― bliss (blass), Saturday, 30 December 2006 03:11 (fifteen years ago) link
― LynnK (klynn), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:15 (fifteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 30 December 2006 16:22 (fifteen years ago) link
You have to be careful with these singles vs walks arguments ... a guy with 100 singles and 50 walks is more valuable than a guy with 75 singles and 75 walks. Runners can't advance extra bases or score from second on a walk, plus, singles force the defense to actually do something.
A .500 SLG was considered to be a benchmark number for a slugger ... Gwynn's lifetime SLG was .459, which is damn good for a "singles" hitter. Some of his approximate contemporaries: Mattingly .471, Rice .502 (both of whom are borderline HOFers and respected sluggers in their day), Boggs .443 (renowned doubles hitter who played in the most extreme doubles park in baseball for most of his prime). Gwynn's lifetime SLG numbers were boosted a bit by playing in the hitting-happy mid-late '90's, but not to an extreme degree.
Gwynn was a very good basestealer early in his career.
― No Time Before Time (Barry Barry), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:46 (fifteen years ago) link
Usually this is true, but it doesn't take into account factors like # of pitches seen per plate appearance which obv has value as well. But assuming everything else was equal yes 100/50 > 75/75.
"Gwynn was a very good basestealer early in his career."
He had a lot of years where he didn't break even early in his career too.
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:28 (fifteen years ago) link
― Hopper, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 14:37 (fifteen years ago) link