Random Jim Rice propaganda

dgbaseball

Just read these stats in the paper. They're some of the more compelling arguments I've seen for his election. Obviously there are a number of other things to consider, and I'm not looking to debate again (I think it's pretty clear where I stand), but for those supporters and haters here some more things to think about...

p.s. I had to read the first one twice, figuring it couldn't actually be correct. But it is...

--------------------------

Other than Jim Rice, the only retired players with at least 382 homers and a career average of .298 are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams

In the 12 seasons spanning 1975-86, Rice led the American League in games, at-bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging, total bases, extra-base hits, multihit games, and outfield assists

Of the 17 players who've been on the ballot boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen.

stevek

<<< Of the 17 players who've been on the ballot boasting at least 350 homers and a .290 average, all are in Cooperstown -- except for Rice and Dick Allen. >>>

Richie Allen definitely is not a Hall of Famer even though he had the best batting swing I have ever seen. Rice is borderline but in my opinion it is a borderline NO. But if Rice ever got in, I wouldn't have any big problem with it. Certainly Rice was better than Ralph Kiner.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Richie Allen definitely is not a Hall of Famer even though he had the best batting swing I have ever seen. Rice is borderline but in my opinion it is a borderline NO. But if Rice ever got in, I wouldn't have any big problem with it. Certainly Rice was better than Ralph Kiner. >>



I'm interested why you think Allen is "definitely" not a HOFer, but that Rice is borderline. Allen was certainly an SOB, and if that's your reason I won't argue the point. But Allen was very clearly a better hitter than Rice - his slugging, for example, was a massive 152 points better than the rest of the league where Rice's advantage is 96. The margins aren't as great, but Allen has advantages over Rice in virtually every category. And none of these take into account Rice's one-of-a-kind ability to ground into double plays, which makes the offensive gap between him and Allen rather large. Allen's OPS+, in fact, is 20th of all time - tied with Willie Mays and just ahead of Hank Aaron - while I can't find Rice's rank because it is not in the top 100.

stevek

<<< I'm interested why you think Allen is "definitely" not a HOFer, but that Rice is borderline. Allen was certainly an SOB, and if that's your reason I won't argue the point. But Allen was very clearly a better hitter than Rice - his slugging, for example, was a massive 152 points better than the rest of the league where Rice's advantage is 96. The margins aren't as great, but Allen has advantages over Rice in virtually every category. And none of these take into account Rice's one-of-a-kind ability to ground into double plays, which makes the offensive gap between him and Allen rather large. Allen's OPS+, in fact, is 20th of all time - tied with Willie Mays and just ahead of Hank Aaron - while I can't find Rice's rank because it is not in the top 100. >>>

Notice that I stated both should not be in. This is the problem when "bean counters" vote in Hall of Famers and not people who watched them play. I don't need statistics to know if someone is a Hall of Famer. If you have to "convince" everybody that someone should be in the Hall of Fame, then in my view he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Using the names you mentioned...does anybody need convincing that Willie Mays is a Hall of Famer? Or Hank Aaron? Of course not.

The Hall of Fame should be reserved for outstanding players, not excellent players. I saw Richie Allen play a lot. I saw Jim Rice a fair number of times. Both are excellent players without a doubt. But outstanding players?...In my opinion NO, neither player was outstanding, but Rice was close to outstanding.

If you feel that excellent players like a Bill Mazeroski deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, then that is your prerogative. I don't accept Mazeroski in "my" Hall of Fame.

stevek

PS: You stated Allen was a SOB. I know his history very well and fully understand the comment. I happen to like Richie Allen. He is in fact one of my favorite players, maybe like in my top 100 favorite players. He of course was a Philadelphia Phillie for a time and a guy I would have paid anytime to see him hit. But again...that aside...he shouldn't be in the Hall.

dallasactuary

Actually, Allen is one of my favorite players, too, SOB or not. I just don't want anyone, especially an Allen fan, to sell the man short. Hitting in Philadelphia in the 60's, or Comiskey in the early 70's was flat out hard to do. From 1964 to 1974, Allen was one of the best players in the major leagues, and a decent argument could be made that he was the very best player. His 1972 season was nothing short of phenomenal, probably the best season of any hitter in the 70's, and his rookie season was almost as good.

Allen was also the best player on the bad Cardinals team of 1970. But nobody on the team or among the fans liked him much, and he couldn't displace anyone on the roster for a regular position. That's the kind of thing that has kept him out of the HOF, IMO.

stevek

I'd like to agree with ya and I've already given my opinion about stats. I tried to paste his stats but they wouldn't paste right so here is a link to Allen's career stats if anyone cares to look. They're just not good enough.


Link to Richie Allen stats

dallasactuary

If you look only at the absolute numbers, then Allen appears to be pretty far from HOF-level. But, it would then also appear that every player in 1930 was better than every player in 1968 - which is obviously silly. It would be difficult to contruct a hypothetical example of a player who faced tougher batting conditions than Dick Allen actually faced in his career. He played the first five years of his career in nearly the toughest conditions for any batter since the dead-ball era, then played the remainder of his career bouncing around from one pitcher's park to another.

Statistics never tell the whole story, but statistics without context are worse than nothing at all. Compare Allen to George Sisler - Allen was much, MUCH, MUCH better than Sisler. But, unless you know that the ballpark Sisler played in was closer to a big dollhouse than to any of the parks Allen played in, the statistics will lead you to the opposite conclusion.

dgbaseball

Dallas,

You and Skinny really need to lose this hard-on for mentioning GIDP.

Last year, for instance, Manny Ramirez was 10th in MLB in GIDP. Sean Casey was first. Miggie Tejada was second. Ivan Rodriguez, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent and Albert Pujols were all in the top 15 in MLB. Going back to 2004, the top 8 were Pierzynski, Aramis Ramirez, Jorge Posada, Andruw Jones, Tejeda, Kent, Tori Hunter, Paul Konerko. Pujols was 12th in MLB. Vladdy Guerrero and Derek Jeter were tied for 19th.

Point is, slow, good, contact hitters who hit the ball very hard (mostly right handed) usually ground in to a lot of double plays. That's completely natural and expected. Because they often smoke the ball to SS or 3B, and given their place in the lineup, it happens a lot with runners on 1st or 2nd or both and they GIDP a lot. So what? And before you answer, maybe consider the top 5 guys ALL TIME in GIDP are Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Yaz, Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray and Jim Rice. So before you want to bash #5, how about starting with the top 4. Or maybe Brooks Robinson, or Roberto Clemente, or Al Kaline, or Frank Robinson, or Tony Gwynn, all of whom are in the top 20 all time.

So unless you want to educate us all on Hank Aaron's "one-of-a-kind ability to ground into double plays", maybe just smarten up and put the hyperbole to bed

dgbaseball

The margins aren't as great, but Allen has advantages over Rice in virtually every category

So you're comparing guys who played in two different eras, while using stats that (supposedly) rate them within the contet of when they played. Well which is it? Actually, I don't care.

Allen was a great player who struck out and walked more than Jim Rice. And was a little faster. That's basically the only difference.

And by the way, if Rice led the AL in hits, homers, RBIs, slugging, total bases, extra-base hits, and multihit games for basically his whole career (75-86), yet doesn't rank in your all time "OPS+" ranking, an intelligent person might conclude there's a little bit of a problem with using OPS+ as a measure of talent, don't you think?

Maybe it's just me, but when a guy dominates so many offensive categories for so long it seems silly to point to one adjusted stat and assert that he really wasn't that good. Kind of like asserting that Ben Franklin was actually really an idiot based on the fact that he couldn't speak Portuguese.

aro13

dallas - Dick Allen is a very interesting case. His numbers in context are probably Hall of Fame worthy. However, you than have to consider the baggage. The fact that he was probably the most destructive player to a team in baseball history has to count against him. Even with his prolific numbers his "value" to a team was not that great. I suppose in time, when people begin to understand how important the era and ballpark in which a person played really are, Dick Allen will look awfully good. Maybe, by than people will also have forgotten about what a negative influence he was for virtually his entire career.

softparade

Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame .... PERIOD. Talk about a lethal bat in the pre steroid era. As a life long Yankee fan who grew up in the 70's and 80's there was no other Boston Red Sox that bothered me more than Jim Rice. I don't need numbers and analysis from anyone to know that Jim Rice was as good as anyone during his entire career. His awful relationship with the media goes a long way when it comes to not getting the votes ...

dallasactuary

I hate myself for trying, but I can't help myself....


Regarding GIDP, Rice is indeed #6 of all time. But, if you look at his GIDP per at bat - the only meaningful way to look at it - Rice is (drumroll, please) one-of-a-kind. In fact, if you keep going down the list past #6, you will find that Rice ground into more double plays per at bat than such speedsters as Ted Simmons and Joe Torre. Yes, you read that right, Jim Rice was more likely to ground into a double play than Joe Torre. Let that sink in...... JOE TORRE. As in, the guy who stole 23 bases in his entire career and got thrown out 29 times - that Joe Torre. As I said, truly one-of-a-kind. (Yes, I'm sure you can find some fat loser who ground into more per at bat in a career that fizzled quickly - I will be unimpressed)



<< <i>So you're comparing guys who played in two different eras, while using stats that (supposedly) rate them within the contet of when they played. Well which is it? Actually, I don't care. >>



Actually, no, I wasn't. I was just comparing stats straight up, a procedure that favors Rice dramatically given the parks and eras they played in. And Allen still beats him at virtually everything.



<< <i>And by the way, if Rice led the AL in hits, homers, RBIs, slugging, total bases, extra-base hits, and multihit games for basically his whole career (75-86), yet doesn't rank in your all time "OPS+" ranking, an intelligent person might conclude there's a little bit of a problem with using OPS+ as a measure of talent, don't you think? >>



Here, with OPS+ (and its not "my all time OPS+ ranking", its "the all time OPS+ ranking"), I was using a stat that adjusts for context, and - again - the two aren't even close. Yes, Rice led the league in all those categories, I count 18 times leading the league in the "skill" categories listed on baseball-reference.com (excluding things like strikeouts and gidp). But for Allen, I count 27, so I'm not sure that counting league leaders helps your case.

The phenomenon you are observing, but refusing to recognize, is that right-handed hitters in Fenway used to lead the league in things all the time (before all the other parks started to get just as easy to hit in) whether thay were great players or not. Jackie Jensen, Dick Stuart, Ken Harrelson, Walt Dropo, and Vern Stephens all led the AL in RBI - some of them more than once. So what? None of them were great players, they were all just good players who batted right-handed in Fenway.

League leaders come overwhelmingly from teams that were either great, played in easy hitter's parks, or both. OPS+ is an attempt to factor those things out, and show how all players compare if they played their games in a neutral park on a neutral team. So, no, an intelligent person does not throw out a formula just because he doesn't like the results.

Wasy

Dont be dissin Ralph Kiner, I'm not saying he belongs in the HoF but he was better than both Rice and Allen!!!

Although Kiner only played 11 years he led the majors in HR's 6 of those 11 years averaging an astonishing 33 HR per year. He also averaged 92 RBI's and had a lifetime .279 avg. addtionally he only struckout less than 70 times on average per year.

Again I'm not comparing but extend Kiner's numbers out over 19 seasons and he has Barry Bonds type numbers, in saying that playing 19 years at that level is what makes Bonds great.

stevek

<<< Dont be dissin Ralph Kiner >>>

Yea, yea, yea...like Ralph Kiner would have made it to the Hall of Fame if he hadn't been a longtime New York broadcaster...he would have never gotten in if not for this. And you did say "I'm not saying he belongs in the HoF" so I think we agree there.

And I didn't "diss" Kiner - I only said Jim Rice was better. If I'm a manager and had a choice between Ralph Kiner and Jim Rice to play LF, I take Jim Rice in a millionth of a second.

dgbaseball

League leaders come overwhelmingly from teams that were either great, played in easy hitter's parks, or both. OPS+ is an attempt to factor those things out, and show how all players compare if they played their games in a neutral park on a neutral team. So, no, an intelligent person does not throw out a formula just because he doesn't like the results.

Correct. But a truly stubborn stat nerd apparently just ignores EVERYTHING else. You're the one who brought up league leaders in order to make a point that Allen lead the league more than Rice. The stat is for an 11 year period, Rice lead every other player in his league in games, at-bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging, total bases, extra-base hits, multihit games, and outfield assists. You can adjust that for interpretation however you want. Most rational people can accept it for what it is.

aro13

dallas - I commend you for trying.

~"Jackie Jensen, Dick Stuart, Ken Harrelson, Walt Dropo, and Vern Stephens all led the AL in RBI - some of them more than once. So what? None of them were great players, they were all just good players who batted right-handed in Fenway."~

I would not include Stephens in that group. The year he led the league in RBI's in 1949 the man hit 18 homers and drove in 63 runs - on the road - totals that on there own are pretty good for a shortstop. Stephens was a fine hitter, regardless of the park, and would have been among the league leaders in RBI's in a neutral park.

Skinpinch

I've been trying to cut back on debating with zealots, and I'm going to try and not debate on this. I will add a couple of points, even though "people tend to SEE what they want to believe."

1) Rice led in the league in a a bunch of categories from 1975 to 1986. Yes he did. But it isn't that simple. Here's why...

A) He led that time period in at bats, so as a result he is going to get a lot of runs, RBI, HR, Hits. Having a lot of at bats is a big reason why he led in those counting categories. HE HAD MORE CHANCES THAN ANYBODY ELSE TO GET THOSE HITS! If all the other superstars of the same era had the same amount of at bats, then he doesn't lead in all those categories, plain and simple!! Though the SLG% lead is impressive(even though it is ballpark aided)!!!

He played in the best hitters park in the league, especially for RH batters, so that is part of the reason why he achieved all those 'leader'. For example his career SLG% at home was .546, and on the road .459. If every other superstar gets to hit in a hitter friendly park, they too see an increase in their numbers.

C) THe RBI. Please stop using RBI as a benchmark for Rice!! The reason he had the most RBI is simply because he had the most at bats AND more importantly he had far more opportunities than everyone else!

Nobody On BA. .291 OB% .344 SLG% .495
MEN ON....BA. 305 OB% .359 SLG% .509

Realize that everybody hits slightly higher with men on as opposed to nobody on, so it isn't as if RIce is achieving great RBI totals from his men on hitting prowess. He gets a leg up over the other SUPERSTARS in RBI because he simply gets more chances, AND of course his ballpark.

2) As for the only players with a .298 avg and 350 Home runs in cooperstown. Rice retired early so he saved his batting average, OB%, and SLG% from going down. If Rice plays another six years like a lot of the HOFers do, then he no longer has that type of average, and his SLG% also retreats quite rapidly.

What does it leave Rice as?? Still an impressive player, and probably one of the very best not in the Hall of Fame. If Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, then there will be another guy who is the very best not in the Hall, and then if that guy gets in then there will be another...and so on, and so on. Rice falls short of his contemporary hall of famer sluggers....Schmidt, Reggie, Stargell, Murray, Brett, Winfield.

It bears repeating, please do not get caught up in counting numbers. How many home runs per at bat did Rice have compared to Schmidt in that time period?? That is far more telling. One cannot disregard the effect of the ballpark for the hitters, as that is significant.

Skinpinch

I think one of those numbers are incorrect for Rice. I believe Schmidt was better in SLG% in that time frame. I didn't compute, but he beat him nearly every year.

dgbaseball

Skinny, good post. However,

He led that time period in at bats, so as a result he is going to get a lot of runs, RBI, HR, Hits. Having a lot of at bats is a big reason why he led in those counting categories. HE HAD MORE CHANCES THAN ANYBODY ELSE TO GET THOSE HITS! If all the other superstars of the same era had the same amount of at bats, then he doesn't lead in all those categories, plain and simple!! Though the SLG% lead is impressive(even though it is ballpark aided)!!!

Huh?

Actually, I'm sure you can actually see what's going on, and you're just trying to slip this through to make a point, even though you realize is contradicts one of your typical arguing points, that being - walks are so valuable. But in case anyone else didn't pick up on it, I might as well call you out here...

He lead the AL in at bats because he didn't walk much and didn't get hurt. That's all. And instead, as these stats show you, he used his plate appearances to get more hits and HR than anyone else in the league. I think, if anything, this discussion is framing a great example of the virtual non-value of talking a walk as compared to swinging away. Your statement, in capital letters so that we all hear it loud and clear, about having more chances is false, unless you don't know the difference between plate appearances and at bats. And before you waste time looking it up, I'd be he's at or around the top in plate appearances as well. Well, yeah, because he played and didn't get hurt. You want to criticism him for that? Shall we also discount Lou Gehrig's numbers?

As for the only players with a .298 avg and 350 Home runs in cooperstown. Rice retired early so he saved his batting average, OB%, and SLG% from going down. If Rice plays another six years like a lot of the HOFers do, then he no longer has that type of average, and his SLG% also retreats quite rapidly.

Yes, but here's the rub. HE DIDN'T PLAY ANOTHER SIX YEARS. So as it is now here in real life planet earth, other than Jim Rice, the only retired players with at least 382 homers and a career average of .298 are Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams. That's the fact. If you want to talk fantasy worlds, why not consider he plays another 15 years and ends up with 967 HR.

Trying to dismiss an absolute fact by arguing that it wouldn't be true if things were different is pretty creative. It's like arguing that if it weren't snowing now, there wouldn't be snow on the ground. Well guess what, it is snowing.

If anything, he should be commending for not hanging around to pad his personal stats, which exposes one of the biggest flaws in the longevity argument. If he had played another 6 mediocre declining seasons, barely contributing to his team, he could've very well ended up .285/500 HR for his career and would've been a first ballot HOF. As it is, he quit when it was time to quit rather than hurt his team and his health, and for that he is punished.

dgbaseball

I think one of those numbers are incorrect for Rice. I believe Schmidt was better in SLG% in that time frame. I didn't compute, but he beat him nearly every year.

Different leagues.

dallasactuary

<< <i>dallas - I commend you for trying.

~"Jackie Jensen, Dick Stuart, Ken Harrelson, Walt Dropo, and Vern Stephens all led the AL in RBI - some of them more than once. So what? None of them were great players, they were all just good players who batted right-handed in Fenway."~

I would not include Stephens in that group. The year he led the league in RBI's in 1949 the man hit 18 homers and drove in 63 runs - on the road - totals that on there own are pretty good for a shortstop. Stephens was a fine hitter, regardless of the park, and would have been among the league leaders in RBI's in a neutral park. >>




Stephens was certainly the best player in that group, and I meant no offense - they were all very good players having very good years. Had Stephens been as good in the rest of his career as he was in 1949 then he would be a great player indeed.

Interestingly, Stephens was a very good player for the Browns, too, though this stats are meager. Sportsman's Park in St. Louis was child's play for a lefty (like Sisler), but was a very tough park for righties. In fact, you can get a pretty good idea of the impact that moving from a tough park on a bad team to an easy park on a good team has on a player's stats by looking at Stephens' record. Stephens was every bit as good a player in 1943-1944 when he drove in a total of 200 runs as he was in 1949-1950 when he drove in 303.

Skinpinch

dg, I agree with the padding the stats, though a lot of the Hall of Famers played longer at above average ability in those extra years. Yes, he had more at bats because he swung away more often and avoided walks, but that leads to leading the time period in one crucial stat that was not posted...OUTS MADE. When a player swings away often, and avoids walks, he makes a lot of outs. Again, you can go through the play by play of every Rice at bat and see everything you want, and then compare that to every at bat of Schmidt, Murray etc... and see theirs too. Or to save time, you can use the already tried and true methods based on that data to get the value of the player. In the end, Rice doesn't compare as well as the HOF SLuggers of his time, but he is certainly the next best.

Also, using that specific time period is fine, but how many players have their exact prime fall in that exact period?

More later, have to go.


As for Kiner and Allen, he doesn't measure up to either of them as well. I can break that down later if one wishes me to, but we will see.

Skinpinch

FOR THE RECORD! I responded to the post because of the measurements being used as faulty etc... As for Rice's candidacy, his ability is typically overvalued because people neglect the ballpark factor, and put too much emphasis on his RBI totals.

As for his true candidacy, I agree with DG that longevity is often over valued, and that if you can't tell how good a player is after 12 years, then one must be retarded(thats why 10 years is the rule for the HOF).

I also agree with DG that playing every day is certainly a plus for Rice, just as it was for Gehrig, Ripken, Murray, etc...

If one uses valid measurements to support Rice's candidacy, then he is in the ballpark, though not as clear as some make it out to be. One thing that gets overlooked in Rice's case, and in Ted Wiliams case too is the defense. Fenway helps RH hitters, but it also supresss LF's defensive numbers!! They have less balls to catch, thus less put outs, thus less overall defensive value when the measurements are used.

Also, Rice played in the most competitive era in history. Guys from his era have it the toughest as they couldn't beat up on the league and amass these ridiculous numbers like in the 30's or now. I've written on that before.

Maybe it is time for me to do a full blown Rice HOF candidacy study. Fred Lynn too for that matter!! Maybe it is time to dig in and support them with correct measurements.

dgbaseball

Skinny, or anyone else, considering the best players spanning roughly 1975-86. For simplicity, ignore guys who started or ended in the middle of that time period, and singles hitter like Rose and Carew or great fielders like Ozzie, just to keep the list comparing apples to apples. Also not really considering fielding or running since none of these guys made their fame by stealing bases. They're hitters.

Certainly define best however you want, and the question is - In your opinion, who were the best 15 hitters in baseball from 1975-1986?

Here's how I rank the top 15 that I can think of.

1 Brett
2 Rice
3 Schmidt
4 Reggie
5 D. Murphy
6 Eddie Murray
7 A Dawson
8 D. Evans
9 Paul Molitor
10 Fred Lynn
11 D. Parker
12 Winfield
13 Fisk
14 Yount
15 G Carter

Skinpinch

Well you have to compare them to those guys during THEIR primes, and NOT just 1975-1986. And it has to be done using the right measurements.

The top of the list should have Schmidt/Brett/Murray/Reggie(order is irrelevant on those four) during their best 12 year stretch(comparing to Rice's 12 years). That is the cream no doubt. Then Winfield.

It is very possible that Rice is the next HITTER after the big four above, based on a 12 year career. Granted, I am doing this willy nilly here. There is no way Rice cracks the big four above, and greater detail would have to be given to the rest of the pack to assure Rice of that Sixth slugger spot in that era. But I'm fairly confident he falls in the top six(hitters) of a 12 years span, compared to all of his contemporaries.

Fisk and Yount are catchers, so their value is different, so remove them from the list.

This is only limiting guys who played 70's-80's. There are going to be a lot of fringe guys, like from 1979-1990, or 1969-1980 that realistically should be included as well. To be fair, if you are going to limit it only to 70's-80's, then you need to compare how many sluggers are in the hall from 60-s'70's, and 50's-60's, and all the other decades. THEN once you have the list of sluggers, see how many of those decades go more than six deep in their sluggers in the Hall of Fame. If Rice is getting treated unfairly, then the other decades should be having their 6th, th, and 8th best sluggers in the Hall of Fame. After all, if Rice is the sixth best slugger in his era, and he ain't in the Hall, and those other era's are, then he has a beef.

That is only the beginning as there is much more work to do. Then you have the longevity factor as some guys DO have legitimate longevity and are productive even after their dominant years. But lets forget that to make it easy. Just focus on comparing him to the best 12 year stretch of other sluggers's primes.

I can probably do it later or over the weekend.

dgbaseball

Well you have to compare them to those guys during THEIR primes, and NOT just 1975-1986. And it has to be done using the right measurements

Well, I'd have to if that's what I was asking, but it's not. There's no agenda here. Forget this is a conversation about Jim Rice. I just asked who you thought were the 15 best hitters in baseball from 75-86. That's all. Looking at that era, not the careers of each player, and asking just because I think it'd be interesting to see your list.

Axtell

Rice should be in the hall...the fact he's not just shows how much the voters are trying to compare past eras to the steroid ball being played today...throw in diluted pitching through expansion, and it's obvious.

You shouldn't need a mathematics degree in order to see if someone's hall worthy or not, skin, as much as you'd like it to be a prerequisite. Now you're saying his stats are inflated because he had too many at bats? What? Talk about grasping. And he grounded into a lot of double plays? So what? That should be used against him for voting into the hall? Are you kidding? He played in a hitter's ballpark? Uh, what do you think Yankee Stadium was for Babe Ruth? Should we look at his stats differently because he had such a favorable park for him?

Look, he won an MVP (was in the top 5 5 other times), 8 time all star, 4 times led the league in total bases, top 5 in OPS 4 times, HR leader 3 times (second once), and batted nearly .300 (.298) through his career.

He should be in the hall, as much as you stat geeks want to argue minute points against him.

Skinpinch

dg, I will reply to your post, and ignore that other one by the trouble maker.

Ok. The question from 1975-86 only, makes it a very selective group. There just aren't a lot of guys that played those exact years, and those years being the prime of their career. So the result doesn't give much validity for enshrinment for Rice. You can do that if you want, but it really doesn't solve much. I would prefer to spend the time to come to a conclusion that has a good deal of validity, and what I laid out is a good start.

For personal interest, I may look at it thoroughly, but I can give a good read on what you asked for. More later.

sagard

<< <i>I just asked who you thought were the 15 best hitters in baseball from 75-86. >>



This is a far better question than any "Hall of Fame" question anyway.

Without checking stats these are my picks:

Brett
Murray
Schmidt
Henderson
Rice

Garvey
Winfield
Carter
Clark
Parker

Carew
Molitor
Evans
Bench
Jackson

Nettles
Yount


I'm sure I've missed a few as well.

Skinpinch

Sagard, I agree that "the best hitter" is a better question than "Hall of Fame" as Hall of Fame has lots of ambiguity.

Anyway, I would submit my list based on the guys that played during the same era, not the EXACT SAME YEARS, as I wrote above. Based on the absolute best hitting measurements(and their best 12 year stretch to equalize to Rice's career), the top four are, in no order, Schmidt, Murray, Brett and Reggie. I will look at it a little more though for the rest.

Ax, just so you know, whenever I see your logo I don't read your words anymore as your knack for causing trouble isn't worth reading. You can post, and insult me all you want, I simply won't reply or even READ your posts. I sure hope you can do the same for mine to avoid any mental anguish.

Axtell

<< <i>
Ax, just so you know, whenever I see your logo I don't read your words anymore as your knack for causing trouble isn't worth reading. You can post, and insult me all you want, I simply won't reply or even READ your posts. I sure hope you can do the same for mine to avoid any mental anguish. >>



It's not about causing trouble, but it's beyond belief the things you come up with in order to try to disagree with someone. You don't think that Rice should be in the hall because of too many at bats?

Crazy.

Skinpinch

Ok, a quick check and here is what i came up with. The number posted is the number of runs produced above the league average player. It is taken from the actual play by play data. It does not include the men on hitting aspect. They are straight numbers.

The number represents the players best 12 year stretch in their career. I only looked at players who played predominately during Rice's stretch. It is not restricted only to the span of 1975-1986, but they are very close to that span, a few years off either way. They are all clearly contemporaries with each other.

Schmidt 540
Reggie 489
Murray 430
Brett 403

Singleton 393
J. Clark 378
Winfield 374
K. Hernandez 369
R. Smith 352

Bench 317
D. Evans 314
Molitor 311
Luzinski 302
RICE 297
Foster 296
Murphy 293

Parker 276
Dawson 275
Cey 265
Lynn 260
Garvey 248
Madlock 239

Ballpark, and Men on Hitting will change the spots of some of those rankings a spot or two(maybe a few more if bunched), i.e. Murray passes Reggie and comes close to Schmidt. Injuries hurt players as they cannot accumulate runs while on the bench(Fred Lynn). These numbers, when these other things are included are pretty darn accurate. If you want to add strikeouts, then somebody like Reggie would lose about 20 runs, but that is the extent of that value. If one wants to dispute the rankings you are welcome to comb the play by play results and see what you come up with.

Walks seem to be a big issue with people, again the play by play doesn't lie as the walk value is right on there... but a walk to a cleanup hitter has about 10% less value than to a leadoff man. If you want to get technical, since all of these are middle of the order hitters, the players who's value is based a lot on walks may lose about 5% of their value, compared to the hackers, since middle of the order hitters come up with men on a little more often. That is generous, as remember for everytime a guy hacks to get a hit with a man on second(compared to walking), don't forget the three other times he makes an out by swinging at a pitchers' pitch. An out with a man on second is very damaging for a team. Again, this is all included.


This is only a twelve year stretch, some of these players had a 13th or 14th year(or more) that were equally as good as a year in their prime(Dave Winfield). So it is clear that Winfield belongs in the Big Four at the top overall. Most of the other guys, except Molitor, petered out right around after that 12th year. It is clear that the four big guns had better primes than all those other guys, PLUS they did not peter out right after the 12th year. They are the epitomy of a Hall of Fame slugger as we all come to recognize. It is the shorter career guys that lose respect. So is Rice gettng cheated because of being outstanding for only 12 years?

There are Five Hall of Fame sluggers from that era in baseball. I'm excluding Bench because position stuff, but five guys that got there without regard to what position they played. Is that a low number compared to other eras? Do other era's have only FIVE guys who got to the hall on hitting without regard to position? I didnt' look. If other eras have a lot more sluggers making it, then some of the guys on this list have a real beef.

If Rice has a beef, then so do a handful of other guys as well, some even more so. The one guy that is so close to Rice is Foster. They almost parallel each other, and being on that leader card in the late 70's, how telling!

I recognize how good all the players were on that list. It is obvious how the top four separate themselves from the pack. How many hitters in history are in the Hall based on a similar 12 year stretch? Kiner is one.

Would Kiner rank in that Murray group in his era, or the middle group? Looking at how Kiner ranked FIRST a few years in some VERY important categories, I most assuradley would guess that his 12 year stretch would be right there with Murray and Schmidt at the top. So I would say he easily separated himself during his prime much more so than the Rice's, or other players on the middle section of the list. That is what gets him a Hall nod for recognizing some short term greatness(the Koufaxian way).

So I wouldn't question a Kiner nominee at all. I wouldn't have a RIce and CO. answer until I look at other eras. It cannot be just Rice, it has to be Co. as well. A more detailed analysis of men on and ballpark etc... would need to be looked at too. Remember, this is just hitting too. We are totally ignoring defense..

Edited to add, these numbers are ballpark adjusted.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Skinny, or anyone else, considering the best players spanning roughly 1975-86. For simplicity, ignore guys who started or ended in the middle of that time period, and singles hitter like Rose and Carew or great fielders like Ozzie, just to keep the list comparing apples to apples. Also not really considering fielding or running since none of these guys made their fame by stealing bases. They're hitters.

Certainly define best however you want, and the question is - In your opinion, who were the best 15 hitters in baseball from 1975-1986?

Here's how I rank the top 15 that I can think of.

1 Brett
2 Rice
3 Schmidt
4 Reggie
5 D. Murphy
6 Eddie Murray
7 A Dawson
8 D. Evans
9 Paul Molitor
10 Fred Lynn
11 D. Parker
12 Winfield
13 Fisk
14 Yount
15 G Carter >>



I'll pick:

1. Schmidt
2. Brett
3. Reggie
4. Murray
5. Winfield
6. Singleton
7. Rice
8. Hernandez
9. Garvey
10. Parker
11. Cey
12. Cruz
13. Cooper
14. Evans
15. Baylor

If some of these are considered "singles hitters" then pluck those out and fill out the list with Lynn, McRae, Oglivie, Foster and Carter in that order.

Some other names to consider that didn't make dg's list: Griffey, Hendrick, Simmons, Driessen, Morgan, Luzinski, Harrah, Oliver, Hargrove, Baker and Thornton - all of whom are arguably better hitters than Fisk, Murphy, Molitor or Dawson over this arbitrary period, depending on how you account for years not played in that span.

Skinpinch

Its been a slice men. I'm taking a break from here.

-Skinpinch, over and out.