Who should be on the Sox banner?

[Lefty]

we have very few Sox fans here, and the ones we have fight, lol.

No, "we have very few Sox fans here, and at least one of them is a raging moron that has no fucking clue what he's talking about". There.

 

[FedEx227]

Nellie is a player that no doubt gets overrated by Sox fans but I think a lot of that is he really endeared himself to an entire generation of Sox fans on a team that is really adored. Most of our fathers (depending on age and if they are Sox fans) by and large grew up with the 59 team and thus cling to that as there really wasn't much else to love until Dick Allen, the 83 team or Frank Thomas came along.

Is he overrated? No doubt. He isn't too far off from a yesteryear Juan Pierre. The difference was he had amazing defense and guys have gone back and studied it (Bill James for one) and it's not just people watching, he did have top tier defense at 2B throughout most of his career.

Otherwise, a lot of his batting numbers were slightly above average, probably not HOF worthy by purely batting stats:

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

Oh. My. God. Look, I'm going to explain this to you as plainly as I can, and maybe you can understand it: when someone says "his OPS+ was 90, so he was 10 percent worse than league-average", they aren't talking about that player's OPS specifically. What they are referring to is his OPS+ (I don't know why you would think someone is talking about OPS when they say OPS+, but apparently you do), which actually is 10% worse than league average, because in OPS+, the league average is 100.

That's why you can look at players' respective OPS+ numbers an compare them straightaway without adjusting for league and park effects: OPS+ already accounts for those, and it is scaled so that the league average is always 100. Get it? So when I say Nellie Fox was never 25% better than league average, he actually never was 25% better than average, because in that case we are comparing his OPS+ to the standard league-average OPS+, which is always 100.



Thankfully you've spared me that droning, now shut the **** up.

I know what you are getting at, but quite simply, you're wrong. I remember David Appelman explaining it in a chat a few months ago over at FanGraphs.

 

[BigP50]

No, "we have very few Sox fans here, and at least one of them is a raging moron that has no fucking clue what he's talking about". There.

:rofl:

 

[Lefty]

I know what you are getting at, but quite simply, you're wrong.

No, I'm not. You're trying to take me saying "his OPS+ was never 25% better than league average" and turn it into "his OPS+ was never 125, so his OPS was never 25% better than league average", which is not what I was saying. OPS+ is a completely separate metric from OPS, and it has it's own scale (where one point of OPS+ is roughly equal to one percentage point relative to the league average OPS+). You cannot compare OPS and OPS+ because OPS+ is adjusted for league and park effects, while regular OPS isn't.

And now please, please tell me the only you problem you have now is the semantics of using OPS versus OPS+. Please tell me you stopped being a complete fucking moron.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

No, I'm not. You're trying to take me saying "his OPS+ was never 25% better than league average" and turn it into "his OPS+ was never 125, so his OPS was never 25% better than league average", which is not what I was saying. OPS+ is a completely separate metric from OPS, and it has it's own scale (where one point of OPS+ is roughly equal to one percentage point relative to the league average OPS+). You cannot compare OPS and OPS+ because OPS+ is adjusted for league and park effects, while regular OPS isn't.

And now please, please tell me the only you problem you have now is the semantics of using OPS versus OPS+. Please tell me you stopped being a complete fucking moron.

Where the hell are you getting me comparing OPS+ and OPS?

David Appelman>Some punk

 

[Lefty]

I'm not arguing this with you, I know I'm right, and you're just a fucking moron that really (really) needs to start forgetting about watching and talking sports. So believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about, and you're a worthless imbecile barely worth anyone's time.

 

[BigP50]

looking forward to the show tonight Lefty.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

I'm not arguing this with you, I know I'm right, and you're just a fucking moron that really (really) needs to start forgetting about watching and talking sports. So believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about, and you're a worthless imbecile barely worth anyone's time.

Really? Maybe I can say the same thing about you because you obviously don't know the roots of OPS+ and how it was originally used. Maybe you should take a huge step back from the computer and shut the **** up? All you've basically shown in this thread is "LUL IM RITE UR RONG SO FUK YU".

I'm also waiting for you to point out how I'm comparing OPS+ and OPS. It's Memorial Weekend, I'll give you a pass. Everyone gets drunk off their ass and beats their wife and takes out that rage on the internet (maybe not everybody). It's alright. They have classes for that buddy.

 

[DewsSox79]

on a serious note, id say frank

 

[Lefty]

looking forward to the show tonight Lefty.

No show tonight, there's uhh...something pretty big going on in Chicago sports that we think everyone should give their undivided attention to.

 

[Lefty]

Really? Maybe I can say the same thing about you because you obviously don't know the roots of OPS+ and how it was originally used. Maybe you should take a huge step back from the computer and shut the **** up? All you've basically shown in this thread is "LUL IM RITE UR RONG SO FUK YU".

I'm also waiting for you to point out how I'm comparing OPS+ and OPS. It's Memorial Weekend, I'll give you a pass. Everyone gets drunk off their ass and beats their wife and takes out that rage on the internet (maybe not everybody). It's alright. They have classes for that buddy.

Yes, because the crux of all of my arguments has been "I'm right, and you're wrong"

And now, for the last fucking time, I'm going to explain to you how you were misinterpreting my words in some desperate attempt to create some ambiguity within my arguments in the hopes that it would make you not look like a complete Special person:

OPS+ is not a true ratio of a player's OPS to the league OPS. If we were to take just a straight ratio of an individual OPS compared to lgOPS and call it OPS+, we would inherently value SLG more than OBP because of the differences in how the two metrics are scaled. The way OPS+ is calculated ([ratio of OBP to lgOBP plus ratio of SLG to lgSLG] minus one, all times 100) attempts to adjust for that difference (though it doesn't do a great job, hence the need for wOBA) and thus results in 1 point of OPS+ being roughly equal to less than one percentage point of OPS relative to lgOPS.

This is true, and you attempted to point this out to me (as if I didn't know). However, I was not saying, for instance, that Fox's OPS was X percentage worse than league average because of his OPS+, but that his OPS+ was X percentage worse than league average.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that OPS+ is it's own valuation of a player's performance, separate from OPS. Like I've pointed out to you countless times, OPS+ is scaled in its own way, with one point of OPS+ being equal to one percentage point above or below lgOPS+, which is always 100.

This is what allows OPS+ to be compared across eras for different players, because OPS+ takes a player's OPS and adjusts it according to a set benchmark that all other players and their respective OPS+'s adhere to.

So yes, you were correct when you said that one point of OPS+ is not equal to the same percentage amount above or below league average OPS, but that was not at all what I was saying. OPS+ is it's own statistic, with it's own scale and implications, and one of those implications is that Nellie Fox's OPS+ was very rarely significantly better than the league-average OPS+ mark.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

Yes, because the crux of all of my arguments has been "I'm right, and you're wrong"

And now, for the last fucking time, I'm going to explain to you how you were misinterpreting my words in some desperate attempt to create some ambiguity within my arguments in the hopes that it would make you not look like a complete Special person:

OPS+ is not a true ratio of a player's OPS to the league OPS. If we were to take just a straight ratio of an individual OPS compared to lgOPS and call it OPS+, we would inherently value SLG more than OBP because of the differences in how the two metrics are scaled. The way OPS+ is calculated ([ratio of OBP to lgOBP plus ratio of SLG to lgSLG] minus one, all times 100) attempts to adjust for that difference (though it doesn't do a great job, hence the need for wOBA) and thus results in 1 point of OPS+ being roughly equal to less than one percentage point of OPS relative to lgOPS.

This is true, and you attempted to point this out to me (as if I didn't know). However, I was not saying, for instance, that Fox's OPS was X percentage worse than league average because of his OPS+, but that his OPS+ was X percentage worse than league average.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that OPS+ is it's own valuation of a player's performance, separate from OPS. Like I've pointed out to you countless times, OPS+ is scaled in its own way, with one point of OPS+ being equal to one percentage point above or below lgOPS+, which is always 100.

This is what allows OPS+ to be compared across eras for different players, because OPS+ takes a player's OPS and adjusts it according to a set benchmark that all other players and their respective OPS+'s adhere to.

So yes, you were correct when you said that one point of OPS+ is not equal to the same percentage amount above or below league average OPS, but that was not at all what I was saying. OPS+ is it's own statistic, with it's own scale and implications, and one of those implications is that Nellie Fox's OPS+ was very rarely significantly better than the league-average OPS+ mark.

Well I guess we were on a different page this whole time because I knew this whole time that OPS+ was separate from OPS and was arguing how much better or worse one % of OPS+ is to the league average.

 

[Lefty]

Ok....but there was no point to arguing for or against that. What we were discussing (well, what I was pointing out to you as fact and what you were vehemently denying) was that Nellie Fox's abilities with the bat were and are supremely overrated, as he is, for his career, a barely above-average hitter and was never even significantly above average when he did manage to creep into the above average realm.

His superb ability with the glove is undeniable, but flashing the leather a good or "legendary" ballplayer does not make. Looking back at what he actually was able to do at the plate and the type of love he receives from many Sox fans, the only logical conclusion is that Fox, while a tremendous defensive talent, is overrated almost to the extreme.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

Is it his offense that is overrated or him as a player that is overrated? I thought we were debating whether he, as an overall player, was overrated or not because I haven't heard anyone really overrate his bat to the extreme you are talking about, but rather praise his defense due to it being as game changing as Utley's or Gutierrez in the outfield. When I talked to my grandpa who seen him play for basically his entire career, he always talked about his defense instead of his bat. Same with his roommates in his retirement home years ago.

 

[Lefty]

As an overall player he is overrated. People always seem to forget that such a "legendary" player he was abhorrently average at the plate. Again, his defense was stellar, to be sure, but the amount of love and accolades he receives from Sox fans is not befitting a player that was so decidedly average at the plate.

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

As an overall player he is overrated. People always seem to forget that such a "legendary" player he was abhorrently average at the plate. Again, his defense was stellar, to be sure, but the amount of love and accolades he receives from Sox fans is not befitting a player that was so decidedly average at the plate.

Well to each their own. Gutierrez was one of the best players in the league last year according to WAR with basically a slightly above average bat.

 

[Lefty]

Right, because one season for one player totally means that every defense-first player ever made up for their lack of hitting prowess

 

[Got teeth? Keith doesn't.]

Right, because one season for one player totally means that every defense-first player ever made up for their lack of hitting prowess

Average bat+premium defense=star player, and for someone who did it for as long as he did, to me that is enough to warrant legendary status within a franchises history.

 

[FedEx227]

I think in the grand scheme of the league Nellie Fox is not legendary, but he played a very large part in one of the more important Sox teams all of time and thus is overrated or endeared more than he probably deserves but I don't get too worked up over it.

50-60 years down the line, I'm sure Joe Crede will be in this same boat. No, Crede was not good but he'll likely be overrated by every single Sox fan, but people will look back with bias eyes and say "well he was a key part of their title team, etc" Crede won't reach HOF status like Nellie Fox did but I see him in a similar light.