"For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+."
Of course you are WRONG, the ratio stat, HRF, is not directly related to OPS + calculation. HRF is separate and distinct, from the figures used therein. >>
If I hadn't lost mine already, it would have exploded. OPS+ takes into account the result of every PA - every HR, every AB. HRF is the ratio of HR to every AB. It's in there - EVERYTHING is in there.
Well, almost everything. GIDP are not in there and I don't think anyone here (except hoopster) comes close to understanding just how many negative points of OPS+ (or BA or OBP) that Rice's GIDP are worth. With all due respect to hoopster, Jim Rice was NOT as good a hitter as Lynn or Evans. As an overall player, he's not even close to either of them.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In all of Jaxxr's trivial lists of Rice did this or that, not once did he take park factor into account either. Rice should have a high SLG% hitting at Fenway. He was mortal on the road...oh I got some more detailed info on that in a new thread.
Jaxxr, if you don't think the physical configuration of a park matters, then I suggest you adn I have a HR hitting contest. I get to hit mine at the 12 yr old field, and you get to hit yours at the 18 Yr old field. Lets see if you stil believe it doesn't matter when it directly affects you.
Dallas, my head may have exploded mroe than yours. We can compare. Jaxxr still does not differentiate between a short career and long career, in terms of percentages or per game.
Jaxxr, with your line of thinking Terry Forester should be the all time batting king, not Ty Cobb. Tell me why he shouldn't.
It really isn't even math as you think. It is freakin common sense and logic, and a simple compilation of what occured.
I'm not a math guy by nature, but I wouldn't put it past Dallas to be able to work through some of those eqations of Nasa that you speak of.
I am often accused of not being open minded, yet of all the people that accuse me of that, they ahve looked at this stuff only one way their entire life, and simply refuse more valid findings...while I have looked through that lens when I was younger, and have simply become more informed. Who really are the closed minded guys?
Maybe limb amputation should still be our primary act against an infected wound, or maybe all doctors should still use leeches often. Things progress, open YOUR mind.
It really isn't even math as you think. It is freakin common sense and logic, and a simple compilation of what occured.
I'm not a math guy by nature, but I wouldn't put it past Dallas to be able to work through some of those eqations of Nasa that you speak of.
I am often accused of not being open minded, yet of all the people that accuse me of that, they ahve looked at this stuff only one way their entire life, and simply refuse more valid findings...while I have looked through that lens when I was younger, and have simply become more informed. Who really are the closed minded guys?
Maybe limb amputation should still be our primary act against an infected wound, or maybe all doctors should still use leeches often. Things progress, open YOUR mind. >>
How's that view on Jupiter?
Hey - I'm just bustin' chops a little bit, and actually being compared to working for NASA should be a compliment. LOL
No place in the calculation is HRF "directly" used as input.
However to say it is not worth mentioning as a separate indicator, is of course an opinion, it could be like saying a single is a good as a double, a walk is as good as a hit. I realize you wish to discredit Rice's superior HRF, which contains the best possible offensive event in baseball, a HR, and overemphasize the outs made. Two doubles in two PAs, may not be as good in real baseball, as one HR in two PAs, though they calculate in OPS+, the same.
Every baseball game played to a regular nine inning finish has exactly the same max. number of outs, 27, made by the losing team, the winning team gets between 24-27 outs. The big difference is in hits, errors, HRs, stolen bases, etc., each team may make. Some of the outs, including DPs, are productive, even called for by the manager, some will advance the runner, drive in a run, maybe drive in the winning run before a weak hitting pitcher comes to bat.
While OPS + is not perfect, it can be a good indicator of a hitter's quality. Career OPS +, Rice 134, Evans 132, Lynn 132, Murray 128 "Adjusted" Career OPS +, Lynn 129, Murray 129, Rice 128, Evans 127 All very close, no big, clearly dominant guy as some might percieve. Interesting to note, by feeling BA, HRF, RBI, 200+ Hit seasons, 40+ HR seasons, are all fairly and equallly represented, and not worthy of separational importance, Johnny Kruck tops all of those hitters, he has a career OPS + of 139, and if "adjusted", it is 133, perhaps he is the best hitter of the bunch ?
Somehow the fact that a player decides not to "hang-on" and steadily increase his raw numbers, does not change what actually did in fact happen, in real stats. Sandy Koufax, nor Jim Rice should have their accomplishments figured differently, from any other major league ballplayer. The HOF usually considers the entire carer as well as the peak, league leading type seasons, in their determinations.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
HR is directly used in there. Just because it doesn't say AB/HR in the line does it mean it is not directly used.
Jaxxr, I did this to you before, and this is a simple exercise. Rice and Murray's career OPS+ are...
Rice 128 Murray 129
If you look at their top OPS+ each season side by side, you should get a clear indication of why Murray's 129 OPS is FAR more valuable than Rice's 128.
Murray's best season beats Rice's best seson EVERY SINGLE YEAR! It is only the top two seasons where they are close. Then the gap steadily widens every year. In rice's last three years, he did not play full time, but Murray did...and he dwarfed him easily. Then there are the four seasons where RIce was not good enough to hold a job, while Murray was in total a league average hitter those four years. That is not hanging on if you are a league average hitter.
To make matters worse for Rice, this does not include GIDP, nor does it include Men on base hitting(in which Murray was second to none).
These OPS+ numbers can be more accurately expressed in batter runs created above average. This gives Murray his credit for being able to play full time as well. If you include the men on base hitting...here is what their runs above the league average player are....
This includes all men on base and out situations...quite detailed.
So what we have here is Murray beating Rice handily in Peak(especially with the men on numbers), and dwarfing him in career...even though their career OPS+ makes them look as if they are similar hitters.
Why do you not understand this after all this time? I am serious...are you being a wise guy, an instigator, or do you just not get it?
Take those goofy lists you provide and just toss them. They don't mean anything. EVERYTHING you have on your lists are here already, but these add even more(like the men on hitting).
Jaxxr should repent, for consistently using the smallest bits of information, while ignoring the more important ones, in order to support a failed case.
Jaxxr, do you understand the breakdown above?
Is there another poster on here that seriously does not get that year by year breakdown and post above? Is there one on here that can say, "I see exactly what you mean?" For if there isn't, and all I have to do is debate a blind man, I think it is time for me to retire for good.
Somehow you must assume OPS+ is an end all composite stat, the sum of the parts is more important than the actual components.
Do you feel two doubles, or four walks, are as good as one HR, in four PAs ? Do you feel John Kruck with a better career OPS +, is a better hitter than Murray ?
Jim Rice was a better HR hitter per season than Murray, career and peak, Jim Rice was a better RBI producer per season than Murray, career and peak, Jim Rice was a better run scorer per season, than Murray, career and peak, Jim Rice has a better SLG %, than Murray career and peak, Jim Rice has more hits per season, than Murray, career and peak, Jim Rice has more triples, than Murray, career and peak, Jim Rice has more total bases per season, than Murray, career and peak.
Jim Rice has a higher lifetime BA than Murray, as well as a virtual identical lifetime OPS +. Eddie has more walks, and because he chose not to try to "hit" the ball as often as the more frequent HR swinger, Rice, he has less DPs.
They seem relatively comparable as hitters,
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I am going to move forward. YOu are welcome to take the information any way you wish. Extrapolate what you wish, and so forth.
Your answers lie within the year by year breakdown I did for Murray and Rice.
Your answers of worth of each event lie within the play by play data. That is all there and already is figured for what you desire. It is up to you if you want it or not. Every situation you want is accounted for. You could have some fun.
No answer on John Kruck having such a fine OPS + ? I'll assume you must consider him a bit better hitter than Murray.
"Your answers lie within the year by year breakdown I did for Murray and Rice"
I really dont have any question which needs an answer, except perhaps, Was there was any non self-serving reason for starting this post, to "discuss" Jim Rice, when you already had the absolutely 100% full and completly accurate answer beforehand ???
Other "cool" year by year breakdowns: Best HR seasons Rice = 46, 39, 39, 39, 28, Murray = 33, 32, 32, 31, 30
Best BA seasons ( AL ) Rice = .325, .324, .320, .315, .309 Murray = .316, .306, .306, .305, .300
John Kruk has a fine OPS for some of the same reasns Rice has. Kruk was done as a full time player at age 32. He is another example of why a short career overstates a person's value using OPS+
Murray had OPS+ seasons of 158,156,156,156,156. Kruk's best season was 150. When Kruk was retired contributing nothing, Murray was still producing some All Star type seasons, and many above average type seasons. If you line them up side by side like Murray dwarfing Rice, it is even mroe of a beating.
ALso, Kruk platooned as well, therefore saving his percentages by not having to make more outs vs. lefties. There is your answer.
<< <i>While one should not compare Morgan and Rice one can't possibly think Morgan is the 12th best player either.
Maybe you meant 112'th best? >>
First, if you're just having fun at my expense then shame on you, because I am still in physical pain.
If you're not - have you looked at his stats?
But before you look at his stats, think about this - who is the better golfer, the one who leads the tour in driving distance, comes in 27th in greens in regulation and comes in 182nd in putts per round, or the one who comes in 35th in driving distance, 70th in greens in regulation, and 27th in putts per round. In case you don't see where I'm going, that's Bubba Watson and Phil Mickelson. Being great at one thing - any one thing - gets you only so far (in Bubba's case, 77th on the tour), but being very good at everything makes you one of the greatest in the game.
Joe Morgan? 90th all time in OBP, 11th all time in stolen bases, 32nd all time in runs created, 22nd all time in times on base; led the league in slugging %, OBP, runs, triples, walks, OPS+, sac flies; top 5 finishes in home runs, triples, total bases, HBP, and HRF. Geek stats? Led the league multiple times in runs created, adjusted batter runs, batting wins, offensive win%, and power/speed number. Now throw in five gold gloves at a skill position, a batting and slugging average that improved with men on and in close games and the fact that he did most of this in the Astrodome, Riverfront before they shrunk it and Candlestick, and most of it in the second deadball era. Add it all up and you have a player who varied from very good to great at every single part of the game. There's only so many players in history who can make that claim as strongly as Morgan, and there's only so many who can claim to be better than Morgan.
Now, does that make him the 12th best player of all time? I don't know for sure, but these things I know for sure: he was the best player on the Big Red Machine, he was the best player of the 1970's, and he was better than Kaline, Banks, Clemente, Carew, or Yaz. I also know that, if you are a smart GM, you would prefer Joe Morgan and any other player to two Jim Rice's. I'm pretty sure you're better off with Joe Morgan and any TWO other players than with three Jim Rice's. I can debate wheher or not Morgan was the 12th best player ever, the 15th best, or maybe even only the 20th, but below that I simply will not go.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
jaxxr, you need to stick to stats that take into account that Rice played in Fenway or you're just wasting your time - take Rice out of Fenway and he's Chili Davis. If you don't believe me you can look it up.
You stuck your toe in the water with OPS+, and in that one stat Rice looked about the same as Lynn, Murray and Evans. But OPS+ does not take into account GIDP, length of career or situational hitting - it takes into account everything else. As you adjust for each of those, Rice loses ground to Lynn, Evans and especially Murray. At the end of the process he is so far behind Murray he can't even reach his jock let alone carry it.
For example, consider GIDP. Relative to Fred Lynn, Jim Rice erased 145 more runners after equalizing for their career length. That means that 145 runners who got a single or a walk had their contribution cancelled by Rice; if you give the cancelled hitter credit in his OPS+ for what he did, and Rice credit for only how he did himself there is a disconnect - the stats say there's still a runner on base but there isn't. Take 145 times on base away from Rice - to be fair - and his OPS+ isn't 129, it's 123. The more you adjust, the clearer the true picture becomes. There's no single perfect way to adjust for everything, but what is absolutely certain is that if you don't adjust for these things then you reach false conclusions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
It is not guessing what a player would have done in the future. Rice didn't contribute anything after age 35 because he was not good enough to play. In that regard, he had the same value as you or I. We don't have to guess. We know he did nothing. We know that nobody wanted him because he was a bad hitter at that time who was simply a double play machine.
A guy like Murray still contributed to teams to create wins, even if it wasn't at the same rate as in their prime, it is still value....value that Rice could not give. This is not a guess, it is giving Murray his credit for holding down a MLB job, and doing it with success, WHILE PLAYING FULL TIME UP UNTIL THE VERY LAST SEASON! NO platoon to save stats like some. The same is applied to Murray for being good enough to start at age 21.
Here is what we know so far...
1) The Park factors is a certainty to have helped Rice. See the park thread going on now.
2) Rice's RBI total were high, but that is due primarily to the Park, the inordinate amount of opportuntites that other sluggers did not receive, and that he opted to swing at a lot of pitches, thus getting more hits, but making more outs(costing his team). See the old RBI thread.
3)Rice failed to drive in runners from scoring position at a higher rate than most middle of the order hitters. If one likes Rice's RBI total, they must disdain the fact that he left a lot of RBI on the table as well. This is part of the making outs and costing. He made a lot of outs with men on...that hurts. See the old RBI thread.
4)Rice's peak is typically hailed as the reason for the Hall. Yet it was not as good as Murray's, or Schmidt's, Winfield's, Brett's, Jackson, Stargell's, etc... If his peak was indeed as good as those guys, then he may have some merit. See the side by side comparison of Murray and RICe in OPS+. Do that exercise with the other hitters, and it is the same.
5)Rice career value is waaay short of the typical Hall of Fame hitter from that era. Couple with the mythological peak that is assumed he had(due to inflated RBI totals), he misses on both ends.
6)When every walk, single, double, triple, HR, out made, GIDP, hitting with men on, making outs with men on are accounted for. Even outs that advance runners are accounted! You get Rice as having 190 runs above a league average player. A typical HOF hitter from that era would have 400+. Murray has 509.
OPS is a composite of other stats, It gives equal value, or double value to some of its components. If one feels 3 walks and one hit by a pitch, are just as valuable to a team than a home run in 4 PAs, then OPS is quite perfect.
With runners on 1st and 2nd, is a walk as good as a single, double, triple, or HR ? On base percentage values walks the same as a hit. Any stat, or group of stats, like RC600, which was once thought to be the end all by some, are not with out flaws. If two players have simialr career OPS, like Rice and Murray, the compostion of the stats should be considered. Rice had a higher percentage of HRs and actual total base hits, Murray had more walks. Which is more likely to drive in a run, who actually did drive in more runs per season ?
"Peak" is a relative term, if a single season is used, Rice tops Murray in almost all offensive stats, 5 best years, again Rice is the winner, 10 best years, Murray rises in front. Despite any specualtions, the career facts do show Rice topping Murray in almost all per season marks.
HOF measures like Black Ink, Grey Ink, and HOF Monitor rate Rice as qualified for thr Hall, in fact Grey Ink rates Rice above Murray.
It may interesting to note, only Jim Rice and Mickey Mantle ever led the AL in both HRs and triples , in the same season.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
The situational batting runs treat everything for what they are worth. They give the exact value in runs scored as to what actually occured in MLB. Rice is at 190 Murray at 509. That is basically EVERYTHING you need to know that matters.
That is a step above OPS+. OPS+ is about ten steps above the stuff you are talking about.
In Rice's era, the average HR lead to appx 1.40 runs. In Rice's era, the average out made lead to the prevention of appx. .25 runs, or cost the team -.25 runs.
In your example of a player going 1 for 4 with a HR, that comes out to .65 runs created in the average state.
This is not a guess, this is what actually occured in all of MLB over 40 years.
The average walk lead to appx .33 runs, as did the average HBP.
In your example a player getting three walks, a HBP, and making no outs creates 1.32 runs for his team on average, which scores more runs than your 1 for 4 example.
So it isn't a matter of what one feels creates more runs, it is a matter of what ACTUALLY DID!
The first thing you say will be, "it depends on the pitcher." It is true that scoring off of Johan Santana on a walk will be less than the .33 runs that it creates on average . But, a walk off of Jason Marquis will be greater than the .33 on average. Unless you are saying that Jim Rice somehow faced only the best pitchers, and Murray only the worst, then you have to take these figures based on the average runs they create.
In hyperbole simple terms, if every player in the lineup went 1 for 4 with a HR, that team would score 9 runs in the game. If every player went 3 walks and a HBP, that team would still be playing because they would never stop scoring runs.
jaxxr, I don't see Rice beating Murray in any peak, single season, two seasons, three, or more. If you want more detail on the stuff you desire, then the situational batter runs is an even greater advantage to Murray.
Now, does that make him the 12th best player of all time? I don't know for sure, but these things I know for sure: he was the best player on the Big Red Machine, he was the best player of the 1970's, and he was better than Kaline, Banks, Clemente, Carew, or Yaz.Text
So you saying using your "Geek" stats that Joe Morgan was a better player than Roberto Clemente? You think to hard. I think you could ask a thousand sports fans who they think was better and I'm pretty sure not one would say Joe Morgan.
I am one of the thousand fans, and I say Morgan was better than Clemente. Maybe the next 999 will agree with you...but then they probably don't have all the pertinent information.
Best Hits per season Rice = 213, 206, 201, 200, 191 Murray = 186, 184, 180, 179, 178
Here are some all time records in a few stats;
Only player to have 200+ hits and 35 or more Home Runs for 3 consecutive seasons, 1977-1979 Only player ever to lead his league, and Major-league Baseball in triples, home runs, and RBIs in the same season, 1978 Tied with Ty Cobb as being the only American Leaguers to ever have 3 consecutive Total Bases titles, 1977-1979 Tied with Mickey Mantle (1955) as being the only American Leaguers to ever lead the league in both triples and home runs in the same season, 1978
And one of my favorites, among fine hitters like Rice, Eddie Murray, Dewey Evans, Gene Tenace, John Kruck, and Dick Dietz, the most MVP awards = Rice 1, combined total of the others, zero.
Rice had a very impressive "Peak" to say the least.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I dont' see anything below but a bunch of hand picked numbers that only show a portion of the picture, don't include the necessary park adjustment, and don't account for teammates and opportunities.
You need to come up with something new.
Everything you desire is in the situation batter runs, or for ease, in the OPS+. You can ignore if you wish, that is your call.
For all viewers, if baseball evaluation is something you like, there is alot of information in this thread. Read through all of it, digest it, use logic, and you are welcome to draw your conclusions.
Jaxxr, I emplore you to be more open minded and accept views other than your own.
"I don't mind seeing Rice or any good player from his era get into the Hall of Fame."
I do agree with the above, one of your recent statements.
A truly open mind might comment on some items, confriming what they said.
As for "new" items, the all time records Rice shares with Cobb, and the other with Mantle, have not been posted in a plentiful manner.
Jim Rice was not as "poor" a ballplayer as many try to convince people that he may have been, nor was he as absolutely qualified for the HOF as some might believe. I would have thought since you did start this thread, you might have been open-minded enough to consider both alternate points of view, especially with so many various evaluations popular in baseball. Unfortunately, despite any premise of interest in other opinions, merely bashing Jim Rice is the best you can do.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Jim Rice was not as "poor" a ballplayer as many try to convince people that he may have been, >>
I assume that was directed at me since there's only two people here arguing that he's not as good as people think. But if you're going to use quotation marks, then you need to quote something that was actually said, and I never said he was a "poor" ballplayer. I have said he was not as good as Fred Lynn, Dewey Evans or Roy White, but Lynn, Evans and White were all very good players and so, too, was Rice a very good player.
So, too, was Chili Davis a very good player - an almost exact equal of Rice in fact - but I don't think he belongs in the HOF either. By far, the greatest difference between Rice and Davis is the parks they played in. I've posted this before, but Rice's fans hide from it.
Which one is Rice? More importantly, which one is better?
One of them is Chili Davis, the other is Jim Rice's road stats doubled. I left out OBP and doubles because Davis beats Rice by so much it's too obvious who is who, and likewise triples because Rice leads by so much.
Maybe you know Rice's stats well enough that you can tell by looking, but I doubt many people can. What you see above are two equal players.
Rice - Fenway = Chili Davis. How about we compromise and let Fenway Park into the HOF?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
My comments were NOT directed at anyone in particular,
General tones and inferences do prevail.
However, Steve, to compare Chili Davis with Jim Rice makes me question an overall understanding of the game.
Major league records held, and those shared with Mantle and Cobb, MVP awards, many different and numerous League leading performances in HRs, RBI, Total bases and such, five more all star game selections, multiple 200 hit seasons, several Silver Slugger awards, and other factors, which do, IN FACT, objectively matter in player comparison. Factors which show Davis considerably short in merit.
Seem quite a stretch, perhaps a joke, nevertheless, an opinion certainly different.
Edit to add; Rice's career BA is .297, NOT the lower .277 posted by Dallas
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
those records are not exactly the basis of what makes a HOFer.
Chipper Jones a few years ago tied a record with an extra-base hit in 14 straight games. This does not make him the most prolific extra-base hit man of all time, much like Dimaggio is not the greatest hitter of all time. While skill is needed to attain these records, they do not prove superiority to any other player of similar skill. Probablitity, chance and luck all factor into someone having records like the ones you speak of. He is not as good as Cobb or Mantle so why infer that by continuing to bring those "records" up?
I dont mean to infer I think Rice is as good as Cobb or Mantle, far from it. He is probably as similar to Cobb, as he is to Chili Davis.
However, those shared marks, and a few aother records or league leading performances, do show for somewhat brief peak times, Rice was quite impressive, Far and away, much more so than Chili Davis ever was.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>However, Steve, to compare Chili Davis with Jim Rice makes me question an overall understanding of the game. >>
As your refusal to see the similarity makes me question yours.
<< <i>Major league records held, and those shared with Mantle and Cobb, MVP awards, many different and numerous League leading performances in HRs, RBI, Total bases and such, five more all star game selections, multiple 200 hit seasons, several Silver Slugger awards, and other factors, which do, IN FACT, objectively matter in player comparison. Factors which show Davis considerably short in merit. >>
Exhibit 1. The ONLY reasons that Rice has ANY of these things is that he played in Fenway and his teammates. Put Rice in Oakland the year he had 406 total bases and he's lucky to get 300; his 139 RBI becomes maybe 90, and so on. Your lack of objectivity on this subject is so stunning and complete, that I have to admire the effort it must take to maintain it.
<< <i> Edit to add; Rice's career BA is .297, NOT the lower .277 posted by Dallas >>
Exhibit 2. Either you didn't read what I posted or you didn't understand it; either way, it makes debating this stuff difficult. I didn't post that Rice's career BA was .277, I posted that his career BA ON THE ROAD was .277. His career BA at home was .320, leading to the .297 total average. Absent Fenway, Rice was a .277 hitter, and ignoring that, however much effort that takes, is the only way to discuss Rice as a HOFer with a straight face.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Those 'records' you speak of are attained because he played at Fenway...you just can't keep neglecting this. He attained 400 total bases because he played at Fenway. Until you recognize this fact, you will continue to get a misleading view of Rice, or Fenway's, accomplishments.
Here is what you have for his records... Only player to have 200+ hits and 35 or more Home Runs for 3 consecutive seasons, 1977-1979 Only player ever to lead his league, and Major-league Baseball in triples, home runs, and RBIs in the same season, 1978 Tied with Ty Cobb as being the only American Leaguers to ever have 3 consecutive Total Bases titles, 1977-1979 Tied with Mickey Mantle (1955) as being the only American Leaguers to ever lead the league in both triples and home runs in the same season, 1978
None of those are exactly records as being an all time leader. They are almost all based on one season. THEY ARE ALL INFLATED DUE TO FENWAY.
What kind of record is being the only player to lead the league in both triples and Home Runs in the same season? That is just a trivial piece of information. Babe Ruth hit 60 HR in one year, yet he only had 8 triples. That was a far better season. Why promote Rice's as if it was an all time great season or something.
If you find those as interesting, great. But they don't do anything to establish his baseball value. And please, don't forget to factor in Fenway.
In neutral parks, he was Chili Davis...that is Dallas's point.
Joe Morgan has to be a Top 25 player and MOST CERTAINLY better than Clemente.
Baseball I think your drinking the same punch as Dallas.
It's impossible for a sane rational man to believe that Joe Morgan was a better baseball player than the ICONIC Roberto Clemente. I don't care what "GEEK" stats you come with, Roberto Clemente was by far superior at the plate (almost a 50 point difference in lifetime BA) and in the field. Clemente was arguably the best defensive player in the history of the game(12 Gold Gloves!!!)
"The ONLY reasons that Rice has ANY of these things is that he played in Fenway"
Caps for emphasis from the original poster. The exact quote states, not a primary reason, not a contributing factor, not an important reason, but specifically, the "only" reason,..... was that he played in Fenway Park.
No natural talent, no baseball skill, no possibility of adjusting and adapting to use a ballpark to enhance one's ability.
Rice actually hit better in almost all aspects, in Yankee Stadium, I guess by the continuation of that expressed logic, if he had been a Yankee, rather than a BoSox, he would have been among the very elite group of hitters ever.
I guess the FACT, that he did more more HRs on road in some seasons, must be supernatural. In 1977 Rice had 100 hits at Fenway and 106 hits on the road, contributing to his fine 206 hit season, lucky for him, not only the Fenway ones were counted. In 1978 when he equaled a feat, trival to some, done also only by Mantle in the AL, more of his record setting triples were on the road.
The "ONLY" reason for" ANY" items concept, reflects a very prejudiced and narrow view.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Baseball I think your drinking the same punch as Dallas.
It's impossible for a sane rational man to believe that Joe Morgan was a better baseball player than the ICONIC Roberto Clemente. I don't care what "GEEK" stats you come with, Roberto Clemente was by far superior at the plate (almost a 50 point difference in lifetime BA) and in the field. Clemente was arguably the best defensive player in the history of the game(12 Gold Gloves!!!) >>
OK, you've offerred exactly three pieces of information in support of your claim:
1. Clemente is an ICON 2. His batting average was 46 points higher 3. He won a lot of gold gloves
My response:
1. So what? We're talking about who was better, not who is an icon.
2. Morgan's on-base percentage was 33 points higher. Batting average is on the back of a baseball card so we all bow down before it, but OBP actually measures what people think batting average measures. In a given at bat, Morgan was more likely to get on base than Clemente, Clemente more likely to make an out.
3. Clemente was indeed a fine right fielder, and in terms of helping a baseball team win games that is almost as valuable as having an average middle reliever. It's right field! In Clemente's entire career he made fewer assists than Morgan did in any one of 18 seasons. And Clemente played right field because he wasn't the best outfielder on his team; the best outfielder on the Pirates, Bill Virdon, was in center. Clemente was almost painfully slow and CF was not an option; his reputation as on OF is way overblown by all the Gold Gloves that he got more for his BA than his fielding prowess. Morgan, on the other hand, was winning his Gold Gloves at second base, where he was putting together a better fielding percentage than Clemente was in right field. If you bring fielding into the debate, it ends, and Morgan tops Clemente.
What else do you have, becasue so far your argument is pretty weak. How about stolen bases? How about double plays? How about the parks they played in?
So far, you may have noticed, two people have weighed in on the comparison, and both agree that Morgan was better. Since you are the one that brought up what 1,000 fans might think, I'll assume you did it because you thought it was important. Now that you know you were wrong about that, does it make you want to rethink your position, or are you happy enough with what you think you know that you refuse to learn anything else?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>"The ONLY reasons that Rice has ANY of these things is that he played in Fenway"
Caps for emphasis from the original poster. The exact quote states, not a primary reason, not a contributing factor, not an important reason, but specifically, the "only" reason,..... was that he played in Fenway Park.
No natural talent, no baseball skill, no possibility of adjusting and adapting to use a ballpark to enhance one's ability.
Rice actually hit better in almost all aspects, in Yankee Stadium, I guess by the continuation of that expressed logic, if he had been a Yankee, rather than a BoSox, he would have been among the very elite group of hitters ever.
I guess the FACT, that he did more more HRs on road in some seasons, must be supernatural. In 1977 Rice had 100 hits at Fenway and 106 hits on the road, contributing to his fine 206 hit season, lucky for him, not only the Fenway ones were counted. In 1978 when he equaled a feat, trival to some, done also only by Mantle in the AL, more of his record setting triples were on the road.
The "ONLY" reason for" ANY" items concept, reflects a very prejudiced and narrow view.
>>
I hereby officially give up as I lack the strength to go on. I'll wait until the HOF vote gets closer to bang my head against this wall again.
I'll keep on with the Clemente/Morgan stuff because I do not yet know for an absolute certainty that sayheykid doesn't understand what I'm saying.
edit to add: OK, I give up on sayheykid, too. But thanks for the clever response, I hadn't heard that one since third grade.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Next thing your going to tell is that Joe Morgan was better than Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth, right???. Your absolutely laughable and continue to embarrass yourself !!!!
"Is Clemente better than Ichiro Suzuki, who is also every bit an "icon"? If Clemente is better, then why?"
yes he is better. Clemente has a .834 OBP vs. .807 OBP, but vs. the league averages, .724 for Clement and .750 for Ichiro. Clemente was indeed the superior player.
Comments
You still don't freakin get it with measuring the career percentages with a player who retired early. My goodness.
There are those lists again! Thos mean nothing in terms of total player value. Why do you leave out important factors?
Why don't you continue that list with, did any of them ever ground into record breaking double plays?
Did any of them every lead the league in OUTS MADE two times in the prime of their career?
You are like the guy who brags about the beauty of his girlfriend, and then neglects to inform us that she has a penis.
If HR frequency you are using is simply HR per At bats, then yes, that is already measured in OPS+. So is doubles per at bat, singles per at bat.
<< <i>And speaking of HRF,as you stated Hoopster;
"For the love of god, triples, HR frequency, singles, batting avg...those are contributing factors to OPS+. It makes no sense to list all those as Rice seperate, when the total of them all is already expressed in OPS+."
Of course you are WRONG,
the ratio stat, HRF, is not directly related to OPS + calculation. HRF is separate and distinct, from the figures used therein.
>>
If I hadn't lost mine already, it would have exploded. OPS+ takes into account the result of every PA - every HR, every AB. HRF is the ratio of HR to every AB. It's in there - EVERYTHING is in there.
Well, almost everything. GIDP are not in there and I don't think anyone here (except hoopster) comes close to understanding just how many negative points of OPS+ (or BA or OBP) that Rice's GIDP are worth. With all due respect to hoopster, Jim Rice was NOT as good a hitter as Lynn or Evans. As an overall player, he's not even close to either of them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I guess this thread is the beginning of the bi-monthly who desereves to get in? Dawson should go before Rice. At least he wasn't an a-hole. >>
Was he really that big a douchebag like Barry Bonds and Manny? I was not living in New England during the 70s, so I never really got exposed to that.
He seems like a pretty nice guy now. >>
yep, but I think he sucks as an analyst. >>
He's better than Ken Macha who, thankfully, is coaching again.
<< <i>Jaxxr,
You are like the guy who brags about the beauty of his girlfriend, and then neglects to inform us that she has a penis.
>>
That may big sigline worthy
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Jaxxr, if you don't think the physical configuration of a park matters, then I suggest you adn I have a HR hitting contest. I get to hit mine at the 12 yr old field, and you get to hit yours at the 18 Yr old field. Lets see if you stil believe it doesn't matter when it directly affects you.
Dallas, my head may have exploded mroe than yours. We can compare. Jaxxr still does not differentiate between a short career and long career, in terms of percentages or per game.
Jaxxr, with your line of thinking Terry Forester should be the all time batting king, not Ty Cobb. Tell me why he shouldn't.
.....and if that were true, perhaps a spacecraft bound for Mars, might windup on Jupiter, but that's another story.
It really isn't even math as you think. It is freakin common sense and logic, and a simple compilation of what occured.
I'm not a math guy by nature, but I wouldn't put it past Dallas to be able to work through some of those eqations of Nasa that you speak of.
I am often accused of not being open minded, yet of all the people that accuse me of that, they ahve looked at this stuff only one way their entire life, and simply refuse more valid findings...while I have looked through that lens when I was younger, and have simply become more informed. Who really are the closed minded guys?
Maybe limb amputation should still be our primary act against an infected wound, or maybe all doctors should still use leeches often. Things progress, open YOUR mind.
<< <i>Stevek,
It really isn't even math as you think. It is freakin common sense and logic, and a simple compilation of what occured.
I'm not a math guy by nature, but I wouldn't put it past Dallas to be able to work through some of those eqations of Nasa that you speak of.
I am often accused of not being open minded, yet of all the people that accuse me of that, they ahve looked at this stuff only one way their entire life, and simply refuse more valid findings...while I have looked through that lens when I was younger, and have simply become more informed. Who really are the closed minded guys?
Maybe limb amputation should still be our primary act against an infected wound, or maybe all doctors should still use leeches often. Things progress, open YOUR mind. >>
How's that view on Jupiter?
Hey - I'm just bustin' chops a little bit, and actually being compared to working for NASA should be a compliment. LOL
No problem, I can take some chop busting.
ANY comparison to me working at NASA is quite a reach! Unless they need a guy to drink beer with.
HFR may be used with either PA or official ABs, as the base, perhaps resulting in indirect, or no use at all.
OPS = On-Base Percentage + Slugging Percentage
OBP = On-Base Percentage: (H+BB+HBP)/(AB+BB+SF+HBP)
SLG = Slugging Percentage: Total Bases/At Bats
No place in the calculation is HRF "directly" used as input.
However to say it is not worth mentioning as a separate indicator, is of course an opinion, it could be like saying a single is a good as a double, a walk is as good as a hit. I realize you wish to discredit Rice's superior HRF, which contains the best possible offensive event in baseball, a HR, and overemphasize the outs made. Two doubles in two PAs, may not be as good in real baseball, as one HR in two PAs, though they calculate in OPS+, the same.
Every baseball game played to a regular nine inning finish has exactly the same max. number of outs, 27, made by the losing team, the winning team gets between 24-27 outs. The big difference is in hits, errors, HRs, stolen bases, etc., each team may make. Some of the outs, including DPs, are productive, even called for by the manager, some will advance the runner, drive in a run, maybe drive in the winning run before a weak hitting pitcher comes to bat.
While OPS + is not perfect, it can be a good indicator of a hitter's quality.
Career OPS +, Rice 134, Evans 132, Lynn 132, Murray 128
"Adjusted" Career OPS +, Lynn 129, Murray 129, Rice 128, Evans 127
All very close, no big, clearly dominant guy as some might percieve.
Interesting to note, by feeling BA, HRF, RBI, 200+ Hit seasons, 40+ HR seasons, are all fairly and equallly represented, and not worthy of separational importance, Johnny Kruck tops all of those hitters, he has a career OPS + of 139, and if "adjusted", it is 133, perhaps he is the best hitter of the bunch ?
Somehow the fact that a player decides not to "hang-on" and steadily increase his raw numbers, does not change what actually did in fact happen, in real stats. Sandy Koufax, nor Jim Rice should have their accomplishments figured differently, from any other major league ballplayer. The HOF usually considers the entire carer as well as the peak, league leading type seasons, in their determinations.
HR is directly used in there. Just because it doesn't say AB/HR in the line does it mean it is not directly used.
Jaxxr, I did this to you before, and this is a simple exercise. Rice and Murray's career OPS+ are...
Rice 128
Murray 129
If you look at their top OPS+ each season side by side, you should get a clear indication of why Murray's 129 OPS is FAR more valuable than Rice's 128.
Rice.......Murray
157........158
154.........156
147.........156
141.........156
136.........156
130.........149
127.........140
123.........138
122.........136
120.........136
116.........129
112.........123
102.........120
101.........115
70...........113
R..............111
R.............105
R.............87
R.............86
Murray's best season beats Rice's best seson EVERY SINGLE YEAR! It is only the top two seasons where they are close. Then the gap steadily widens every year. In rice's last three years, he did not play full time, but Murray did...and he dwarfed him easily. Then there are the four seasons where RIce was not good enough to hold a job, while Murray was in total a league average hitter those four years. That is not hanging on if you are a league average hitter.
To make matters worse for Rice, this does not include GIDP, nor does it include Men on base hitting(in which Murray was second to none).
These OPS+ numbers can be more accurately expressed in batter runs created above average. This gives Murray his credit for being able to play full time as well. If you include the men on base hitting...here is what their runs above the league average player are....
RIce.......Murray.....Lynn
190..........510.........210
This includes all men on base and out situations...quite detailed.
So what we have here is Murray beating Rice handily in Peak(especially with the men on numbers), and dwarfing him in career...even though their career OPS+ makes them look as if they are similar hitters.
Why do you not understand this after all this time? I am serious...are you being a wise guy, an instigator, or do you just not get it?
Take those goofy lists you provide and just toss them. They don't mean anything. EVERYTHING you have on your lists are here already, but these add even more(like the men on hitting).
<< <i>Why do you not understand this after all this time? I am serious...are you being a wise guy, an instigator, or do you just not get it? >>
Repent now sinner! Jaxxr be careful or you will be smote out of stat heaven.
<< Rice's numbers are better than I thought. Based on the fact that Joe Morgan is in the HOF with his mediocre numbers I think Rice belongs. >>
Yeah even I saw through that one.
Steve
Jaxxr should repent, for consistently using the smallest bits of information, while ignoring the more important ones, in order to support a failed case.
Jaxxr, do you understand the breakdown above?
Is there another poster on here that seriously does not get that year by year breakdown and post above? Is there one on here that can say, "I see exactly what you mean?" For if there isn't, and all I have to do is debate a blind man, I think it is time for me to retire for good.
lol now my head exploded.
While one should not compare Morgan and Rice one can't possibly think Morgan is the 12th best player either.
Maybe you meant 112'th best?
Steve
Do you feel two doubles, or four walks, are as good as one HR, in four PAs ?
Do you feel John Kruck with a better career OPS +, is a better hitter than Murray ?
Jim Rice was a better HR hitter per season than Murray, career and peak,
Jim Rice was a better RBI producer per season than Murray, career and peak,
Jim Rice was a better run scorer per season, than Murray, career and peak,
Jim Rice has a better SLG %, than Murray career and peak,
Jim Rice has more hits per season, than Murray, career and peak,
Jim Rice has more triples, than Murray, career and peak,
Jim Rice has more total bases per season, than Murray, career and peak.
Jim Rice has a higher lifetime BA than Murray, as well as a virtual identical lifetime OPS +.
Eddie has more walks, and because he chose not to try to "hit" the ball as often as the more frequent HR swinger, Rice, he has less DPs.
They seem relatively comparable as hitters,
I am going to move forward. YOu are welcome to take the information any way you wish. Extrapolate what you wish, and so forth.
Your answers lie within the year by year breakdown I did for Murray and Rice.
Your answers of worth of each event lie within the play by play data. That is all there and already is figured for what you desire. It is up to you if you want it or not. Every situation you want is accounted for. You could have some fun.
I'll assume you must consider him a bit better hitter than Murray.
"Your answers lie within the year by year breakdown I did for Murray and Rice"
I really dont have any question which needs an answer, except perhaps, Was there was any non self-serving reason for starting this post, to "discuss" Jim Rice, when you already had the absolutely 100% full and completly accurate answer beforehand ???
Other "cool" year by year breakdowns:
Best HR seasons
Rice = 46, 39, 39, 39, 28,
Murray = 33, 32, 32, 31, 30
Best BA seasons ( AL )
Rice = .325, .324, .320, .315, .309
Murray = .316, .306, .306, .305, .300
Best RBI seasons
Rice = 139, 130, 126, 122, 114
Murray = 124, 116, 111, 110, 110
Best runs scored seasons
Rice = 121, 117, 104, 98, 98
Murray = 115, 111, 97, 96, 90
Best Hits per season
Rice = 213, 206, 201, 200, 191
Murray = 186, 184, 180, 179, 178
John Kruk has a fine OPS for some of the same reasns Rice has. Kruk was done as a full time player at age 32. He is another example of why a short career overstates a person's value using OPS+
Murray had OPS+ seasons of 158,156,156,156,156. Kruk's best season was 150. When Kruk was retired contributing nothing, Murray was still producing some All Star type seasons, and many above average type seasons. If you line them up side by side like Murray dwarfing Rice, it is even mroe of a beating.
ALso, Kruk platooned as well, therefore saving his percentages by not having to make more outs vs. lefties. There is your answer.
Anything else?
<< <i>While one should not compare Morgan and Rice one can't possibly think Morgan is the 12th best player either.
Maybe you meant 112'th best?
>>
First, if you're just having fun at my expense then shame on you, because I am still in physical pain.
If you're not - have you looked at his stats?
But before you look at his stats, think about this - who is the better golfer, the one who leads the tour in driving distance, comes in 27th in greens in regulation and comes in 182nd in putts per round, or the one who comes in 35th in driving distance, 70th in greens in regulation, and 27th in putts per round. In case you don't see where I'm going, that's Bubba Watson and Phil Mickelson. Being great at one thing - any one thing - gets you only so far (in Bubba's case, 77th on the tour), but being very good at everything makes you one of the greatest in the game.
Joe Morgan? 90th all time in OBP, 11th all time in stolen bases, 32nd all time in runs created, 22nd all time in times on base; led the league in slugging %, OBP, runs, triples, walks, OPS+, sac flies; top 5 finishes in home runs, triples, total bases, HBP, and HRF. Geek stats? Led the league multiple times in runs created, adjusted batter runs, batting wins, offensive win%, and power/speed number. Now throw in five gold gloves at a skill position, a batting and slugging average that improved with men on and in close games and the fact that he did most of this in the Astrodome, Riverfront before they shrunk it and Candlestick, and most of it in the second deadball era. Add it all up and you have a player who varied from very good to great at every single part of the game. There's only so many players in history who can make that claim as strongly as Morgan, and there's only so many who can claim to be better than Morgan.
Now, does that make him the 12th best player of all time? I don't know for sure, but these things I know for sure: he was the best player on the Big Red Machine, he was the best player of the 1970's, and he was better than Kaline, Banks, Clemente, Carew, or Yaz. I also know that, if you are a smart GM, you would prefer Joe Morgan and any other player to two Jim Rice's. I'm pretty sure you're better off with Joe Morgan and any TWO other players than with three Jim Rice's. I can debate wheher or not Morgan was the 12th best player ever, the 15th best, or maybe even only the 20th, but below that I simply will not go.
You stuck your toe in the water with OPS+, and in that one stat Rice looked about the same as Lynn, Murray and Evans. But OPS+ does not take into account GIDP, length of career or situational hitting - it takes into account everything else. As you adjust for each of those, Rice loses ground to Lynn, Evans and especially Murray. At the end of the process he is so far behind Murray he can't even reach his jock let alone carry it.
For example, consider GIDP. Relative to Fred Lynn, Jim Rice erased 145 more runners after equalizing for their career length. That means that 145 runners who got a single or a walk had their contribution cancelled by Rice; if you give the cancelled hitter credit in his OPS+ for what he did, and Rice credit for only how he did himself there is a disconnect - the stats say there's still a runner on base but there isn't. Take 145 times on base away from Rice - to be fair - and his OPS+ isn't 129, it's 123. The more you adjust, the clearer the true picture becomes. There's no single perfect way to adjust for everything, but what is absolutely certain is that if you don't adjust for these things then you reach false conclusions.
It is not guessing what a player would have done in the future. Rice didn't contribute anything after age 35 because he was not good enough to play. In that regard, he had the same value as you or I. We don't have to guess. We know he did nothing. We know that nobody wanted him because he was a bad hitter at that time who was simply a double play machine.
A guy like Murray still contributed to teams to create wins, even if it wasn't at the same rate as in their prime, it is still value....value that Rice could not give. This is not a guess, it is giving Murray his credit for holding down a MLB job, and doing it with success, WHILE PLAYING FULL TIME UP UNTIL THE VERY LAST SEASON! NO platoon to save stats like some. The same is applied to Murray for being good enough to start at age 21.
Here is what we know so far...
1) The Park factors is a certainty to have helped Rice. See the park thread going on now.
2) Rice's RBI total were high, but that is due primarily to the Park, the inordinate amount of opportuntites that other sluggers did not receive, and that he opted to swing at a lot of pitches, thus getting more hits, but making more outs(costing his team). See the old RBI thread.
3)Rice failed to drive in runners from scoring position at a higher rate than most middle of the order hitters. If one likes Rice's RBI total, they must disdain the fact that he left a lot of RBI on the table as well. This is part of the making outs and costing. He made a lot of outs with men on...that hurts. See the old RBI thread.
4)Rice's peak is typically hailed as the reason for the Hall. Yet it was not as good as Murray's, or Schmidt's, Winfield's, Brett's, Jackson, Stargell's, etc... If his peak was indeed as good as those guys, then he may have some merit. See the side by side comparison of Murray and RICe in OPS+. Do that exercise with the other hitters, and it is the same.
5)Rice career value is waaay short of the typical Hall of Fame hitter from that era. Couple with the mythological peak that is assumed he had(due to inflated RBI totals), he misses on both ends.
6)When every walk, single, double, triple, HR, out made, GIDP, hitting with men on, making outs with men on are accounted for. Even outs that advance runners are accounted! You get Rice as having 190 runs above a league average player. A typical HOF hitter from that era would have 400+. Murray has 509.
It gives equal value, or double value to some of its components. If one feels 3 walks and one hit by a pitch, are just as valuable to a team than a home run in 4 PAs, then OPS is quite perfect.
With runners on 1st and 2nd, is a walk as good as a single, double, triple, or HR ? On base percentage values walks the same as a hit.
Any stat, or group of stats, like RC600, which was once thought to be the end all by some, are not with out flaws. If two players have simialr career OPS, like Rice and Murray, the compostion of the stats should be considered. Rice had a higher percentage of HRs and actual total base hits, Murray had more walks. Which is more likely to drive in a run, who actually did drive in more runs per season ?
"Peak" is a relative term, if a single season is used, Rice tops Murray in almost all offensive stats, 5 best years, again Rice is the winner, 10 best years, Murray rises in front. Despite any specualtions, the career facts do show Rice topping Murray in almost all per season marks.
HOF measures like Black Ink, Grey Ink, and HOF Monitor rate Rice as qualified for thr Hall, in fact Grey Ink rates Rice above Murray.
It may interesting to note, only Jim Rice and Mickey Mantle ever led the AL in both HRs and triples , in the same season.
The situational batting runs treat everything for what they are worth. They give the exact value in runs scored as to what actually occured in MLB. Rice is at 190 Murray at 509. That is basically EVERYTHING you need to know that matters.
That is a step above OPS+. OPS+ is about ten steps above the stuff you are talking about.
In Rice's era, the average HR lead to appx 1.40 runs.
In Rice's era, the average out made lead to the prevention of appx. .25 runs, or cost the team -.25 runs.
In your example of a player going 1 for 4 with a HR, that comes out to .65 runs created in the average state.
This is not a guess, this is what actually occured in all of MLB over 40 years.
The average walk lead to appx .33 runs, as did the average HBP.
In your example a player getting three walks, a HBP, and making no outs creates 1.32 runs for his team on average, which scores more runs than your 1 for 4 example.
So it isn't a matter of what one feels creates more runs, it is a matter of what ACTUALLY DID!
The first thing you say will be, "it depends on the pitcher." It is true that scoring off of Johan Santana on a walk will be less than the .33 runs that it creates on average . But, a walk off of Jason Marquis will be greater than the .33 on average. Unless you are saying that Jim Rice somehow faced only the best pitchers, and Murray only the worst, then you have to take these figures based on the average runs they create.
In hyperbole simple terms, if every player in the lineup went 1 for 4 with a HR, that team would score 9 runs in the game.
If every player went 3 walks and a HBP, that team would still be playing because they would never stop scoring runs.
jaxxr, I don't see Rice beating Murray in any peak, single season, two seasons, three, or more. If you want more detail on the stuff you desire, then the situational batter runs is an even greater advantage to Murray.
Rice.......Murray
157........158
154.........156
147.........156
141.........156
136.........156
130.........149
127.........140
123.........138
122.........136
120.........136
116.........129
112.........123
102.........120
101.........115
70...........113
R..............111
R.............105
R.............87
R.............86
So you saying using your "Geek" stats that Joe Morgan was a better player than Roberto Clemente? You think to hard. I think you could ask a thousand sports fans who they think was better and I'm pretty sure not one would say Joe Morgan.
"I don't see Rice beating Murray in any peak, single season, two seasons, three, or more'
Please "see" below,
Best HR seasons
Rice = 46, 39, 39, 39, 28,
Murray = 33, 32, 32, 31, 30
Best BA seasons ( AL )
Rice = .325, .324, .320, .315, .309
Murray = .316, .306, .306, .305, .300
Best RBI seasons
Rice = 139, 130, 126, 122, 114
Murray = 124, 116, 111, 110, 110
Best runs scored seasons
Rice = 121, 117, 104, 98, 98
Murray = 115, 111, 97, 96, 90
Best Hits per season
Rice = 213, 206, 201, 200, 191
Murray = 186, 184, 180, 179, 178
Here are some all time records in a few stats;
Only player to have 200+ hits and 35 or more Home Runs for 3 consecutive seasons, 1977-1979
Only player ever to lead his league, and Major-league Baseball in triples, home runs, and RBIs in the same season, 1978
Tied with Ty Cobb as being the only American Leaguers to ever have 3 consecutive Total Bases titles, 1977-1979
Tied with Mickey Mantle (1955) as being the only American Leaguers to ever lead the league in both triples and home runs in the same season, 1978
And one of my favorites, among fine hitters like Rice, Eddie Murray, Dewey Evans, Gene Tenace, John Kruck, and Dick Dietz,
the most MVP awards = Rice 1, combined total of the others, zero.
Rice had a very impressive "Peak" to say the least.
I dont' see anything below but a bunch of hand picked numbers that only show a portion of the picture, don't include the necessary park adjustment, and don't account for teammates and opportunities.
You need to come up with something new.
Everything you desire is in the situation batter runs, or for ease, in the OPS+. You can ignore if you wish, that is your call.
I rest my case on Rice.
For all viewers, if baseball evaluation is something you like, there is alot of information in this thread. Read through all of it, digest it, use logic, and you are welcome to draw your conclusions.
Jaxxr, I emplore you to be more open minded and accept views other than your own.
I do agree with the above, one of your recent statements.
A truly open mind might comment on some items, confriming what they said.
As for "new" items,
the all time records Rice shares with Cobb, and the other with Mantle, have not been posted in a plentiful manner.
Jim Rice was not as "poor" a ballplayer as many try to convince people that he may have been, nor was he as absolutely qualified for the HOF as some might believe. I would have thought since you did start this thread, you might have been open-minded enough to consider both alternate points of view, especially with so many various evaluations popular in baseball. Unfortunately, despite any premise of interest in other opinions, merely bashing Jim Rice is the best you can do.
<< <i>Jim Rice was not as "poor" a ballplayer as many try to convince people that he may have been, >>
I assume that was directed at me since there's only two people here arguing that he's not as good as people think. But if you're going to use quotation marks, then you need to quote something that was actually said, and I never said he was a "poor" ballplayer. I have said he was not as good as Fred Lynn, Dewey Evans or Roy White, but Lynn, Evans and White were all very good players and so, too, was Rice a very good player.
So, too, was Chili Davis a very good player - an almost exact equal of Rice in fact - but I don't think he belongs in the HOF either. By far, the greatest difference between Rice and Davis is the parks they played in. I've posted this before, but Rice's fans hide from it.
Which one is Rice? More importantly, which one is better?
A: 1240 runs, 2380 hits, 350 HR, 1372 RBI, .274 BA, .451 Slugging
B: 1136 runs, 2296 hits, 348 HR, 1298 RBI, .277 BA, .459 Slugging
One of them is Chili Davis, the other is Jim Rice's road stats doubled. I left out OBP and doubles because Davis beats Rice by so much it's too obvious who is who, and likewise triples because Rice leads by so much.
Maybe you know Rice's stats well enough that you can tell by looking, but I doubt many people can. What you see above are two equal players.
Rice - Fenway = Chili Davis. How about we compromise and let Fenway Park into the HOF?
General tones and inferences do prevail.
However, Steve,
to compare Chili Davis with Jim Rice makes me question an overall understanding of the game.
Major league records held, and those shared with Mantle and Cobb, MVP awards, many different and numerous League leading performances in HRs, RBI, Total bases and such, five more all star game selections, multiple 200 hit seasons, several Silver Slugger awards, and other factors, which do, IN FACT, objectively matter in player comparison. Factors which show Davis considerably short in merit.
Seem quite a stretch, perhaps a joke, nevertheless, an opinion certainly different.
Edit to add; Rice's career BA is .297, NOT the lower .277 posted by Dallas
those records are not exactly the basis of what makes a HOFer.
Chipper Jones a few years ago tied a record with an extra-base hit in 14 straight games. This does not make him the most prolific extra-base hit man of all time, much like Dimaggio is not the greatest hitter of all time. While skill is needed to attain these records, they do not prove superiority to any other player of similar skill. Probablitity, chance and luck all factor into someone having records like the ones you speak of. He is not as good as Cobb or Mantle so why infer that by continuing to bring those "records" up?
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
He is probably as similar to Cobb, as he is to Chili Davis.
However, those shared marks, and a few aother records or league leading performances, do show for somewhat brief peak times, Rice was quite impressive, Far and away, much more so than Chili Davis ever was.
<< <i>However, Steve,
to compare Chili Davis with Jim Rice makes me question an overall understanding of the game. >>
As your refusal to see the similarity makes me question yours.
<< <i>Major league records held, and those shared with Mantle and Cobb, MVP awards, many different and numerous League leading performances in HRs, RBI, Total bases and such, five more all star game selections, multiple 200 hit seasons, several Silver Slugger awards, and other factors, which do, IN FACT, objectively matter in player comparison. Factors which show Davis considerably short in merit. >>
Exhibit 1. The ONLY reasons that Rice has ANY of these things is that he played in Fenway and his teammates. Put Rice in Oakland the year he had 406 total bases and he's lucky to get 300; his 139 RBI becomes maybe 90, and so on. Your lack of objectivity on this subject is so stunning and complete, that I have to admire the effort it must take to maintain it.
<< <i> Edit to add; Rice's career BA is .297, NOT the lower .277 posted by Dallas >>
Exhibit 2. Either you didn't read what I posted or you didn't understand it; either way, it makes debating this stuff difficult. I didn't post that Rice's career BA was .277, I posted that his career BA ON THE ROAD was .277. His career BA at home was .320, leading to the .297 total average. Absent Fenway, Rice was a .277 hitter, and ignoring that, however much effort that takes, is the only way to discuss Rice as a HOFer with a straight face.
Those 'records' you speak of are attained because he played at Fenway...you just can't keep neglecting this. He attained 400 total bases because he played at Fenway. Until you recognize this fact, you will continue to get a misleading view of Rice, or Fenway's, accomplishments.
Here is what you have for his records...
Only player to have 200+ hits and 35 or more Home Runs for 3 consecutive seasons, 1977-1979
Only player ever to lead his league, and Major-league Baseball in triples, home runs, and RBIs in the same season, 1978
Tied with Ty Cobb as being the only American Leaguers to ever have 3 consecutive Total Bases titles, 1977-1979
Tied with Mickey Mantle (1955) as being the only American Leaguers to ever lead the league in both triples and home runs in the same season, 1978
None of those are exactly records as being an all time leader. They are almost all based on one season. THEY ARE ALL INFLATED DUE TO FENWAY.
What kind of record is being the only player to lead the league in both triples and Home Runs in the same season? That is just a trivial piece of information. Babe Ruth hit 60 HR in one year, yet he only had 8 triples. That was a far better season. Why promote Rice's as if it was an all time great season or something.
If you find those as interesting, great. But they don't do anything to establish his baseball value. And please, don't forget to factor in Fenway.
In neutral parks, he was Chili Davis...that is Dallas's point.
Baseball I think your drinking the same punch as Dallas.
It's impossible for a sane rational man to believe that Joe Morgan was a better baseball player than the ICONIC Roberto Clemente. I don't care what "GEEK" stats you come with, Roberto Clemente was by far superior at the plate (almost a 50 point difference in lifetime BA) and in the field. Clemente was arguably the best defensive player in the history of the game(12 Gold Gloves!!!)
Caps for emphasis from the original poster.
The exact quote states, not a primary reason, not a contributing factor, not an important reason, but specifically, the "only" reason,..... was that he played in Fenway Park.
No natural talent, no baseball skill, no possibility of adjusting and adapting to use a ballpark to enhance one's ability.
Rice actually hit better in almost all aspects, in Yankee Stadium,
I guess by the continuation of that expressed logic, if he had been a Yankee, rather than a BoSox, he would have been among the very elite group of hitters ever.
I guess the FACT, that he did more more HRs on road in some seasons, must be supernatural. In 1977 Rice had 100 hits at Fenway and 106 hits on the road, contributing to his fine 206 hit season, lucky for him, not only the Fenway ones were counted. In 1978 when he equaled a feat, trival to some, done also only by Mantle in the AL, more of his record setting triples were on the road.
The "ONLY" reason for" ANY" items concept, reflects a very prejudiced and narrow view.
<< <i>Baseball I think your drinking the same punch as Dallas.
It's impossible for a sane rational man to believe that Joe Morgan was a better baseball player than the ICONIC Roberto Clemente. I don't care what "GEEK" stats you come with, Roberto Clemente was by far superior at the plate (almost a 50 point difference in lifetime BA) and in the field. Clemente was arguably the best defensive player in the history of the game(12 Gold Gloves!!!) >>
OK, you've offerred exactly three pieces of information in support of your claim:
1. Clemente is an ICON
2. His batting average was 46 points higher
3. He won a lot of gold gloves
My response:
1. So what? We're talking about who was better, not who is an icon.
2. Morgan's on-base percentage was 33 points higher. Batting average is on the back of a baseball card so we all bow down before it, but OBP actually measures what people think batting average measures. In a given at bat, Morgan was more likely to get on base than Clemente, Clemente more likely to make an out.
3. Clemente was indeed a fine right fielder, and in terms of helping a baseball team win games that is almost as valuable as having an average middle reliever. It's right field! In Clemente's entire career he made fewer assists than Morgan did in any one of 18 seasons. And Clemente played right field because he wasn't the best outfielder on his team; the best outfielder on the Pirates, Bill Virdon, was in center. Clemente was almost painfully slow and CF was not an option; his reputation as on OF is way overblown by all the Gold Gloves that he got more for his BA than his fielding prowess. Morgan, on the other hand, was winning his Gold Gloves at second base, where he was putting together a better fielding percentage than Clemente was in right field. If you bring fielding into the debate, it ends, and Morgan tops Clemente.
What else do you have, becasue so far your argument is pretty weak. How about stolen bases? How about double plays? How about the parks they played in?
So far, you may have noticed, two people have weighed in on the comparison, and both agree that Morgan was better. Since you are the one that brought up what 1,000 fans might think, I'll assume you did it because you thought it was important. Now that you know you were wrong about that, does it make you want to rethink your position, or are you happy enough with what you think you know that you refuse to learn anything else?
<< <i>"The ONLY reasons that Rice has ANY of these things is that he played in Fenway"
Caps for emphasis from the original poster.
The exact quote states, not a primary reason, not a contributing factor, not an important reason, but specifically, the "only" reason,..... was that he played in Fenway Park.
No natural talent, no baseball skill, no possibility of adjusting and adapting to use a ballpark to enhance one's ability.
Rice actually hit better in almost all aspects, in Yankee Stadium,
I guess by the continuation of that expressed logic, if he had been a Yankee, rather than a BoSox, he would have been among the very elite group of hitters ever.
I guess the FACT, that he did more more HRs on road in some seasons, must be supernatural. In 1977 Rice had 100 hits at Fenway and 106 hits on the road, contributing to his fine 206 hit season, lucky for him, not only the Fenway ones were counted. In 1978 when he equaled a feat, trival to some, done also only by Mantle in the AL, more of his record setting triples were on the road.
The "ONLY" reason for" ANY" items concept, reflects a very prejudiced and narrow view.
I hereby officially give up as I lack the strength to go on. I'll wait until the HOF vote gets closer to bang my head against this wall again.
I'll keep on with the Clemente/Morgan stuff because I do not yet know for an absolute certainty that sayheykid doesn't understand what I'm saying.
edit to add: OK, I give up on sayheykid, too. But thanks for the clever response, I hadn't heard that one since third grade.
yes he is better. Clemente has a .834 OBP vs. .807 OBP, but vs. the league averages, .724 for Clement and .750 for Ichiro. Clemente was indeed the superior player.
The trouble I have with the Rice/ Davis comparisons are the different era's they played in.
When Rice was doing his thing maybe 10 others were doing it too.
When Davis was doing it probably 30 or so guys were doing the same thing.
So IMO it is a silly comparison with little or no merit to anything actual.
AS for Dwight Evans being 'better' then Rice, I agree over the long haul he was. But for a certain time period NO one was better then Rice.
Fred Lynn IMO was so good they let him leave to go to the Angels.
Is Rice a HOF? Well I wouldn't lose sleep over it if he makes it but to me he is an on the cusp guy like Colavito, May, Powell etc are.
Morgan and Clemente? Again, how in the world anyone can compare these two guys is beyond me. One played 2nd base while the other played the OF.
Of course Morgan would have more assists, lol, he was playing a pos. where you can get 5 a game.
They also played in 2 different era's.
Carry on.
Steve