I did not realize you were a spokesman for Skinpinch !!
But that's fine, and I believe your opinions are a bit more realistic, and the response was appreciated.
You do admit Rice could probably hit a ball further than Murray, but do say it is of no matter. II feel it is worth mentioning as much as the home ballpark, afterall in Fenway Park or Yellowstone National Park, the ability to hit a ball further, and with more power should add to one's slugging ability via various stats.
You state Skin was not talking about batting averages when I compared their carreer and last years performances which showed Murry below Rice, I'll confess I often don't know what he IS talking about.
I am sure you will check another thread relating to stats, and hope you will understand my view on the traditional ones and see how they rank the great hitters.
May I ask whom you feel is most qualified for the hall ? Roger Maris, Ron Santo, or Jim Rice ?
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I did not realize you were a spokesman for Skinpinch !!
But that's fine, and I believe your opinions are a bit more realistic, and the response was appreciated.
You do admit Rice could probably hit a ball further than Murray, but do say it is of no matter. II feel it is worth mentioning as much as the home ballpark, afterall in Fenway Park or Yellowstone National Park, the ability to hit a ball further, and with more power should add to one's slugging ability via various stats.
You state Skin was not talking about batting averages when I compared their carreer and last years performances which showed Murry below Rice, I'll confess I often don't know what he IS talking about.
I am sure you will check another thread relating to stats, and hope you will understand my view on the traditional ones and see how they rank the great hitters.
May I ask whom you feel is most qualified for the hall ? Roger Maris, Ron Santo, or Jim Rice ?
>>
I wasn't presuming to speak for skinpich - those were just my thoughts.
As for your last question:
Santo is head-and-shoulders above the other two in HOF qualifications. I think he should already be in, that he is better than most third basemen in the HOF and that he is, in fact, better than most of the other players in the HOF. It is a travesty that he is not in the HOF.
Maris played at a borderline HOF level, but for far too short a time to get serious HOF consideration. He either needed to be much better while he did play or play much longer at the same level to get my vote, anyway. Still, considering how great he was for two years and the importance of the record he set, I would not get that upset if he was inducted.
Rice in the HOF? The thought makes me ill. I seriously believe that there are at least 100 more qualified players in line ahead of him.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Why I kind of took apart your comparison of Rice and Murray is of many reasons discussed. But you were trying to 'twist' things to dispute a concrete evaluation. You were using ropes of sand to support your argument. For instance, you listed their best marks in each season and you get to the stolen base portion and list 10 for each, as if that is an indication of something important. It is a meaningless example that gives 'stats' a bad name, because people do twist them to support thier ropes of sand. The methods I employ get rid of all that stuff, they dont' twist, they ELIMINATE the twist.
But forget all the important stuff for now, look at your stolen bases...
The stolen bases. Yeah 10 was their high, WOW! Why not add the rest of the information....JIM RICe 58 career stolen bases, 34 caught stealing. Eddie Murray 110 stolen bases, 43 caught stealing. WHich set of informatin paints a more accurate picture in both depth and efficiency?
100 RBI seasons. Ok forget aobut the obvious ballpark effect, and baserunner effect. You posted RIce at 8 100 RBI seasons, Murray 6 100 RBI seasons, as if that information makes Rice better. We already know the ballpark effect and baserunner effect would totally change those numbers, but why not go a little further?
Rice added one more 90 RBI season, and Murray added SIX more 90 RBI season(FOUR OF WHICH WERE 95+). Rice added two more 80 RBI season, and Murray added FIVE more 80 RBI season.
How about the times leading league? You used OB% and SLG%, commendable, but you neglected ballpark factor...bad.
Why just led league? Go a little further, how about top five? Murray had FIVE top five OB%, Rice ZERO. Add ballpark factor, Murray gets another one. Add ballpark factor, and Rice is no higher than tenth ever.
SLG% Rice 5, Murray 4. Add ballpark and it changes. That looks a little different than the 0 for Murray and 2 for Rice.
The only remaining question I have for you is regard to the ballpark factor. It seems that you think it needs to be addressed when meauring players, but TOTALLY neglect it when you are evaluating Rice...who happens to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of ballpark help from his era. Why is this? Do you disagree with the degree of help? Do you know Rice's hitting ability on the road? Do you realize the difference of runs being scored at Fenway, as opposed to other venues? Just curious on this.
Comments
I did not realize you were a spokesman for Skinpinch !!
But that's fine, and I believe your opinions are a bit more realistic, and the response was appreciated.
You do admit Rice could probably hit a ball further than Murray, but do say it is of no matter. II feel it is worth mentioning as much as the home ballpark, afterall in Fenway Park or Yellowstone National Park, the ability to hit a ball further, and with more power should add to one's slugging ability via various stats.
You state Skin was not talking about batting averages when I compared their carreer and last years performances which showed Murry below Rice, I'll confess I often don't know what he IS talking about.
I am sure you will check another thread relating to stats, and hope you will understand my view on the traditional ones and see how they rank the great hitters.
May I ask whom you feel is most qualified for the hall ? Roger Maris, Ron Santo, or Jim Rice ?
<< <i>Steve,
I did not realize you were a spokesman for Skinpinch !!
But that's fine, and I believe your opinions are a bit more realistic, and the response was appreciated.
You do admit Rice could probably hit a ball further than Murray, but do say it is of no matter. II feel it is worth mentioning as much as the home ballpark, afterall in Fenway Park or Yellowstone National Park, the ability to hit a ball further, and with more power should add to one's slugging ability via various stats.
You state Skin was not talking about batting averages when I compared their carreer and last years performances which showed Murry below Rice, I'll confess I often don't know what he IS talking about.
I am sure you will check another thread relating to stats, and hope you will understand my view on the traditional ones and see how they rank the great hitters.
May I ask whom you feel is most qualified for the hall ? Roger Maris, Ron Santo, or Jim Rice ?
I wasn't presuming to speak for skinpich - those were just my thoughts.
As for your last question:
Santo is head-and-shoulders above the other two in HOF qualifications. I think he should already be in, that he is better than most third basemen in the HOF and that he is, in fact, better than most of the other players in the HOF. It is a travesty that he is not in the HOF.
Maris played at a borderline HOF level, but for far too short a time to get serious HOF consideration. He either needed to be much better while he did play or play much longer at the same level to get my vote, anyway. Still, considering how great he was for two years and the importance of the record he set, I would not get that upset if he was inducted.
Rice in the HOF? The thought makes me ill. I seriously believe that there are at least 100 more qualified players in line ahead of him.
Why I kind of took apart your comparison of Rice and Murray is of many reasons discussed. But you were trying to 'twist' things to dispute a concrete evaluation. You were using ropes of sand to support your argument. For instance, you listed their best marks in each season and you get to the stolen base portion and list 10 for each, as if that is an indication of something important. It is a meaningless example that gives 'stats' a bad name, because people do twist them to support thier ropes of sand. The methods I employ get rid of all that stuff, they dont' twist, they ELIMINATE the twist.
But forget all the important stuff for now, look at your stolen bases...
The stolen bases. Yeah 10 was their high, WOW! Why not add the rest of the information....JIM RICe 58 career stolen bases, 34 caught stealing. Eddie Murray 110 stolen bases, 43 caught stealing. WHich set of informatin paints a more accurate picture in both depth and efficiency?
100 RBI seasons. Ok forget aobut the obvious ballpark effect, and baserunner effect. You posted RIce at 8 100 RBI seasons, Murray 6 100 RBI seasons, as if that information makes Rice better. We already know the ballpark effect and baserunner effect would totally change those numbers, but why not go a little further?
Rice added one more 90 RBI season, and Murray added SIX more 90 RBI season(FOUR OF WHICH WERE 95+).
Rice added two more 80 RBI season, and Murray added FIVE more 80 RBI season.
How about the times leading league? You used OB% and SLG%, commendable, but you neglected ballpark factor...bad.
Why just led league? Go a little further, how about top five? Murray had FIVE top five OB%, Rice ZERO. Add ballpark factor, Murray gets another one. Add ballpark factor, and Rice is no higher than tenth ever.
SLG% Rice 5, Murray 4. Add ballpark and it changes. That looks a little different than the 0 for Murray and 2 for Rice.
The only remaining question I have for you is regard to the ballpark factor. It seems that you think it needs to be addressed when meauring players, but TOTALLY neglect it when you are evaluating Rice...who happens to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of ballpark help from his era. Why is this? Do you disagree with the degree of help? Do you know Rice's hitting ability on the road? Do you realize the difference of runs being scored at Fenway, as opposed to other venues? Just curious on this.