<< <i>What is there to be frustrated about though? >>
By way of analogy, have you ever tried to discuss the Simpson case with someone who thinks OJ didn't do it? With someone who quotes, because he serioulsy thinks it is important, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You walk into retrosheet, with all the good infromation they have there, and you come up with that stuff? I am bewildered. That is like going to the Playboy mansion and getting all excited about the type of tobacco Hugh uses.
Here are some facts for you...Eddie Murray has 21,225 Putouts and 1,865 asssits .................................................Jim Rice has 3,104 putouts and 137 assists.
Those are pure facts. Eddie Murray got out 19,000+ more baters than Rice. Based on your logic of just picking out facts, does that mean that Eddie Murray has the equivalent of 19,000 more hits than Rice...after all, a hit saved in the field is just like a hit produced at the bat.
It simply is not enough to list the facts....you have to know the proper context to put them into...and you are failing miserably at it.
TheVon, I do repeat posts of stats multiple times that have VALIDITY to the argument. Some posters are seemingly just still working through things that I used to do back in fourth grade. Even a fifth grader should be able to look at what Jaxxr is doing and figure out how irrelevant it is to figure out the value or goodness of the player. I am simply trying to let him avoid embarassment.
Please Jaxxr, you know baseball reference and retrosheet. They both have batter runs on their site. Study and use them! Baseballprospectus has batterRuns too...use them! If you are going to go to these great sites, come back with their key elements...otherwise DON'T TRUMPET THEM LIKE YOU DID
I would comment but I've never seen so much hypocrisy on this forum before.
And considering some of the posters here (current and *poof*ed), that's saying a lot.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Of course a hit saved in the field is not the same as a hit. But the danger of just listing facts and not knowing hte context and value of them you get all sorts of incorrect assumption.
In this case, it is a fact that Eddie Murray got 19,000 more batters out than Jim Rice. Much like people are doing with the RBI and ignoring hte context of how the RBI came about, one would have to ignore the context of the FACT that Eddie Murray got htat many more batters out in the field. 19,000 extra batters is a whole lot.
Like I said, simply listing facts without knowing the context doesn't do much.
A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. Retrosheet, and most people, do not dispute this.
Rice has scored more runs in his best year than Murray's best, and Rice has averaged more runs scored per 162 games than Murray did. Rice has driven in more runs than Murray in their best seasons, and Rice has averaged more driven in than Murray, per 162 games.
Sure, there is more to this or any story, but based on the very important runs produced, Rice compares well with Murray.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. Retrosheet, and most people, do not dispute this >>
Most people don't dispute the fact that the results of a baseball game are determined by the contributions from many players on the team, not one player. Yet that is exactly what you seem to be doing
Jaxxr, congratulations, you realize that the reason why Murray has more Putouts is because he is a first baseman, and that context is an enormous aspect in the numbers and results.
I don't know how you can understand that, and not understand the cause/effect of teammates on RBI and runs scored, and the FACT of Jim Rice's extra RBI opportunties to be responsible for why he gets more RBI.
I apologize in adavance, I could only hold back so long, but I have had enough and wasted enough time on this guy...either you are just trying to stir the pot or you are mentally handicapped. Or maybe I am mentally handicapped for continuing to talk to you about it. I have just never seen a guy fail to grasp the most common of sense, and continue to use a way that is soo flawed, and has been shown to be so often.
I simply do not know how you still proceed to use per 162 games for anything between them two! How many people have to tell you that Murray had thousands of at bats after age 35, hence the %'s will drop. Are you that freaking dumb to just continue to use that in spite of that knowledge? Just look at the yearly OPS+ chart between the two, and only a six year old will not grasp it!
Dude, if you want to live in a world of ignorance, by all means. I would rather just cease explaining anything to you...I will have better success explaining it to a five year old, seriously.
Please, please, please go to retrosheet, email Tom Ruane over there and explain to him YOUR use of runs and RBI, and see if he either just laughs, or simply blows it off like I should be doing.
But pleae do yourself a favor...go to retrosheet and study the research they have on there. BUt at least learn the affect of teammates on RUNS/RBI, the short career % vs. a long career %, and the effect of ballpark and environemnt. Don't even bother to address me unless you are asking for help.
<< <i>A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. >>
Take that a couple steps further:
1. "the most runs" = runs scored minus runs allowed
2. If you're playing in a time or in a place where more runs are scored by BOTH teams than in another time or place, then each individual run is worth proportionately less.
3. If you don't adjust for that, Jim Rice was better than Honus Wagner
4. God willing, we all agree that neither Jim Rice nor quite a few deserving HOFers are fit to hold Wagner's jock
5. If we all accept that comparing Rice's stats to Wagner's without adjusting for context is absurd, why is it so hard to accept that a comparison between ANY two players requires at least SOME adjustment before its valid.
<< <i>From 76-85 Rice was best in the game >>
From 76-85, Mike Schmidt was the best in the game by a margin as wide as one is likely to see over most 10 year periods. Best in the American League was George Brett, also by an impressive margin. Even a cursory glance shows me that Hernandez, Carter and Winfield were considerably better, as was Murray. Doing even a conservative adjustment for fielding value, and I think it would be hard to argue (reasonably, anyway) that Yount wasn't better. That period also overlaps the period where the Dome was a Death Valley for hitters; Jose Cruz was better, too. It takes a little more looking, but Dave parker was also better. It gets into a grayer area and some arguments about which stats are the best measures, but George Foster was probably at least as good and possibly better.
So, maybe he was among the 10 best for that particular 10-year period, maybe not. If you switch to 1977-1986 then I'll even go so far to say that Rice was probably one of the 10 best players. But I'm ignoring pitchers so on second thought, no, Jim Rice was NEVER among the 10 best players in the major leagues over ANY 10-year period. Bobby Grich was, Ken Singleton was, Jim Wynn was, Ron Santo was, Bobby Bonds was, Bobby Murcer was, Dick Allen was, Rusty Staub, Ted Simmons and Sal Bando were closer than Rice.
If you want to get him into the top 10, I'll concede that he was among the 10 best hitters from 1977-1986. Of course, Toby Harrah was among the 10 best hitters from 1974-1983, so I'm not sure exactly how much that honor is worth.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
pleae do yourself a favor.... Don't even bother to address me unless you are asking for help.
What a true self-centered ego-maniac you must be, Addressing you ? Hah, this is not your personal area, many others herein read, comment, agree, disagree and contibute, most in a normal polite manner with a small amount of respect for differing opinions, and usually spell "please" correctly.
Regardless of why certain things turned out the way they did, the fact remains, Rice has better single season numbers in; Home runs, Runs scored, Runs driven in, Total bases, Base hits, Triples, Doubles, and OPS+. Rice has better 162 game numbers in all those stats but doubles and OPS+, both less by one digit.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Runs created, was at one time considered by a few, to be a stat which could measure every single offensive event imaginable, and therefore was the very best measure of a players' offensive ability.
Runs created, Jim Rice season best =147, also had a 136 and 138. Steady Eddie Murray season best = 130
Many use Slg. Pct. as a true indicator of a hitter, Slg. Pct., Jim Rice season best .600, Murray's best .546
We all make typos at one time or another, even baseball experts I suppose.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
So, how about that .5 grading scale PSA is adopting...
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.
At least he didn't call you an ignorant neanderthal who likes man juice dripping from your chin.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Fairly has a big Ken Phelps factor going against him. In all the years he played, he had 500 at bats just one time. Why? He was atrocious against left handers, so he dodged them and basically 'saved' his stats.
His OPS was .804 vs Right handers, and .640 vs. left handers.
Dodging left handers is a far worse crime than retiring early. Why? At least if a player retires early, his salary is cleared and a repalcement can be found. When you have a guy who is only good against RHers he is a drag on the team because now you have to have a pretty good player on the bench to fill that void vs. a left hander. Even if a team is lucky enough to find one, they will be paying for that luxury at the expense of some other part of their team.
Not to mention the end game managing that makes it easy to win and manage against guys with obvious limititations that can easily be picked on and coached against.
This is also the knock I have against Willie McCovey. Superior hitter sure...but when your best hitter(2nd best a few years) is sitting on the bench against your arch rivals because Koufax is on the mound, then that is a problem.
But Mrs. Murray couldn't hit to the opposite field the way Mrs. Fairly could. And, of course, Mrs. Rice had more power than both of them combined.
Ron Fairly's just a favorite of mine, probably as underrated as any player who ever played. Most players get underrated from very good to good, or from good to average, or from average to below average. Ron Fairly takes the tumble from very good to below average in most people's minds. Was he better than Jim Rice? I don't know for sure; I think if you put them both in pitcher's parks and make them play every day for 20 years it's a distinct possibility that at the end of two decades the team that got Fairly would be satisifed that they got the right guy, although it may be that Rice's team would feel the same way.
Was Jim Rice enough better than Ron Fairly that the comparison is ridiculous? No way.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
To use the old analogy game, Rice is to Murray as Fairly is to Rice.
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 always thought Jim Rice was way to surly to even have a wife.
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.
Don't feel bad, Grote. That's a valid assumption. However, Mrs. Rice, in addition to having great legs, is also a bona fide saint. Unlike that tramp, Mrs. Fairly.
Comments
<< <i>What is there to be frustrated about though? >>
By way of analogy, have you ever tried to discuss the Simpson case with someone who thinks OJ didn't do it? With someone who quotes, because he serioulsy thinks it is important, "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"?
So put him in the Hall of Fame.
I rest my case.
You walk into retrosheet, with all the good infromation they have there, and you come up with that stuff? I am bewildered. That is like going to the Playboy mansion and getting all excited about the type of tobacco Hugh uses.
Here are some facts for you...Eddie Murray has 21,225 Putouts and 1,865 asssits
.................................................Jim Rice has 3,104 putouts and 137 assists.
Those are pure facts. Eddie Murray got out 19,000+ more baters than Rice. Based on your logic of just picking out facts, does that mean that Eddie Murray has the equivalent of 19,000 more hits than Rice...after all, a hit saved in the field is just like a hit produced at the bat.
It simply is not enough to list the facts....you have to know the proper context to put them into...and you are failing miserably at it.
TheVon, I do repeat posts of stats multiple times that have VALIDITY to the argument. Some posters are seemingly just still working through things that I used to do back in fourth grade. Even a fifth grader should be able to look at what Jaxxr is doing and figure out how irrelevant it is to figure out the value or goodness of the player. I am simply trying to let him avoid embarassment.
Please Jaxxr, you know baseball reference and retrosheet. They both have batter runs on their site. Study and use them! Baseballprospectus has batterRuns too...use them! If you are going to go to these great sites, come back with their key elements...otherwise DON'T TRUMPET THEM LIKE YOU DID
And considering some of the posters here (current and *poof*ed), that's saying a lot.
I will say something that Rice was good at......
Grounding into double plays
It is?
Steve
edited to add: Mine were also said to be the worst, so I now feel slighted.
Of course a hit saved in the field is not the same as a hit. But the danger of just listing facts and not knowing hte context and value of them you get all sorts of incorrect assumption.
In this case, it is a fact that Eddie Murray got 19,000 more batters out than Jim Rice. Much like people are doing with the RBI and ignoring hte context of how the RBI came about, one would have to ignore the context of the FACT that Eddie Murray got htat many more batters out in the field. 19,000 extra batters is a whole lot.
Like I said, simply listing facts without knowing the context doesn't do much.
It is truly hard for some, to face the facts.
A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. Retrosheet, and most people, do not dispute this.
Rice has scored more runs in his best year than Murray's best, and Rice has averaged more runs scored per 162 games than Murray did.
Rice has driven in more runs than Murray in their best seasons, and Rice has averaged more driven in than Murray, per 162 games.
Sure, there is more to this or any story, but based on the very important runs produced, Rice compares well with Murray.
<< <i>A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. Retrosheet, and most people, do not dispute this >>
Most people don't dispute the fact that the results of a baseball game are determined by the contributions from many players on the team, not one player. Yet that is exactly what you seem to be doing
I don't know how you can understand that, and not understand the cause/effect of teammates on RBI and runs scored, and the FACT of Jim Rice's extra RBI opportunties to be responsible for why he gets more RBI.
I apologize in adavance, I could only hold back so long, but I have had enough and wasted enough time on this guy...either you are just trying to stir the pot or you are mentally handicapped. Or maybe I am mentally handicapped for continuing to talk to you about it. I have just never seen a guy fail to grasp the most common of sense, and continue to use a way that is soo flawed, and has been shown to be so often.
I simply do not know how you still proceed to use per 162 games for anything between them two! How many people have to tell you that Murray had thousands of at bats after age 35, hence the %'s will drop. Are you that freaking dumb to just continue to use that in spite of that knowledge? Just look at the yearly OPS+ chart between the two, and only a six year old will not grasp it!
Dude, if you want to live in a world of ignorance, by all means. I would rather just cease explaining anything to you...I will have better success explaining it to a five year old, seriously.
Please, please, please go to retrosheet, email Tom Ruane over there and explain to him YOUR use of runs and RBI, and see if he either just laughs, or simply blows it off like I should be doing.
But pleae do yourself a favor...go to retrosheet and study the research they have on there. BUt at least learn the affect of teammates on RUNS/RBI, the short career % vs. a long career %, and the effect of ballpark and environemnt. Don't even bother to address me unless you are asking for help.
<< <i>A simple baseball fact is: the most runs determine the result of a baseball game. >>
Take that a couple steps further:
1. "the most runs" = runs scored minus runs allowed
2. If you're playing in a time or in a place where more runs are scored by BOTH teams than in another time or place, then each individual run is worth proportionately less.
3. If you don't adjust for that, Jim Rice was better than Honus Wagner
4. God willing, we all agree that neither Jim Rice nor quite a few deserving HOFers are fit to hold Wagner's jock
5. If we all accept that comparing Rice's stats to Wagner's without adjusting for context is absurd, why is it so hard to accept that a comparison between ANY two players requires at least SOME adjustment before its valid.
<< <i>From 76-85 Rice was best in the game >>
From 76-85, Mike Schmidt was the best in the game by a margin as wide as one is likely to see over most 10 year periods. Best in the American League was George Brett, also by an impressive margin. Even a cursory glance shows me that Hernandez, Carter and Winfield were considerably better, as was Murray. Doing even a conservative adjustment for fielding value, and I think it would be hard to argue (reasonably, anyway) that Yount wasn't better. That period also overlaps the period where the Dome was a Death Valley for hitters; Jose Cruz was better, too. It takes a little more looking, but Dave parker was also better. It gets into a grayer area and some arguments about which stats are the best measures, but George Foster was probably at least as good and possibly better.
So, maybe he was among the 10 best for that particular 10-year period, maybe not. If you switch to 1977-1986 then I'll even go so far to say that Rice was probably one of the 10 best players. But I'm ignoring pitchers so on second thought, no, Jim Rice was NEVER among the 10 best players in the major leagues over ANY 10-year period. Bobby Grich was, Ken Singleton was, Jim Wynn was, Ron Santo was, Bobby Bonds was, Bobby Murcer was, Dick Allen was, Rusty Staub, Ted Simmons and Sal Bando were closer than Rice.
If you want to get him into the top 10, I'll concede that he was among the 10 best hitters from 1977-1986. Of course, Toby Harrah was among the 10 best hitters from 1974-1983, so I'm not sure exactly how much that honor is worth.
What a true self-centered ego-maniac you must be,
Addressing you ? Hah, this is not your personal area, many others herein read, comment, agree, disagree and contibute, most in a normal polite manner with a small amount of respect for differing opinions, and usually spell "please" correctly.
Regardless of why certain things turned out the way they did, the fact remains,
Rice has better single season numbers in; Home runs, Runs scored, Runs driven in, Total bases, Base hits, Triples, Doubles, and OPS+.
Rice has better 162 game numbers in all those stats but doubles and OPS+, both less by one digit.
I promised myself not to address you in relation to baseball topics...
If I am to be called an ego maniac for my soft words, so be it.
If you are concerned about spelling, then PLEASE tell me what contibute means. I will not bother to quote...I trust you won't correct it.
Runs created, Jim Rice season best =147, also had a 136 and 138. Steady Eddie Murray season best = 130
Many use Slg. Pct. as a true indicator of a hitter,
Slg. Pct., Jim Rice season best .600, Murray's best .546
We all make typos at one time or another, even baseball experts I suppose.
We all make typos, no biggie.
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>So, how about that .5 grading scale PSA is adopting... >>
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Steve
<< <i>Jaxx you forgot to mention Ron Fairly >>
Sadly, everyone forgets about Ron Fairly. Except for me and Mrs. Fairly.
Fairly has a big Ken Phelps factor going against him. In all the years he played, he had 500 at bats just one time. Why? He was atrocious against left handers, so he dodged them and basically 'saved' his stats.
His OPS was .804 vs Right handers, and .640 vs. left handers.
Dodging left handers is a far worse crime than retiring early. Why? At least if a player retires early, his salary is cleared and a repalcement can be found. When you have a guy who is only good against RHers he is a drag on the team because now you have to have a pretty good player on the bench to fill that void vs. a left hander. Even if a team is lucky enough to find one, they will be paying for that luxury at the expense of some other part of their team.
Not to mention the end game managing that makes it easy to win and manage against guys with obvious limititations that can easily be picked on and coached against.
This is also the knock I have against Willie McCovey. Superior hitter sure...but when your best hitter(2nd best a few years) is sitting on the bench against your arch rivals because Koufax is on the mound, then that is a problem.
Ron Fairly's just a favorite of mine, probably as underrated as any player who ever played. Most players get underrated from very good to good, or from good to average, or from average to below average. Ron Fairly takes the tumble from very good to below average in most people's minds. Was he better than Jim Rice? I don't know for sure; I think if you put them both in pitcher's parks and make them play every day for 20 years it's a distinct possibility that at the end of two decades the team that got Fairly would be satisifed that they got the right guy, although it may be that Rice's team would feel the same way.
Was Jim Rice enough better than Ron Fairly that the comparison is ridiculous? No way.
A thousand RBI just barely,
Ron was treated fairly.
I rest my case.
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.
Steve
I always thought Jim Rice was way to surly to even have a wife.
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.