An exercise comparing Eddie Murray, Frank Howard, and Jim Rice. I like to use Murray because he is an interesting study, classic career path, classic men on example, and he is a solid average to slightly above average HOFer. Not a Ruthian level, not a Cepeda level.
Lets look at their best seaons in situational batter Runs. I will rank their best seasons, starting with their first and on down to their worst.
Murray, Howard, Rice. Their best seasons in batter runs each.
By the looks of this, it looks like Howard is the guy that is getting a shaft. He outdoes Murray in each of their top two seasons. But those are the only two seasons he gets Murray. Murray gets him from there on out, and soundly beats him in many of them. Howard's first two cup of coffe's are nto included here.
The interesting thing is that Howard's best beats Rice's best from one through nine. There next three are even. They exchange one each next. Then Rice has the two extra below average seasons.
Murray has the typical HOF path. He too has a couple of sub par seasons at the very end. But every other season was above average(one was average).
I will say that this measurement actually hurts both Murray and Rice a bit, as it counts how many bases a runner advances to the hitter. Both Fenway and Memorial hindered advancing base runners. Memorial's short lines made triples hard(and runners from first could hardly score on a hit down the line). Anyway, they simply don't advance runners as much(Fenway, Memorial).
I can help. He is not. If you compare his QB rating to Mantle's Win shares, then multiply each by the # of interceptions, you will find that Mantle is far superior.
<< <i>I can help. He is not. If you compare his QB rating to Mantle's Win shares, then multiply each by the # of interceptions, you will find that Mantle is far superior. >>
<< I can help. He is not. If you compare his QB rating to Mantle's Win shares, then multiply each by the # of interceptions, you will find that Mantle is far superior. >>
Thanks! That's what I thought.
But is Manning's QB rating park adjusted?? He does play in a dome after all...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Winpithcer, it is too bad the writers who vote don't consider that. Maybe then some of the writers can actually use something with validity and a semblence of intelligence or knowledge, instead of heresay, or simple lack of knowledge in the area.
By the way, there are a lot of voters who have a HOF vote who know very little about baseball, or havent' followed it in years, or simply haev a vote because they were wrtiers who wrote an article on the game for a little while.
I don't want to impune all writers...some actually do their homework.
Grote, all one has to do is watch a reply of the Packers/Bears game of a few weeks ago, then use some logic and know that Manning has some sort of advantage of being indoors. The stats in the NFL are soo dependant on their teammates and system, that nothing comparable can be done to the NFL like can be to MLB. MLB is a unique animal for detailed, VALID analysis.
...... let's take a look at what Bill James had to say about Rice in the 1985 Baseball Abstract:
Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bulls**t; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bulls**t is something that you just "know." If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence.
How great is that? I mean, Bill's not saying that now. Instead, he made that statement 23 years ago while Rice was still playing!
And, again, it's not about Rice per se. It's about the search for the truth.
James opened up our eyes – and our minds – by challenging the conventional wisdom and proving it wrong in so many cases. More than anything, he taught us to ask questions. Thanks to Bill, we have learned the importance of dealing with questions rather than answers.
With the foregoing in mind, here are eight questions for Rice's supporters and undecided voters to ponder when filling out their ballots next year:
To what extent were Rice's career totals positively affected by playing home games his entire career at Fenway Park, known as a hitter friendly ballpark?
If Rice gets credit for leading the majors in RBI from 1975-1986, then shouldn't he be debited for topping all players by an even wider margin in GIDP during that same period?
Was Rice as great as his RBI totals would indicate or were they heavily influenced by the fact that he ranked in the top seven in runners on base in nine of those 12 years?
Can we ignore that Rice produced the second-most outs during these same dozen years?
Did Rice play a difficult defensive position? Was Rice a Gold Glove-caliber fielder?
Was Rice a "plus" baserunner?
In other words, was Rice really as good as advertised?
The greatest change since Rice's playing days hasn't been the acceptance of OBP as a noteworthy stat as it has been in recognizing that many long-held beliefs based on traditional stats are as much a function of the era, league, team, lineup, and ballpark as anything else. Stats don't tell the entire story but the *right* stats tell us most of what we need to know.
Take, for instance, Bert Blyleven and Jim Palmer. One of the knocks against Blyleven is that he wasn't one of the most dominant pitchers of his era. The conventional wisdom says that Palmer was dominant and Blyleven wasn't. To that, I say, "Really?"
Can we accept a stat that measures the number of runs that a pitcher saved versus what an average pitcher would have allowed (adjusted for park differences) as a reasonable proxy to judge effectiveness?
Well, if we can, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led all pitchers in Runs Saved Against Average from 1973-1977? Yes, all pitchers. Not just Palmer. But Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, and Don Sutton, too?
Furthermore, what would you say if I told you that Palmer won three Cy Young Awards during those five years and that Blyleven received one third-place vote during that same time? I mean, would you scratch your head and wonder if the Cy Young voting process was flawed? If nothing else, wouldn't you want to consider facts outside the simple tasks of counting CYA and All-Star games?
Moreover, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led the majors in RSAA in not just one five-year period but in four consecutive five-year periods? Yes, it is a fact. Blyleven saved more runs than any pitcher from 1971-1975, 1972-1976, 1973-1977, and 1974-1978. It seems to me that he was probably the best pitcher during that time period, no? If Bert wasn't the greatest, he was certainly one of the most dominant, don't you think?
In the spirit of asking questions, is it possible that Palmer benefited by working his home games in a ballpark that was more friendly to pitchers than Blyleven? The answer is "yes." Palmer pitched in Memorial Stadium while Blyleven toiled in Metropolitan and Arlington Stadiums. The difference in park factors averaged a tad over 7% per year.
Is it also possible that Palmer benefited by having a superior defense playing behind him? During his Cy Young seasons, Palmer had Mark Belanger at shortstop, Bobby Grich at second base, and Paul Blair in center field. He also had Brooks Robinson at third base in two of those three years. Belanger, Grich, Blair, and Robinson are among the best defensive players at their position in the history of the game. Blyleven, on the other hand, had Danny Thompson and Rod Carew as his middle infielders.
<< <i> Thanks to Bill, we have learned the importance of dealing with questions rather than answers. >>
I thought it was Alex Trebek that taught us that?
Edited to add:
"Moreover, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led the majors in RSAA in not just one five-year period but in four consecutive five-year periods? Yes, it is a fact. Blyleven saved more runs than any pitcher from 1971-1975, 1972-1976, 1973-1977, and 1974-1978."
I would say that sounds like an extravagant way of saying he lead the league for 8 seasons.
While even I can see that the case against Rice at least has two sides depending on what one's vision of the HOF might be, the case against Bert Blyleven simply does not exist.
No offense intended to anyone in particular, but if you don't think Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF then you're an idiot. Wait, I suppose that was probably offensive. Wait, I forgot, I don't care because you're an idiot.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Though hardly scientific, I find it rather interesting that the percentage of yes votes for HOF induction in this poll almost mirror the perentage of yes votes Rice gets from the actual voters.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>While even I can see that the case against Rice at least has two sides depending on what one's vision of the HOF might be, the case against Bert Blyleven simply does not exist.
No offense intended to anyone in particular, but if you don't think Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF then you're an idiot. Wait, I suppose that was probably offensive. Wait, I forgot, I don't care because you're an idiot. >>
Who is saying Blyleven shouldn't belong in the HOF in this thread?
What did Blyleven ever do to piss off the writers? I was a kid when he played, so I do not recall.
Short of him spitting on them or some other gross act, I don't see how the writers could ignore all those Ks, especially combined with the 287 wins. Lefty was a pretty surly dude as well, but, of course, his numbers were too much to ignore even if he killed his wife.
I do feel Bly is Hall worthy, but also feel Smokey Joe Wood is too.
Regardless, I still cant quite grasp some votes, or rather the lack thereof;
No MVP, No CyYoung, and only two AS team selections.
Many outstanding hurlers have failed to win an MVP, and some missed getting a get a CyYoung, no big deal, however only 2 times an all-star ??? So, from 1970 to 1992, only twice was Bert felt to among the best 8 or 9 pitchers in his respective league, not all of baseball mind you, just his league. I have not looked it up, but would guess that no other pitcher/player worthy of HOF discussion, was an all star so infrequently.
Again, I agree with Blyleven's quality, and am not trying to be confrontational, it just is very odd he was passed over so often by all star game selectors, somehow that might relate to being passed over by Hall selectors.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Jaxx you know as well as i know that pitchers and allstar selections have too many variables. He may have started the last game b4 the break, he may have declined a few times, he may have been overlooked, his team was already represented and teams that needed 1 player got a pitcher in instead. Too many variables.
What I think and this is just off the top of my head is that he was 8 and 8 at many breaks and other guys seemed to always have better first halfs.
I mean he did end up 287 and 250. Impressive in that he has 287 wins, those loses may explain his lack of allstars.
Comments
Lets look at their best seaons in situational batter Runs. I will rank their best seasons, starting with their first and on down to their worst.
Murray, Howard, Rice. Their best seasons in batter runs each.
M--H---R
60-71-47
55-65-43
55-50-28
46-44-24
43-34-18
33-31-15
29-26-9
28-24-9
28-8-7
27-6-6
26-4-4
20-3-3
20-2-1
19--6--5
17.....-7
17.....-10
13
12
0
-19
-21
By the looks of this, it looks like Howard is the guy that is getting a shaft. He outdoes Murray in each of their top two seasons. But those are the only two seasons he gets Murray. Murray gets him from there on out, and soundly beats him in many of them. Howard's first two cup of coffe's are nto included here.
The interesting thing is that Howard's best beats Rice's best from one through nine. There next three are even. They exchange one each next. Then Rice has the two extra below average seasons.
Murray has the typical HOF path. He too has a couple of sub par seasons at the very end. But every other season was above average(one was average).
I will say that this measurement actually hurts both Murray and Rice a bit, as it counts how many bases a runner advances to the hitter. Both Fenway and Memorial hindered advancing base runners. Memorial's short lines made triples hard(and runners from first could hardly score on a hit down the line). Anyway, they simply don't advance runners as much(Fenway, Memorial).
Steve
<< <i>I can help. He is not. If you compare his QB rating to Mantle's Win shares, then multiply each by the # of interceptions, you will find that Mantle is far superior. >>
Thanks! That's what I thought.
Thanks! That's what I thought.
But is Manning's QB rating park adjusted?? He does play in a dome after all...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'm a New York fan!
I'd still say YES!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
By the way, there are a lot of voters who have a HOF vote who know very little about baseball, or havent' followed it in years, or simply haev a vote because they were wrtiers who wrote an article on the game for a little while.
I don't want to impune all writers...some actually do their homework.
Grote, all one has to do is watch a reply of the Packers/Bears game of a few weeks ago, then use some logic and know that Manning has some sort of advantage of being indoors.
...... let's take a look at what Bill James had to say about Rice in the 1985 Baseball Abstract:
Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bulls**t; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bulls**t is something that you just "know." If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence.
How great is that? I mean, Bill's not saying that now. Instead, he made that statement 23 years ago while Rice was still playing!
And, again, it's not about Rice per se. It's about the search for the truth.
James opened up our eyes – and our minds – by challenging the conventional wisdom and proving it wrong in so many cases. More than anything, he taught us to ask questions. Thanks to Bill, we have learned the importance of dealing with questions rather than answers.
With the foregoing in mind, here are eight questions for Rice's supporters and undecided voters to ponder when filling out their ballots next year:
To what extent were Rice's career totals positively affected by playing home games his entire career at Fenway Park, known as a hitter friendly ballpark?
If Rice gets credit for leading the majors in RBI from 1975-1986, then shouldn't he be debited for topping all players by an even wider margin in GIDP during that same period?
Was Rice as great as his RBI totals would indicate or were they heavily influenced by the fact that he ranked in the top seven in runners on base in nine of those 12 years?
Can we ignore that Rice produced the second-most outs during these same dozen years?
Did Rice play a difficult defensive position?
Was Rice a Gold Glove-caliber fielder?
Was Rice a "plus" baserunner?
In other words, was Rice really as good as advertised?
The greatest change since Rice's playing days hasn't been the acceptance of OBP as a noteworthy stat as it has been in recognizing that many long-held beliefs based on traditional stats are as much a function of the era, league, team, lineup, and ballpark as anything else. Stats don't tell the entire story but the *right* stats tell us most of what we need to know.
Take, for instance, Bert Blyleven and Jim Palmer. One of the knocks against Blyleven is that he wasn't one of the most dominant pitchers of his era. The conventional wisdom says that Palmer was dominant and Blyleven wasn't. To that, I say, "Really?"
Can we accept a stat that measures the number of runs that a pitcher saved versus what an average pitcher would have allowed (adjusted for park differences) as a reasonable proxy to judge effectiveness?
Well, if we can, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led all pitchers in Runs Saved Against Average from 1973-1977? Yes, all pitchers. Not just Palmer. But Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, and Don Sutton, too?
Furthermore, what would you say if I told you that Palmer won three Cy Young Awards during those five years and that Blyleven received one third-place vote during that same time? I mean, would you scratch your head and wonder if the Cy Young voting process was flawed? If nothing else, wouldn't you want to consider facts outside the simple tasks of counting CYA and All-Star games?
Moreover, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led the majors in RSAA in not just one five-year period but in four consecutive five-year periods? Yes, it is a fact. Blyleven saved more runs than any pitcher from 1971-1975, 1972-1976, 1973-1977, and 1974-1978. It seems to me that he was probably the best pitcher during that time period, no? If Bert wasn't the greatest, he was certainly one of the most dominant, don't you think?
In the spirit of asking questions, is it possible that Palmer benefited by working his home games in a ballpark that was more friendly to pitchers than Blyleven? The answer is "yes." Palmer pitched in Memorial Stadium while Blyleven toiled in Metropolitan and Arlington Stadiums. The difference in park factors averaged a tad over 7% per year.
Is it also possible that Palmer benefited by having a superior defense playing behind him? During his Cy Young seasons, Palmer had Mark Belanger at shortstop, Bobby Grich at second base, and Paul Blair in center field. He also had Brooks Robinson at third base in two of those three years. Belanger, Grich, Blair, and Robinson are among the best defensive players at their position in the history of the game. Blyleven, on the other hand, had Danny Thompson and Rod Carew as his middle infielders.
<< <i>
Thanks to Bill, we have learned the importance of dealing with questions rather than answers. >>
I thought it was Alex Trebek that taught us that?
Edited to add:
"Moreover, what would you say if I told you that Blyleven led the majors in RSAA in not just one five-year period but in four consecutive five-year periods? Yes, it is a fact. Blyleven saved more runs than any pitcher from 1971-1975, 1972-1976, 1973-1977, and 1974-1978."
I would say that sounds like an extravagant way of saying he lead the league for 8 seasons.
No offense intended to anyone in particular, but if you don't think Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF then you're an idiot. Wait, I suppose that was probably offensive. Wait, I forgot, I don't care because you're an idiot.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>While even I can see that the case against Rice at least has two sides depending on what one's vision of the HOF might be, the case against Bert Blyleven simply does not exist.
No offense intended to anyone in particular, but if you don't think Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF then you're an idiot. Wait, I suppose that was probably offensive. Wait, I forgot, I don't care because you're an idiot. >>
Who is saying Blyleven shouldn't belong in the HOF in this thread?
Short of him spitting on them or some other gross act, I don't see how the writers could ignore all those Ks, especially combined with the 287 wins. Lefty was a pretty surly dude as well, but, of course, his numbers were too much to ignore even if he killed his wife.
He had the best hook in the majors at one time.
Steve
Regardless, I still cant quite grasp some votes, or rather the lack thereof;
No MVP, No CyYoung, and only two AS team selections.
Many outstanding hurlers have failed to win an MVP, and some missed getting a get a CyYoung, no big deal, however only 2 times an all-star ???
So, from 1970 to 1992, only twice was Bert felt to among the best 8 or 9 pitchers in his respective league, not all of baseball mind you, just his league. I have not looked it up, but would guess that no other pitcher/player worthy of HOF discussion, was an all star so infrequently.
Again, I agree with Blyleven's quality, and am not trying to be confrontational, it just is very odd he was passed over so often by all star game selectors, somehow that might relate to being passed over by Hall selectors.
What I think and this is just off the top of my head is that he was 8 and 8 at many breaks and other guys seemed to always have better first halfs.
I mean he did end up 287 and 250. Impressive in that he has 287 wins, those loses may explain his lack of allstars.
Just thinking aloud.
Steve