question on longevity

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    question on longevity

    Morning all..this morning a co-worker and I were talking and the subject came around to Chipper Jones, i went to baseball reference and skimmed his numbers particularly his games total(into this season-2403) i see that his avg is about 126 games a season, now i took into account his down seasons, his time spent hurt and started wondering for his service time (19 years)..is that a good avg?..he's been a really good player for a long time..so i thought i'd ask you guys, though there a few,  for someone who has played say up to 15 or more seasons and has say 2100 games played.. what would you consider a very good to exceptional games played average?...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    There was this guy named something Jr., played in Ballymore ... played like 2400+ games in a row ....
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    just a note..Jeter has averaged 136 a year (18 seasons 2450 games) 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    just a note..Jeter has averaged 136 a year (18 seasons 2450 games) 
    Posted by jete02fan


    How did I know this was a veiled Jeter thread???   LOL
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    There was this guy named something Jr., played in Ballymore ... played like 2400+ games in a row ....
    Posted by SinceYaz
    hey Yaz-o...CRJ will always go down as one of my favorite people in the game...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : How did I know this was a veiled Jeter thread???   LOL
    Posted by SinceYaz
    LOL...it's not Yaz-o, just on longevity...so, give me a number my friend, what do you think a good avg is for the parameters i gave?..
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : hey Yaz-o...CRJ will always go down as one of my favorite people in the game...
    Posted by jete02fan


    Incredible guy, but don't think a manager would allow it to ever happen again with the way  things are done now.

    No more 300+ inning guys, either.  Or hardly ever.





     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : Incredible guy, but don't think a manager would allow it to ever happen again with the way  things are done now. No more 300+ inning guys, either.  Or hardly ever.
    Posted by SinceYaz
    oh for sure..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : oh for sure..
    Posted by jete02fan


    I'll get back to you on the numbers ... I'm spanking poor mouthing Sox fans right now.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    Here's a few


    Jim Rice … 16 years at 130.56 games a year

    Yaz … 23 years at 143.82 games a year

    Ted Williams …19 years at 120.63



    So .. Chipper and Jeter fit within the high and low of the three
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenwellforpresident. Show greenwellforpresident's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    Here's a few Jim Rice … 16 years at 130.56 games a year Yaz … 23 years at 143.82 games a year Ted Williams …19 years at 120.63 So .. Chipper and Jeter fit within the high and low of the three
    Posted by SinceYaz


    To be fair, that includes two years when Ted was in Korea ('52,'53).  Ignorning these two years puts him at 17 years 132.3
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from greenwellforpresident. Show greenwellforpresident's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    Here's a few Jim Rice … 16 years at 130.56 games a year Yaz … 23 years at 143.82 games a year Ted Williams …19 years at 120.63 So .. Chipper and Jeter fit within the high and low of the three
    Posted by SinceYaz


    Also it was a 154 game season when Ted played.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : Also it was a 154 game season when Ted played.
    Posted by greenwellforpresident
    that's still amazing longevity
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    Depends on position to a large degree. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy stilleatsworms. Show MikeNagy stilleatsworms's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    Cool
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    Depends on position to a large degree. 
    Posted by Chilliwings
    hey CW, i agree, but base your number on the premise it's a pretty regular player, what would consider a very good games played average?...do you think the averages for Chipper and Jeter(or any others who have 14-15 seasons under their belt) would be considered good in terms of longevity...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : hey CW, i agree, but base your number on the premise it's a pretty regular player, what would consider a very good games played average?...do you think the averages for Chipper and Jeter(or any others who have 14-15 seasons under their belt) would be considered good in terms of longevity...
    Posted by jete02fan


    Interesting and tough question Jete.  There are several issues that could skew the average:  rookie/early years before becoming a regular, late years when no longer a regular, strikes....

    I was surprised Jeter is "only" 136 as I don't remember him missing much action....and he's not really, he's 151.  You can hardly count 15 games in his rookie season.  And 150 for a SS seems extraordinarily good to me.  Ozzie Smith - ignoring his last 3 part time years - was 147.  Chipper Jones a less good 137, particularly as 3B/LF is less demanding...but he's been out a lot with non-major injuries...

    ....so another question is major injury.  If a guy plays 162 games/year for 9 years, then blows his knee out on opening day of year 10 is he a 162-game player, or a 146-game player?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : Interesting and tough question Jete.  There are several issues that could skew the average:  rookie/early years before becoming a regular, late years when no longer a regular, strikes.... I was surprised Jeter is "only" 136 as I don't remember him missing much action....and he's not really, he's 151.  You can hardly count 15 games in his rookie season.  And 150 for a SS seems extraordinarily good to me.  Ozzie Smith - ignoring his last 3 part time years - was 147.  Chipper Jones a less good 137, particularly as 3B/LF is less demanding...but he's been out a lot with non-major injuries... ....so another question is major injury.  If a guy plays 162 games/year for 9 years, then blows his knee out on opening day of year 10 is he a 162-game player, or a 146-game player?
    Posted by Chilliwings
    CW, great take, i did try to factor in time spent hurt(especially in Chipper's case) as he spent all of what would have been his 2nd season(94') on the shelf...i just thought that despite that, his number of games for that many seasons and what it averaged out to was still pretty good..
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : CW, great take, i did try to factor in time spent hurt(especially in Chipper's case) as he spent all of what would have been his 2nd season(94') on the shelf...i just thought that despite that, his number of games for that many seasons and what it averaged out to was still pretty good..
    Posted by jete02fan


    A % of games played might work better than a simple sum.  By dividing games played by games on the active roster would wipe out problems with strikes and rookie callups and also major (DL) injuries.  Not that they aren't a factor in durability, but there's a difference between a broken leg and a tired guy or someone worried about their hamstring all the time.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : To be fair, that includes two years when Ted was in Korea ('52,'53).  Ignorning these two years puts him at 17 years 132.3
    Posted by greenwellforpresident


    Greenie, I didn't count those three seasons.  If I had, Teddy's run from 1939 to 1960 would have been 21 years.

    But you ARE correct those were 154 game seasons ... sorry for the oversight.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jete02fan. Show jete02fan's posts

    Re: question on longevity

    In Response to Re: question on longevity:
    In Response to Re: question on longevity : A % of games played might work better than a simple sum.  By dividing games played by games on the active roster would wipe out problems with strikes and rookie callups and also major (DL) injuries.  Not that they aren't a factor in durability, but there's a difference between a broken leg and a tired guy or someone worried about their hamstring all the time.
    Posted by Chilliwings
    i'll look at that
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share