and somehow hit .348 in 230 ABs.