classical guitar string
Lemon yelling right away, “Go for it go for it, I’ll back you up.”
Lemon was more recognized as a star than Pettis (3 All-Star selections + a World Series appearance vs. 0 and 0 for Pettis), and yet when the Tigers acquired Pettis and moved Lemon to Right Field, the better known player, and perhaps mmore to the point, well-known himself for his fielding prowess, didn’t waste cycles struggling for supremacy or jockeying for a hierarchical advantage against the newcomer. Lemon collaborated, Pettis collaborated, Willis collaborated (yes, that’s the Ken Willis who is not the remarkably effective GM of the Chicago White Sox), and they had an immense ount of fun (a benefit to them and to the organization.
Beyond Baseball, most ad-hoc tes usually only have one or at the most two “communicators”, people who make sure the things that need to get discussed because the output benefits from collaboration. Enlisting multiple such players to your own tes boosts productivity. its not just raw player quality that counts on your tes, its their ability to work together to exceed the sum of their parts that makes tes in and beyond Baseball remarkably effective. And aggressively practicing communication like a centerfielder makes that much more likely to happen.classical guitar string
gibson 5 string banjo
colored bass string
THE NUMBERS ARE NOT THE GUY, PART XXIII
One of the things that had azed me the most about Chet Lemon’s career was that he dropped off a cliff defensively. He was never a blindingly-fast runner like Pettis was, and most players lose a step or two in their early- or mid-thirties, but Lemon went from went from world-class fly-hawk to sub-mediocrity overnight. Or so it appeared if you believe the then-available metrics.
Here are Lemon’s career fielding numbers as an outfielder…the most telling being RFg (Range Factor) and lgRFg (League composite Range Factor).
Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G FP lgFP RFg lgRFg LF CF RF
+————–+—+—-+—–+—–+—–+—–+—-+—-+—-+
1976 21 CHW AL OF 131 .992 .981 2.79 2.21 1 130 0
1977 22 CHW AL OF 149 .978 .978 3.52 2.03 0 149 0
1978 23 CHW AL OF 95 .983 .979 3.07 2.13 0 84 12
1979 24 CHW AL OF 147 .977 .981 2.86 2.13 0 147 0
1980 25 CHW AL OF 139 .981 .979 2.58 2.15 0 139 0
1981 26 CHW AL OF 93 .984 .983 2.60 2.16 0 93 0
1982 27 DET AL OF 121 .984 .982 2.09 2.15 0 29 93
1983 28 DET AL OF 145 .988 .981 2.84 2.16 0 145 0
1984 29 DET AL OF 140 .995 .983 3.09 2.17 0 140 0
1985 30 DET AL OF 144 .990 .982 2.90 2.10 0 144 0
1986 31 DET AL OF 124 .985 .980 2.60 2.06 0 124 0
1987 32 DET AL OF 145 .992 .980 2.44 2.00 0 145 0
1988 33 DET AL OF 144 .974 .979 2.11 2.14 0 0 144
1989 34 DET AL OF 111 .985 .980 1.76 2.12 0 0 111
1990 35 DET AL OF 96 .973 .981 2.25 2.04 0 3 94
+————–+—+—-+—–+—–+—–+—–+—-+—-+—-+
Stats: Baseball-Reference.Com