joshheines wrote:What is VORP? It is an acronym for Value Over Replacement Player. The general concept? "So if a first baseman and a shortstop have identical offensive statistics and equal defensive abilities relative to their positions, who's the better player? The shortstop, because the offensive-productivity bar for shortstops is notably lower than it is for first baseman, since it's far easier to find a good-hitting first baseman than it is a good-hitting shortstop." Baseball Prospectus.
I'm well aware what VORP is. Nice you handpick different seasons for the two players. If Puckett gets no credit for what might have been if his career wasn't cut short, then Mattingly gets no credit for what might have been if he too could have stayed healthy.Career WARP-2
Puckett - 91.1
Mattingly - 83.2Career WARP-3
Puckett - 93.5
Mattingly - 85.0
Puckett was the superior offensive player over the length of both their careers. Say what you want about Mattingly's peak, but Puckett had a .304 EQA the year Dennis Martinez drilled him in the head ending his career. Puckett wasn't done producing and his production wasn't in late-career decline.
A number of things:
First, I don't give a rats you know what about whether you know what VORP is. The argument is solely with you. I'd say most people on the cafe don't know what VORP is. Even if they have heard of it they don't understand the concept. It's not like I was addressing some widely known concept.
Second, I thought I made it clear that Puckett had 10 good seasons and Mattingly had 8 good seasons. I fail to see how I cherry picked seasons. I took Puck's good seasons and compared them to Mattingly's. If you must know, Puckett's career VORP is 489.7 and Mattingly's is 437.5.
Third, I agree that Puckett and Mattingly should get no credit for their career ending injuries. Their careers should be judged on their peaks and total numbers. Conversely, however, if we are going to give Puckett credit for what his career could have been if not for injury, we must afford the same courtesies to Don Mattingly (and every other player who's career was lost, shortened or dampened in any way by injury).
Fourth, funny you mention EQA too. Since you want to bring EQA in Puckett's career EQA is .293 while Mattingly's is .299. A .200 EQA is a poor player. A .260 EQA is league average. A .300 EQA is a good hitter.
Fifth, you made the mistake of stating that Puckett wa a superior offensive player over their careers. This is incorrect. Mattingly's Batting Runs Above Replacement and Average adjusted for all-time is 583/357 while Puckett's amassed 538/306. Since the plate appearances are nearly equal or slightly favor Puckett, MAttingly was contributed 50 more offensive runs than Puckett when compared to the average for their positions.
Puckett made up the ground, according to WARP, in fielding. WARP, which is adjusted versus the league replacement and not the league average, favored Puckett. Puckett's FRAR and FRAA (Fielding Runs Above Replacement/Average) were 289/59 and Mattingly's were 176/55. Me, personally, when evaluating a HOF talent I don't want to know how good he was when compared to a AAA player who couldn't make it in the bigs (the Replacement Player). I want to know how stacked up against real competition (League Average).
Puckett's TRAR/TRAA (Total Runs Above) were 827/365. Mattingly's were 759/412. Compared to the replacement, Puckett had a better career. Compared to the average, Mattingly had a better career.
Look, the bottom line is, I don't care how you slice it. Whether you look at the metrics or the old counting stats or the average stats, you simply cannot justify separating Mattingly from Puckett and vice versa. Their careers are too similar.