[qwerty49]

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.

[qwerty49]

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.

[lex24]

They sent Stretch down for awhile that year as well.  He rebounded pretty well!

quote="qwerty49" pid='263998' dateline='1575842033']

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.
[/quote]

---

WAR also takes defense into account. And those metrics are essentially garbage. Pitch framing for catchers as an example. I’m guessing that whoever  was catching Maddox Glavine and Smoltz were  pretty damn good at framing. I’m guessing whoever was catching Nolan Ryan in his wild days was not. I understand it’s important – and frankly it’s all the rage when talking about defense with catchers these days. It barely matters if the guy can throw the ball back to the pitcher  anymore if he’s a great “framer” he’s golden.  

. Metrics – I buy some of them but certainly not all of them

---

And while I’m on a metric roll. Walks.  They have become so over appreciated. I can’t tell you how sick I am of hearing metric oriented people talk about a “great at bat” (we can use Brandon Belt as an example because the metric guys love him like a son) when a guy falls behind 0 and 2 with runners and second and third two outs and then fight his way back and gets a walk. And never mind the fact that there was an 0-1 fastball cookie right out over the middle the plate that he swung through. No – a great at bad in that situation is driving a ball into left center field to knock in two runs.

Walks are nice. But in so many situations the old adage “a walk is as good as a hit” is absolute bunk. And to consider it the same when looking at statistics is, in my opinion, overvaluing walks. Thus, one of the things I look for is the “gap” between batting average in on base percentage.

[lex24]

They sent Stretch down for awhile that year as well.  He rebounded pretty well!

quote="qwerty49" pid='263998' dateline='1575842033']

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.
[/quote]

---

WAR also takes defense into account. And those metrics are essentially garbage. Pitch framing for catchers as an example. I’m guessing that whoever  was catching Maddox Glavine and Smoltz were  pretty damn good at framing. I’m guessing whoever was catching Nolan Ryan in his wild days was not. I understand it’s important – and frankly it’s all the rage when talking about defense with catchers these days. It barely matters if the guy can throw the ball back to the pitcher  anymore if he’s a great “framer” he’s golden.  

. Metrics – I buy some of them but certainly not all of them

---

And while I’m on a metric roll. Walks.  They have become so over appreciated. I can’t tell you how sick I am of hearing metric oriented people talk about a “great at bat” (we can use Brandon Belt as an example because the metric guys love him like a son) when a guy falls behind 0 and 2 with runners and second and third two outs and then fight his way back and gets a walk. And never mind the fact that there was an 0-1 fastball cookie right out over the middle the plate that he swung through. No – a great at bad in that situation is driving a ball into left center field to knock in two runs.

Walks are nice. But in so many situations the old adage “a walk is as good as a hit” is absolute bunk. And to consider it the same when looking at statistics is, in my opinion, overvaluing walks. Thus, one of the things I look for is the “gap” between batting average in on base percentage.

[Mick]

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.

McCovey didn't play LF until 1962, so that probably wasn't the reason.

McCovey and Cepeda were bad outfielders, but for different reasons.  McCovey could usually get to the ball, but his catching and throwing skills were abysmal.  Cepeda's catching and throwing skills weren't quite as bad, but he couldn't get to the ball as well as McCovey.  McCovey was almost exactly an average first baseman.  Cepeda was slightly below average as a first baseman.  I would have played McCovey at first and Cepeda in LF, and damn the torpedoes.  Those two were amazing hitters.

[Mick]

Stretch...

You got it!  

SF Chronicle columnist Charles McCabe, the last of the crusty old geezers, had a real vendetta for Willie Mac that 2nd year (1960) for some unfathomable reason, never missed a chance to take a shot at him.  I think part of it had to do with Willie sometimes having to play in LF because the Giants already had Orlando Cepeda at 1B.  It was a real tossup who was the worse LF, Cepeda or McCovey, and I think the brass finally figured out that Willie would do the least damage out there.

McCovey didn't play LF until 1962, so that probably wasn't the reason.

McCovey and Cepeda were bad outfielders, but for different reasons.  McCovey could usually get to the ball, but his catching and throwing skills were abysmal.  Cepeda's catching and throwing skills weren't quite as bad, but he couldn't get to the ball as well as McCovey.  McCovey was almost exactly an average first baseman.  Cepeda was slightly below average as a first baseman.  I would have played McCovey at first and Cepeda in LF, and damn the torpedoes.  Those two were amazing hitters.

[cardcrimson]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Those numbers above are "career" WAR numbers - i.e., the sum of a player's individual season WAR totals. What Career WAR doesn't capture very well are players who have an incredible peak period but careers cut short by injury (Koufax, Career WAR of 48.9), or tragedy (Munson, Career WAR of 46.1). It does give some insight into players who had a great period but then declined into a player who is closer to league average for a variety of reasons, such as Darryl Strawberry (who had two seasons with WAR over 6 before his personal problems destroyed his on the field performance) or Dave Parker (4 out of 5 seasons over 6 from 1975-79 before similar problems arose). If someone has a year with WAR over 7, that's an incredible season. For instance, Edgar Martinez's 1995 season where he hit .356, .479 OBP, 52 doubles, 29 HR, and 113 RBI - that was a 7.1 WAR season. Buster's 2012 season, .336 average, .408 OBP, 39 doubles, 24 HR, 103 RBI and catching - that was a 7.6 WAR season. Of course, Barry had some outrageous WAR seasons both early (1990 9.7 WAR) and late (2002, 11.8 WAR)...

No offense to anyone, but what a dopey stat.

[cardcrimson]

I clearly don't understand WAR. How can you have a wins above replace higher than the total number of games in a season?

Those numbers above are "career" WAR numbers - i.e., the sum of a player's individual season WAR totals. What Career WAR doesn't capture very well are players who have an incredible peak period but careers cut short by injury (Koufax, Career WAR of 48.9), or tragedy (Munson, Career WAR of 46.1). It does give some insight into players who had a great period but then declined into a player who is closer to league average for a variety of reasons, such as Darryl Strawberry (who had two seasons with WAR over 6 before his personal problems destroyed his on the field performance) or Dave Parker (4 out of 5 seasons over 6 from 1975-79 before similar problems arose). If someone has a year with WAR over 7, that's an incredible season. For instance, Edgar Martinez's 1995 season where he hit .356, .479 OBP, 52 doubles, 29 HR, and 113 RBI - that was a 7.1 WAR season. Buster's 2012 season, .336 average, .408 OBP, 39 doubles, 24 HR, 103 RBI and catching - that was a 7.6 WAR season. Of course, Barry had some outrageous WAR seasons both early (1990 9.7 WAR) and late (2002, 11.8 WAR)...

No offense to anyone, but what a dopey stat.