- ゴキヲタ撃退用データー保管庫5
682 ：名無しさん＠実況は実況板で[sage]：2016/11/01(火) 12:37:31.21 ID:YNP922D1 - 米有名紙「ウォールストリート・ジャーナル」電子版では、経済紙にふさわしく数字を使って背番号51を検証。
記念すべき3000本目の安打は「ほぼ確実にシングルヒットである」と大胆予想をしている。
記事によれば、現在の2998安打のうち「内野外に飛んだ安打は2320本」だとしている。
つまり、678安打は内野安打ということになる。
さらに、2998安打のうち、実に2443安打がシングルヒットで、割合にして81.5パーセント。
これまで3000安打を達成した29人と比べても、断トツに単打率が高いそうだ。
言い換えれば、イチローがヒットを打った場合、その打球が単打になる可能性が81.5パーセントということで、
3000安打目もシングルヒットになる可能性が圧倒的に高い、という試算になるようだ。
内野安打に特化して見ると、スタッツLLCがデータを収集し始めた1987年以降、イチローの内野安打数は圧倒的に多く、
2位以下の打者に148本差をつけているという。これもまた、イチローという打者を特徴付ける興味深いデータと言えそうだ。
Of the 30 men who now own 3000 hits in their career, Ichiro owns the highest rate of singles from his hit total.
A whopping 81.5 percent of Ichiro’s hits were single-baggers.
No other 3000-hit club member had more than 80 percent of his hits go for singles.
Even notoriously light hitters like Jeter, Tony Gwynn, and hit-king Pete Rose only averaged around 75 percent of their hits being singles.
In fact, in the game of power, no man could match Ichiro’s lack of it in the 3000-hit club,
as only Eddie Collins and Ichiro own an ISO of less than .100 in the prestigious group.
http://www.fishstripes.com/2016/8/8/12400062/
81.5% of Ichiro's hits have been singles. That rate is higher than anyone in the 3000 club.
https://twitter.com/wsjsports/status/761626220975034369
| - ゴキヲタ撃退用データー保管庫5
683 ：名無しさん＠実況は実況板で[sage]：2016/11/01(火) 12:52:04.62 ID:YNP922D1 - Originally posted by: JoeBanzai
P.S. Comparing his OB% to that of any slugger doesn't prove much.
Fair enough, let's compare him to other leadoff hitters.
I won't compare him to leadoff hitters in the HOF since that would be cruel to Ichiro, but to some not in the HOF.
Ichiro
OBP .357
SLG .405
SB% 81%
WAR/162 4.02
Raines
OBP .385
SLG .425
SB% 85%
WAR/162 4.47
Lofton
OBP .372
SLG .423
SB% 80%
WAR/162 5.25
Knoblauch
OBP .378
SLG .406
SB% 78%
WAR/162 4.43
| - ゴキヲタ撃退用データー保管庫5
684 ：名無しさん＠実況は実況板で[sage]：2016/11/01(火) 12:56:46.20 ID:YNP922D1 - Raines beats Ichiro at everything; he wasn't a great fielder but he was such a better hitter that it doesn't matter.
Ichiro nips Lofton by 1% in SB%, but Lofton was just as good a fielder and a much better hitter.
Ichiro beat Knoblauch by a few points in SB%, but Knoblauch, as a Gold Glove infielder, had more fielding value than Ichiro and was also a better hitter.
Bottom line, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton and Chuck Knoblauch were better baseball players than Ichiro.
If you disagree, you're wrong. If you agree and are instead arguing that the HOF line needs to be lowered to accommodate players like Ichiro then just say that and we can stop talking about Ichiro.
If you want him in the HOF for being a Japanese trailblazer, fine, say that. If you want him in the HOF because he accumulated 3,000 hits (or soon will) then say that.
But the people arguing that he's a HOFer because he was just so damn good at baseball that he deserves it on the merits just need to stop.
| - ゴキヲタ撃退用データー保管庫5
685 ：名無しさん＠実況は実況板で[sage]：2016/11/01(火) 12:58:46.21 ID:YNP922D1 - The argument for Ichiro making the HOF is most similar to Lou Brock's. Neither Brock nor Ichiro were great hitters, but they got 3,000 hits and were very famous.
I have a personal bias towards Brock having grown up worshiping the man, but I will readily admit that he is among the worst players in the HOF.
I thought he deserved induction because when he retired he was the best ever at something, held records that people cared about, and was a World Series hero.
He is also the nicest man you will ever meet. Weak as it is, that's his case.
He, like Ichiro, was not nearly a good enough hitter to merit induction on those terms;he, much like Bill Mazeroski, deserved induction for reasons other than his playing value to his teams.
He did things worth honoring, and the HOF agreed.
Has Ichiro done things worth honoring? I can see the case, and won't object at all if people make the case that he has, as long as "he was a great hitter" is left out of those arguments
because it's simply not true. Ichiro was not a great hitter; any argument he has for the HOF must be made along the same lines as Brock and Mazeroski or it's just a silly argument.
|
|