rickey henderson

I'm not arguing just to argue, and the fact is that most non-Boston fans will agree with me, not you. Yastrzemski had a few outstanding years and was pretty ordinary for the rest of his career. As noted, Yaz and Ricky hit for the same career average until Henderson kept playing (badly) past age 40. I think it's fair to say that Yaz was the better fielder and certainly a better power hitter, but Ricky scored far more runs. They had almost identical career figures for OPS+, although Henderson's would have been better without those last few years, and that statistic doesn't factor in Ricky's speed.

But really, the nail in the proverbial coffin is that Yastrzemski was helped enormously by playing in Fenway. Look at his career splits:

Home - .306 avg, .402 obp, .503 slg
Away - .264 avg, .357 obp, .422 slg

On the road, Yaz was just an average major leaguer.

 

Adjusted OPS+
1963 AL-148-2
1965 AL-156-1
1967 AL-195-1
1968 AL-171-1
1969 AL-137-9
1970 AL-178-1
1973 AL-139-9
1974 AL-141-6

 

Eh maybe. Maybe not. Kshead's first knee-jerk response to that list was "not better than Yaz or Rose". Kshead - once upon a time a Reds fan - changed on Rose after looking up Rose's stats; not so much on Yaz though.

Still, fuck the Red Sox and their Wiffle Ball park..... and Cal Ripken. Kshead does approve of shooting Grid simply for placing him on that list. And Kshead is sorry, but Kshead must refer to himself by name in a thread about Rickey.

 

I already noted both that Yaz had a short period of great seasons and that Henderson's career OPS+ is pretty much the same as Yastrzemski's. Moreover, keep in mind that park adjusted statistics do so for the average player, whereas many have noted that Yaz was pretty much ideally suited for Fenway. That's why his home statistics are vastly better than his road statistics, which were pretty ordinary.

 

8 years out of 11 in the top 10 is a short period of great seasons?

Just showing that adjusted for park, he was pretty damn good. Above average, even.

Plus, over his careera, Fenway actually adjusted down one point - to 99 out of 100.

I don't know that I'd put him in the top 15 of all time, but I do think he's better than Henderson - especially when you consider his defense.

 

I explained to you that park effects are averaged, while one as unique as Fenway can strongly favor one type of player while limiting others. Yaz's home/road splits are just inescapable:

.306 avg, .402 obp, .503 slg at home
.264 avg, .357 obp, .422 slg on the road.

Plus it's just not very impressive when you note that most years he didn't hit 20 home runs and didn't hit above .280. Those are not great seasons, although '67 and '70 definitely were.

 

That's not what that OPS+ is though, it is how that plater stacks up against the average player, playing in the average park.

So yeah, when a guy finishes in the top 10 8 out of 11 years (and 4 of those 8 years, he's number 1), I'd say that was above average.

 

Did you notice in your quote about park factor being included? That is what OPS+ is. It attempts to normalize outside factors, but the problem is that while Fenway played neutral for the average hitter, Yaz was extremely well suited for the park and benefited from it enormously. That's why his statistics were so much better at home than on the road.

Again, we're talking about a guy who was just ordinary away from Fenway, and who usually hit fewer than 20 home runs a season and less than .280.

 

I thought that it tried to remove the park factor, to give an accurate representation of how that player ranked against the average player in a neutral park.

Regardless of what it means, finishing at the top of the league 4 out of 11 years is impressive.

 

OPS+ does attempt to remove the park effect from a player's statistics, but it only does so on an averaged basis. So if the park effect is atmospheric, like the thin air of Coors Field, OPS+ does a good job of adjusting for that because the same effect applies to all players equally (theoretically anyway, as it would still depend on flyball tendencies and backspin generated). But with a stadium like Fenway, the park effect can be dramatically different for different players, thus rendering the average pretty useless. Someone who pulls a lot of balls to left field will benefit tremendously from the park, whereas someone who hits more straight away will be hurt by it because of the cavernous outfield.

In any case, Yastrzemski was the best player in the American League during the late '60s and 1970, but my point was that outside of that peak he was a good but not great hitter.