Hitting "Splits"

jaxxr

Plenty of opinions abound, on how a ballpark or particular situations, might affect a hitters' performance.

Might be fun to compare two good RH hitters, Ron Santo and Jim Rice.

The home park both played one half their scheduled games in, was considered a hitter's park. As most of us know, each season is different, but to evaluate multi-year careers, we should use a multi-year factors. In Rice's last full season with the Red Sox, Fenway was rated by BB Ref.com as having a 105 multi-yr factor for hitters. Santo's last full year with the Cubs, has Wrigley with a 107 multi-yr factor. So just slightly Santo, had an advantage hitting in Wrigley, but probably not so much as to really matter.

Important percentage stats only, as Rice has an unfair advantage in raw numbers such as RBI or HR.

Home vs Away
BA Santo .296/.257, Rice .320/.277, OPS Santo .905/.747, Rice .920/.789
Both hit better at home, Rice hit better than Santo in either situation.

RISP, runners in scoring position
BA Santo .281, Rice .308, OPS Santo .863, Rice .872
Rice hits better than Santo in each stat

Leverage, a composite of high and medium leverage hitting situations
BA Santo .279, Rice .299, OPS Santo .830, Rice .843
Ditto

Team result, Win vs Loss
BA Santo .324/.233, Rice .336/.251, OPS Santo .976/.685, Rice .981/.694
Both better when their team wins, Rice betters Santo in each outcome situation.

There are other "hitting" factors like baserunning, OB%, HR frequency, Slg%, etc., but perhaps BA and OPS are pretty reliable measures.

TomGshotput

Fenway didn't change until 86, I believe, near the very end of Rice's career

Jim Rice did better at hitting the ball than Ron Santo, no matter what park they were in, no one doubts that. That is not what is in question. What is in question is how valuable it was when each player did hit the ball. Jim Rice started his career just after the pitching mound was lowered, the strike zone was smaller (along with the DH, which Rice took advantage of a good deal). Before those changes, scoring runs was much harder. When fewer runs are scored, each run is more valuable and is more likely to change the outcome of the game. That is the main factor that made Ron Santo slightly more valuable as an offensive player. This should be basic stuff

WinPitcher

Not sure I buy into that, a quick look at baseball reference and it looks like runs scored was pretty constant.

Except for 1968 when both leagues struggled for runs.

It appears that the AL always averaged a bit more runs per game but not by much.


Steve

jaxxr

Rice does lead Santo in runs scored, runs driven in, and runs created,
each of those via career, average and best season marks.

TomGshotput

Are we looking at the same baseballreference?

According to that site NL teams averaged 4.06 runs per game during Ron Santo's career (61-73) and AL teams averaged 4.44 runs per game during Jim Rice's career (75-88)

dallasactuary

jaxxr,

Let me start by saying that upon further review, I probably should not have used the word "much". I work from memory and my memory failed me a little here. I'm not making excuses or changing the rules, I'm saying that you win on that point.

But, I do still think Santo was a better hitter. I'll assume that you weren't just disagreeing with the "much" part, and that you think Santo was not even a "better" hitter and respond accordingly.

First, they're relatively close both in time and park factors, so that part of it isn't nearly as big a deal as it is in, say, comparing Bobby Grich to Bobby Doerr. A quick rule of thumb that I use is to look at the "AIR" stat on b-r.com; that stat considers park and era adjustments in a high level way. Rice's career AIR is 102 (100 would mean he had played in an historically neutral environment as far as runs produced) and Santo's is 99. That's close, it doesn't prove anything, but I think it at least supports the proposition that offense came a little bit easier in Fenway in '75-'88 than it did in Wrigley in '61-'74.

Second, I look at OPS+, a very good measure of offensive production; the four things it does not consider are situational hitting, outs used, base running, and double plays. And Santo and Rice are very close: 125 for Santo, 128 for Rice for their careers. Like AIR, that's too close to really prove anything, but it does tend to support that over the course of their careers Rice was a little bit better at what OPS+ measures. Balancing that - and this will depend on what a person means when he says "better" is this: Santo's best season beats Rice's best; same for his and Rice's second best seasons, and their third, fourth, and fifth best seasons, and their sixth, seventh and eighth best seasons. Rice's slim career advantage is, I think, wiped out by Santo's peak advantage. In other words, I think OPS+ is a wash.

As for what OPS+ does not measure, in SB/CS Rice has a 23 base advantage and used up 7 fewer outs. That's measurable, but over 13+ year careers it doesn't amount to a whole lot. And when we turn to DP, we see that small advantage swing over to Santo: Santo used up 59 fewer outs than Rice. Netted together, it still isn't much, but Santo clearly has the advantage.

The last thing to consider is situational hitting. You can get a good overall picture of this by looking at the batter runs column on b-r.com. Santo has a tiny lead for his career (297.5 to 294.7), and when you compare their top seasons, second best, etc., Santo beats Rice on nine of their top 10. Santo has a small edge in career value and a larger edge in peak value. The reasons I'm reaching the opposite conclusion that you did about the value of their leverage hitting are (1) the averages you cite aren't adjusted, and (2) Santo has a large advantage in bases loaded hitting. Santo also has a pretty significant advantage in close/late hitting which would be a separate mark in his favor.

If we break it down in to small pieces, we would find some things Rice wins and some things Santo wins. But at the high level, we have:

OPS+ : Tie
SB/GIDP: Santo
Situational: Santo

And a final thought on context. As I pointed out, when you order their seasons from best to worst, you find Santo having better seasons for basically 10 years, and then Rice taking over, sometimes substantially. While the direct value of fielding hasn't entered into this - and I think we agree that once it does, Santo soars past Rice - if we ignore their positions entirely we aren't being neutral as to their hitting, we're favoring Rice. When Rice was at his best, he got to DH a great deal and when he was in the field, he was in the smallest left field in MLB. As he passed age 30, there was just that small left field to play. Santo at his peak and after 30 was playing third base, and Santo missed maybe one game a year for an eight year stretch, and the few games he didn't play third he played shortstop. The value of what they did at the plate is what it is, and it doesn't depend at all on their positions, but I think it is important to consider the built-in advantage Rice had at the plate by virtue of not being able to play defense nearly as well. At the very least, this is part of the context that should be considered in deciding who the better hitter was, and like everything else, it does not favor Rice.

jaxxr

Situation hitting to Santo ???

RISP, runners in scoring position
BA Santo .281, Rice .308, OPS Santo .863, Rice .872
Rice hits better than Santo in each stat

Leverage, a composite of high and medium leverage hitting situations
BA Santo .279, Rice .299, OPS Santo .830, Rice .843
Ditto

Looks like Rice fares quite well, in those situations.

In your response you compared three factors, and somehow left out any comparisons of HR power, runs scored, runs diven in, batting average, total bases, Slg %, etc., factors which all favor Rice, but regardless,....
Rice and Santo are good hitters, there is as we both know, at least I hope we both know, no way to absolutely "prove" one is a better hitter than the other, everyone "values" certain contributory aspects of scoring runs a bit differently. Rightfully or wrongfully, Rice gets wider support for his better raw numbers, and his 5 to zero edge, via league titles in triple crown stats.

StopYurWhining

i figured this was either about bowling....

or hitting some tough splits

WinPitcher

According to that site NL teams averaged 4.06 runs per game during Ron Santo's career (61-73) and AL teams averaged 4.44 runs per game during Jim Rice's career (75-88)


yes we are, I even said the AL scored a tad more. Seems pretty constant to me.

And if you look at it on a per yr basis it stayed constant (except for 1968)

I think I already said as such.


Steve

WinPitcher

And fwiw during Rice's tenure you had a DH so of course the AL will average more.


Steve

dallasactuary

<< <i>Situation hitting to Santo ???

RISP, runners in scoring position
BA Santo .281, Rice .308, OPS Santo .863, Rice .872
Rice hits better than Santo in each stat

Leverage, a composite of high and medium leverage hitting situations
BA Santo .279, Rice .299, OPS Santo .830, Rice .843
Ditto

Looks like Rice fares quite well, in those situations.
>>



Again, those figures above aren't adjusted in any way - if you adjust them, Santo is going to move ahead in some and get closer in the rest. They are very close all things considered; since Santo beats Rice at the Batter Runs stat (which accounts for the RISP, bases loaded, etc.), I think Santo gets the slight nod. I'm not going stake my house on it, but I'm comfortable enough with that conclusion.




<< <i>In your response you compared three factors, and somehow left out any comparisons of HR power, runs scored, runs diven in, batting average, total bases, Slg %, etc., factors which all favor Rice, but regardless,.... >>


This is where you and I keep talking past each other. I most certainly did account for HR, BA, total bases, and slg%. The value of each of them is entirely captured by OPS+. The value of RBI and runs scored, to the degree that they reflect the contribution of Rice and Santo rather than their teammates, are also entirely captured by the stats I did talk about. You are free to talk about RBI and runs scored, of course, but since they measure things other than how good a player was, they don't belong in a discussion like this.




<< <i>Rice and Santo are good hitters, there is as we both know, at least I hope we both know, no way to absolutely "prove" one is a better hitter than the other, everyone "values" certain contributory aspects of scoring runs a bit differently. Rightfully or wrongfully, Rice gets wider support for his better raw numbers, and his 5 to zero edge, via league titles in triple crown stats. >>


I agree, although it would do my heart good to hear you say that you think that Santo OUGHT to get more HOF support than Rice since he was a better player overall. I'll admit that there is no way to prove that Santo is a better hitter than Rice, but I think it take's a sheer act of will to avoid seeing that Santo was a better player than Rice.

And Rice's advantage in league leaders is true, but it shouldn't matter. Rice was better at the things that go on the back of a baseball card, but Santo was better at getting on base - he led the league in times on base three times, walks four times, and OBP twice. Those things have value, but neither you, nor HOF voters, ever mention them. Rice also led the league in GIDP four times - by 50% over second place one year - but nobody wants to admit that erasing your teammates walks and singles has about the same value, but in reverse, as getting a walk or single yourself. The difference in GIDP between Rice and Santo is equivalent to about 6 points of batting average or OBP; in a comparison as close as this one, that is a significant difference. You look at 1984 and probably see a pretty good season for Rice; it wasn't, it was a bad season. Those 36 GIDP are equivalent to roughly 50 points of BA or OBP. That doesn't make the triple crown stats, but that doesn't mean they're not important, it means you need to look past the triple crown stats.

aro13

I always liked the way Bill James did his Roy White versus Jim Rice comparison so I thought I would do the same for Santo and Rice.

I looked at their five best consecutive seasons: for Rice between 1975 and 1979 for Santo between 1964 and 1968. Both players had some other strong seasons but I think these five are a good case and are probably indicative of their whole career. The numbers factor in run value, league context and park context.

Over the five seasons Santo played more games (803-778) and had a few more plate appearances (3419-3381). Rice had more hits per season (192-172), more singles (118-111) more doubles (29-25) more triples (10-5) and more homeruns (34-30). Rice scored more runs per season (102-92) drove in more (114-98) and hit for a higher average (.311 to .294). Rice triple crown averages are 34, 114, .311. Santo is 30, 98, .294.
Santo did have his advantages. Santo walked twice as much as Rice (92-46) struck out a bit less (98-118). Santo grounded into 15 double plays per season and Rice 18. Santo had more sacrifice flies. Over the five seasons Rice created 115 runs per season and Santo created 119.
Their run value is virtually the same with a slight edge to Santo.

However, between 1975 and 1979 in the American League the average runs per game was 4.34. In the National League between 1964 and 1968 it was 3.88. Fenway increased run scoring by 20% for a park adjustment of 1.09. Wrigley increased scoring to the rate of 1.04.

If you factor in league and park context, Rice's 115 runs per season represent about 24 games worth of offense. Santo's 119 per season represent about 30 games.

In context Santo was a better hitter. Not by a lot but better. When you factor in outs made the margin will increase somewhat. If you do it over their entire career Rice would edge closer but Santo is still better.

dallasactuary

And the best part is that Bill James is right. Have you read Tom Tresh, 1966 (27, 68, .233) vs. Ed Delahanty, 1894 (4, 131, .407)? Pure magic.

jaxxr

"it would do my heart good to hear you say that you think that Santo OUGHT to get more HOF support than Rice"

With respect to pulmonary health, I might say, with qualifications, Santo ought to get more HOF support than Rice. This in no way changes my opinion Rice was a better and much more feared, hitter, than Santo.

The baseball Hall of "Fame" uses quite subjective standards. There is absolutely no constant or exact formula for entry. The vague term "fame" with respect to popularity, would favor Rice, league titles, HR prowess, post -season exposure, etc., however, "fame" in the context of a specific position, 3B namely, combined with a quota or certain number needed to balance things, Santo then, "ought" to be considered more.

Now if choosing between Richie Allen and Santo, as they both played a lot at 3B, ?????

dallasactuary

<< <i>With respect to pulmonary health, I might say, with qualifications, Santo ought to get more HOF support than Rice. This in no way changes my opinion Rice was a better and much more feared, hitter, than Santo. >>


Thank you. My heart thanks you.



<< <i>The baseball Hall of "Fame" uses quite subjective standards. There is absolutely no constant or exact formula for entry. The vague term "fame" with respect to popularity, would favor Rice, league titles, HR prowess, post -season exposure, etc., however, "fame" in the context of a specific position, 3B namely, combined with a quota or certain number needed to balance things, Santo then, "ought" to be considered more. >>


I absolutely agree. I'm the one who argues that Bill Mazeroski belongs in the HOF, remember? The problem with equating "fame" with titles and post-season is that it gives such an advantage to players on good teams like the Yankees, and to players in small ballparks like the Red Sox. The other big problem, as you mention, with the HOF's standards is visible when you count the members by position. I don't remember the exact counts, but I know that third basemen are dead last and by a fair margin. As one of the 6 or 7 best third basemen of all time, I am not willing to admit that there is ANY definition of "fame" that excludes Santo that does not also render the HOF trivial.



<< <i>Now if choosing between Richie Allen and Santo, as they both played a lot at 3B? >>


That's an apples and oranges situation. I'll be the first to admit that Richie Allen was a much better hitter than Santo (and Rice), but I have no problem leaving him out for reasons apart from his play on the field. He was also a truly awful third baseman, and didn't play there very long because of that, so I'm not giving him any points on the too few third basemen scale either.