Brian Giles retires

[mweb]

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=4986126

Very underrated player imo.

Finishes his career with a .400 OBP and a .502 SLG. 136 OPS+ which is good for tied for 95th ever along with Griffey among others. Had 4 straight years of a 150 or better OPS+ with at least 35 hr's.

This is a guy who is has just as much career value as Jim Rice with over 1,000 less PA's, yet he likely won't even stay on the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

[Lucky Jim]

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=4986126

Very underrated player imo.

Finishes his career with a .400 OBP and a .502 SLG. 136 OPS+ which is good for tied for 95th ever along with Griffey among others. Had 4 straight years of a 150 or better OPS+ with at least 35 hr's.

This is a guy who is has just as much career value as Jim Rice with over 1,000 less PA's, yet he likely won't even stay on the ballot after his first year of eligibility.

I think he'll be chalked up to being a good player but a product of the steroids era. Kind of like guys who put up great years during WWII.

[mweb]

I think he'll be chalked up to being a good player but a product of the steroids era. Kind of like guys who put up great years during WWII.

Eh, I don't even think people will give it that much consideration.

To be clear, I don't think he should make the HOF, just as I didn't think Rice should make it. Simply pointing out that the players had similar career value's while both playing corner OF, yet the votes will not reflect that at all.

[Lucky Jim]

Eh, I don't even think people will give it that much consideration.

To be clear, I don't think he should make the HOF, just as I didn't think Rice should make it. Simply pointing out that the players had similar career value's while both playing corner OF, yet the votes will not reflect that at all.

Perhaps, if you hold it to a single metric that measures (albeit correctly) OBP as the equal of slugging. That wasn't really the case when Rice played - and I always wonder what kind of difference that makes. Baseball-Reference's HOF metrics kind of highlight the differences between the two players. It pins Rice as a "just in" guy, and Giles as a "solidly out" guy. I can't say I disagree, though Giles won't last on the ballot as long as he should.

[mweb]

Perhaps, if you hold it to a single metric that measures (albeit correctly) OBP as the equal of slugging. That wasn't really the case when Rice played - and I always wonder what kind of difference that makes. Baseball-Reference's HOF metrics kind of highlight the differences between the two players. It pins Rice as a "just in" guy, and Giles as a "solidly out" guy. I can't say I disagree, though Giles won't last on the ballot as long as he should.

When I say value, I mean career WAR.

Yes, the voters don't focus on all the right things, that is my main point here.

[mweb]

BTW, Rice and Giles have an identical career SLG.

[Lucky Jim]

When I say value, I mean career WAR.

Yes, the voters don't focus on all the right things, that is my main point here.

At the same time, while the current metrics might be more accurate in terms of value, there's a Heisenbergean issue at work: to the extent that Rice's approach was dictated by his contemporary metrics (BA, SLG, HR, RBI), then holding him to the version of the Giles era does him a disservice.

The way we measure value in any given era changes performance. Almost as a rule, I'd imagine (although the very greatest hitters may be exceptions).

I don't hold Rice's failure to have an exceptional OBP against him (to the extent I hold it against folks now) because he was conforming to an era's consensus of value.

Sorry that that's probably muddy and unclear.

[Moose Milligan]

...already thought he stopped playing.

Very good player though. Wonder what his career would have been like in a major media market.

[ShaneDawg85]

Giles is a textbook example of a guy that flew under the radar. He never played in a major market, and played on some bad teams, mostly in Pittsburgh and the last few seasons in San Diego. I can't help but wonder how much better his numbers could have been had he not played half his games in Petco for the last six seasons. He never hit 30 home runs or drove in 100 or more after being traded to San Diego, and he remained very healthy. I'm inclined to think Petco played a part in it.

[mweb]

At the same time, while the current metrics might be more accurate in terms of value, there's a Heisenbergean issue at work: to the extent that Rice's approach was dictated by his contemporary metrics (BA, SLG, HR, RBI), then holding him to the version of the Giles era does him a disservice.

The way we measure value in any given era changes performance. Almost as a rule, I'd imagine (although the very greatest hitters may be exceptions).

I don't hold Rice's failure to have an exceptional OBP against him (to the extent I hold it against folks now) because he was conforming to an era's consensus of value.

Sorry that that's probably muddy and unclear.

Rice's approach may have been somewhat dictated by his contemporary metrics. There were plenty of guys who walked a ton back then and before, and there are plenty of guys who don't walk much now. Plus, even though OBP wasn't nearly as valued, I'm sure players and people in general knew walks were a good thing and that getting on base was a positive.

I think guys generally are who they are, sure, Rice may have tried to draw a few more walks if it was emphasized more, but I doubt his whole approach would have really changed.

[Lucky Jim]

Rice's approach may have been somewhat dictated by his contemporary metrics. There were plenty of guys who walked a ton back then and before, and there are plenty of guys who don't walk much now. Plus, even though OBP wasn't nearly as valued, I'm sure players and people in general knew walks were a good thing and that getting on base was a positive.

I think guys generally are who they are, sure, Rice may have tried to draw a few more walks if it was emphasized more, but I doubt his whole approach would have really changed.

You can rationalize your instinct that Giles is as good as Rice all you like. I don't have time to do a survey of the entire era, so as a snapshot I took the top OBP from each players' peak year: Rice in 1978 and Giles in 1999. Here's what I found:

On-Base%  s c a p y1.	Carew (MIN)	.4112.	Singleton (BAL)	.4093.	Hargrove (TEX)	.3884.	Randolph (NYY)	.3815.	Lynn (BOS)	.3806.	Otis (KCR)	.3807.	Kemp (DET)	.3798.	Lezcano (MIL)	.3779.	Thornton (CLE)	.377

1.	Walker (COL)	.4582.	Bagwell (HOU)	.4543.	Abreu (PHI)	.4464.	Jones (ATL)	.4415.	Olerud (NYM)	.4276.	McGwire (STL)	.4247.	Henderson (NYM)	.4238.	Giles (PIT)	.4189.	Sheffield (LAD)	.40710.	Tatis (STL)	.404

The difference with regard to OBP is night and day between the eras. My guess is that the sport was generally pretty collectively irrational about the value of a walk. And that irrationality probably wasn't helped for those teams playing in bandboxes.

My point wasn't that there are exceptions to the general trend. There always are, and I pointed out that great hitters are often more alike than they are different. But that doesn't mean that the general valuation in each era was not different. And it makes complete intuitive sense to surmise from that the way in which we measure value changes the way in which we compete.

[mweb]

You can rationalize your instinct that Giles is as good as Rice all you like. I don't have time to do a survey of the entire era, so as a snapshot I took the top OBP from each players' peak year: Rice in 1978 and Giles in 1999. Here's what I found:

On-Base%  s c a p y1.	Carew (MIN)	.4112.	Singleton (BAL)	.4093.	Hargrove (TEX)	.3884.	Randolph (NYY)	.3815.	Lynn (BOS)	.3806.	Otis (KCR)	.3807.	Kemp (DET)	.3798.	Lezcano (MIL)	.3779.	Thornton (CLE)	.377

1.	Walker (COL)	.4582.	Bagwell (HOU)	.4543.	Abreu (PHI)	.4464.	Jones (ATL)	.4415.	Olerud (NYM)	.4276.	McGwire (STL)	.4247.	Henderson (NYM)	.4238.	Giles (PIT)	.4189.	Sheffield (LAD)	.40710.	Tatis (STL)	.404

The difference with regard to OBP is night and day between the eras. My guess is that the sport was generally pretty collectively irrational about the value of a walk. And that irrationality probably wasn't helped for those teams playing in bandboxes.

My point wasn't that there are exceptions to the general trend. There always are, and I pointed out that great hitters are often more alike than they are different. But that doesn't mean that the general valuation in each era was not different. And it makes complete intuitive sense to surmise from that the way in which we measure value changes the way in which we compete.

It's not an instint. It's an all encompassing stat (at least as close as it gets) that shows Giles to be at least as good.

I don't think taking one year while limiting it to just the AL or NL is really showing a night and day difference. Jeff Burroughs had a .432 OBP in '78 in the NL that year. That was also an era of lesser offense.

And of course the numbers I'm focusing on are comparing the players to their peers.

Like I said, yes, things were valued differently, but to assume that Rice would have walked more is wrong. He may have to a degree, but it's highly unlikely that he would have totally changed his game. And again, there's guys that currently rarely walk or only walk about as much as Rice did. So are we to assume that they'd walk much less if they were playing in the late 70's?

It be interesting to see a study of guys that played many years before and after the time where walks and OBP became a bigger deal.

Regardless, I'm perfectly comfortable comparing the guys based on numbers that value them vs their peers.

[Lucky Jim]

Larry Walker	.458 (.45809)	Colorado Rockies	1Jeff Bagwell	.454 (.45405)	Houston Astros	2Bobby Abreu	.446 (.44562)	Philadelphia Phillies	3Chipper Jones	.441 (.44080)	Atlanta Braves	4John Olerud	.427 (.42739)	New York Mets	5Mark McGwire	.424 (.42360)	St. Louis Cardinals	6R. Henderson	.423 (.42286)	New York Mets	7Brian Giles	.418 (.41786)	Pittsburgh Pirates	8Gary Sheffield	.407 (.40724)	Los Angeles Dodgers	9Fernando Tatis	.404 (.40376)	St. Louis Cardinals	10Luis Gonzalez	.403 (.40318)	Arizona Diamondbacks	11Jeromy Burnitz	.402 (.40172)	Milwaukee Brewers	12Jeff Cirillo	.401 (.40058)	Milwaukee Brewers	13Sean Casey	.399 (.39910)	Cincinnati Reds	14Carl Everett	.398 (.39775)	Houston Astros	15Roger Cedeno	.396 (.39575)	New York Mets	16Todd Helton	.395 (.39482)	Colorado Rockies	17Barry Larkin	.390 (.39003)	Cincinnati Reds	18Mark Grace	.390 (.38953)	Chicago Cubs	19Kevin Young	.387 (.38667)	Pittsburgh Pirates	20Darryl Hamilton	.386 (.38584)	Colorado Rockies	21New York Mets	 Craig Biggio	.386 (.38575)	Houston Astros	22Edgardo Alfonzo	.385 (.38483)	New York Mets	23Luis Castillo	.384 (.38420)	Florida Marlins	24Henry Rodriguez	.381 (.38095)	Chicago Cubs	25

Rod Carew	.421 (.42131)	Minnesota Twins	1John Mayberry	.416 (.41642)	Kansas City Royals	2Ken Singleton	.415 (.41491)	Baltimore Orioles	3Toby Harrah	.403 (.40320)	Texas Rangers	4Fred Lynn	.401 (.40067)	Boston Red Sox	5Mike Hargrove	.395 (.39539)	Texas Rangers	6Gene Tenace	.395 (.39516)	Oakland Athletics	7Steve Braun	.389 (.38931)	Minnesota Twins	8Bobby Grich	.389 (.38854)	Baltimore Orioles	9Boog Powell	.377 (.37725)	Cleveland Indians	10Bobby Bonds	.375 (.37540)	New York Yankees	11Billy North	.373 (.37316)	Oakland Athletics	12Carlos May	.373 (.37266)	Chicago White Sox	13Roy White	.372 (.37184)	New York Yankees	14C. Yaz	        .371 (.37066)	Boston Red Sox	15Darrell Porter	.371 (.37059)	Milwaukee Brewers	16Thurman Munson	.366 (.36626)	New York Yankees	17Hal McRae	.366 (.36599)	Kansas City Royals	18Jorge Orta	.363 (.36288)	Chicago White Sox	19Don Baylor	.360 (.36027)	Baltimore Orioles	20Brian Downing	.356 (.35644)	Chicago White Sox	21Pat Kelly	.353 (.35327)	Chicago White Sox	22George Brett	.353 (.35320)	Kansas City Royals	23Dave Chalk	.353 (.35254)	California Angels	24Jim Rice	.350 (.34967)	Boston Red Sox	25

[Lucky Jim]

It's not an instint. 1. It's an all encompassing stat (at least as close as it gets) that shows Giles to be at least as good.

I don't think taking one year while limiting it to just the AL or NL is really showing a night and day difference. 2. Jeff Burroughs had a .432 OBP in '78 in the NL that year. That was also an era of lesser offense.

And of course the numbers I'm focusing on are comparing the players to their peers.

3. Like I said, yes, things were valued differently, but to assume that Rice would have walked more is wrong. He may have to a degree, but it's highly unlikely that he would have totally changed his game. 4. And again, there's guys that currently rarely walk or only walk about as much as Rice did. So are we to assume that they'd walk much less if they were playing in the late 70's?

It be interesting to see a study of guys that played many years before and after the time where walks and OBP became a bigger deal.

5. Regardless, I'm perfectly comfortable comparing the guys based on numbers that value them vs their peers.

I'm not really arguing much, other than that I think you should discount - a bit - any OBP-driven statistic, to correct for differing valuation. But:

1. It may be "all-encompassing" but I'm not sure what that really means in the context of this discussion.

2. How does one guys .432 OBP make any difference at all? The point I'm making is about the distribution of OBP as a means of showing that it was going through a period of de-valuation.

3. The point is that development occurs as a means of maximizing value. These guys aren't developing in a vacuum. I'm not talking about some ex-post "hey, pay attention to OBP, Jim." I'm talking about the Red Sox developing Rice to be a certain type of player, and their conception of value being central to that plan.

4. Guys who walk today less than Rice? Yeah, I'd guess many of them probably would walk less than they do now.

5. I am, too. I've never said otherwise. I just think you should value them against their peers according to their contemporary notions of value as well as our contemporary notions of value. By this I mean you try to find some de-contextualized value through our best metrics while simultaneously acknowledging that value was different back then.

I've got to finish a cross-examination, so I can't finish this discussion. I'm good with you disagreeing with me. I just feel bad that - judging by your responses - you don't get my point at all. I'm clearly not articulating it very well.

[mweb]

I believe I get your point, I just don't think it changes things as much in terms of evaluation as you seem to.