<< <i>Of course Morgan would have more assists, lol, he was playing a pos. where you can get 5 a game. >>
Well, yeah, but that wasn't my point. The point is that a RF getting 15 assists a season simply can't be as valuable as even a medicore second baseman. At the end of the day, when you're looking back at how a team won - who got on base when, who struck out who and who struck out, and who made the plays in the field that mattered - your going to find that virtually every day the RF was a bystander and the 2B helped the team win. There is a reason that when we were little kids the worst player went and stood in RF, it's the best place to hide. Clemente, in fact, played RF very well, but he wasn't a good enough OF to play CF and he wasn't nearly good enough to play 2B. When people decide who was better than who, and they ignore half of the game, it is not a surprise that they reach wrong conclusions. Which more or less sums up 9 out of 10 of these threads, except that you need to replace "half" with "90%". As it turns out, considering these things even means I am embarrassing myself.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I'd love to see Rice get in, but if I had a vote I don't think he'd get mine. Him being hit in the hand in late '75 probably cost him many more ROY votes (along with Tony C's comeback), and a WS appearance (while Carbo sizzled in his few AB's - Cecil Cooper and the rest did zip). I can't help but think he may have made a difference in an otherwise tight WS. Woulda Coulda Shoulda, I guess.
Dallas - was he consistently worse on the road (i.e. all seasons) or did he ever have a good road year?
No need to be careful. JOE MORGAN ISN'T EVEN WORTHY TO BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE GREAT ROBERTO CLEMENTE. It's an absolutely crazy statement. The only reason you feel that way is that your from Cincinnati, your just defending your own.
<< <i>No need to be careful. JOE MORGAN ISN'T EVEN WORTHY TO BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE GREAT ROBERTO CLEMENTE. It's an absolutely crazy statement. The only reason you feel that way is that your from Cincinnati, your just defending your own. >>
I am going to make an assumption that your older relatives still cling to the notion that the world is the center of the universe and is flat. Who needs that "GEEKY" science and information, when you have stubborness on your side?
For anyone keeping track of sayheykid's claim that not 1 in 1,000 people would say that Morgan was better than Clemente, for those who have weighed in with an opinion the tally now stands:
Clemente: 0 Morgan: 5
Now, I'm not edumicated in math or anything, so is five out of five more or less than 1 out of 1,000?
I apologize in advance if that's not worthy of a response.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>For anyone keeping track of sayheykid's claim that not 1 in 1,000 people would say that Morgan was better than Clemente, for those who have weighed in with an opinion the tally now stands:
Clemente: 0 Morgan: 5
Now, I'm not edumicated in math or anything, so is five out of five more or less than 1 out of 1,000?
I apologize in advance if that's not worthy of a response. >>
It doesn't matter, Dallas. Either you're the kind of person who is used to-and comfortable with- having strongly held opinions changed, or you aren't. If you fall in the second camp then everything written on the Internet to rebut your argument is just wasted time. I know that you know this, so I'm not trying to be condescending, but there's a point at which watching these discussions unfold is a bit like watching someone try to explain a kaleidoscope to Ray Charles-- entertaining, to an extent, but you feel a little guilty if you don't say something.
That is definitely one of your more humorous posts..
For the record, as much as I like watching Clemente play, I'd have to go with Morgan, too. He could do everything you could expect from a ballplayer, and also played one of the toughest positions in the field. If Clemente got on base more often, I'd be willing to comapre the two, but like Ichiro, his BA is misleading when you look at his OBP.
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>there's a point at which watching these discussions unfold is a bit like watching someone try to explain a kaleidoscope to Ray Charles-- entertaining, to an extent, but you feel a little guilty if you don't say something. >>
That is priceless!
Typing "sayheykid" so often took too long, now I can shorten it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Do you realized that Joe Morgan batted ONLY a very average .271 for his career. Let me repeat ONLY .271! In fact in 8 seasons he batted a pathetic .250 or less!! Let me guess he played in a tough stadium, played on to many rainy days, Hit a lot of flyouts that WOULD have been homers in other stadiums, blah, blah, blah. You guys and your meaningless stats make him sound like Lou Gehrig. Joe Morgan is NOT the 12th best player in the history of MLB like you claim.
Clemente's lifetime average was .317! with 3000 hits 12 Gold Gloves. and had arguably the best throwing arm in the history of the game.
The argument was made that Morgan value was more of a defensive player, yet his lifetime fielding perectage was lower than Lou Whitaker .984 to Morgan's .981. Morgan also committed more errors 244 in 22 years, compared to Lou Whitaker's 189 in 19 years. Whitaker also turned more double plays in three fewer years.
I put the Fenway factor in the park factor thread that is up now. It explains the overwhelming advantage the Fenway hitters had compared to the road. Rice had a higher OPS at home for each and every one of the 14 full seasons he played there. The Fenway factor is such a consistent factor, it is without a doubt that it helped a great deal.
Jaxxr, without Fenway he doesn't have ANY of those trivial records you posted.
Jaxxr, his hitting spike at Yanee stadium is simlply a blip, a fluke...a random act. Much like Dwight Evan's hitting at KC was. Read the Park Factor thread for examples. Please open your mind up a bit...life is more enriching that way.
Bigfisch, Thank you. It is a simple as your statement.
Terry Forester has an OPS+ of 145, higher than both Rice and Murray. Rice and Murray are close for career OPS+, but that is very misleading, until you break it down like I already did.
Rice had two HOF quality seasons, Murray had six. His 149 season was an incredible MEN on Base hitting season, thrusting it up with the others.
Murray's seasons of 86 and 87 bring his career total down a bunch. While both of those seasons are below league average, they are above league replacement level. Those have value, because he was contributing better than the expected replacement level.
Actually, that 86 was in 1994 where he was a beast with men on. When men on is added he was at league average.
Murray had six full seasons between 105 and 123. Those bring hsi career totals down, but those all have value to a team, and are all above league average...even more so when you add his men on base hitting.
Jaxxr, i don't feel like doing this because it will probably fall on deaf ears. Average their top top seasons of OPS+ and get a clearer picture. Then do the same with the situational batter runs where it accounts for men on hitting. There is a vast difference between the two.
Now that we hopefully have park factor out of the way as a hurdle, we can concentrate on this aspect.
If one feels, Home run titles, Career BA, RBI per season , Total base titles, Runs scored per season, AL records shared with Cobb and Mantle, a MVP award, and several other items, are all totally and completely meaningless, perhaps Jim Rice is a bit further away from Eddie Murray than the one point career Adjusted OPS + numbers suggest.
If one feels ball park factors are monumental, Rice's career actual raw OPS + of 134, compared to Murray's 128 is completly meaningless as well. No need, either, to mention Rice has a higher RC27 than Murray of course.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I thought I was pretty clear that Clemente was a good right fielder, but my point is that the difference between even a great RF and a lousy RF just doesn't matter that much to the team's W/L record. It's nowhere near as important as the difference between a great second baseman and a very good second baseman.
I'll try another analogy. Are we going to say that a bench player who bats .300 in 50 at bats has been as valuable as a regular who bats .290 in 500 at bats? How much difference does it make if the bench player bats .300 or .200 - a difference of 5 hits? Is it as important as whether your starter hits .300 or .275 - a difference of 15 hits? No, it's not. And Clemente doing well with his 50 important plays a year (including the runners who didn't runn) did not help his team nearly as much as Morgan doing well with his 500 important plays a year. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Morgan probably threw more people out at third and home than Clemente did every single year. He also turned more double plays, made more outs at first and second, and turned more possible hits into outs. Yes, it's the nature of playing second base vs playing RF and the players good enough to play second base deserve credit, and those only good enough to play RF deserve a lot less credit.
Morgan's defensive value vastly exceeded Clemente's - that's as straightforward and uncontroversial a fact as that Ruth's offensive value exceeded Rizzutto's. You can find it silly to compare them if you want to, but it's not. What you're really saying is that trying to determine if ANY outfielder was a better player than ANY infielder is silly, because we simply can't do that if we can't use the evidence available from half their careers, and you want to ignore half their careers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
jaxxr, The RC/27 outs is another rate state. Terry Forester will have a high one too.
Now unless you feel that Terry Forester is better than both, you need to understand this.
The easiest way to unerstand is to convert an OPS+ into runs. This accounts for a players value of when he is merely average or just above....but not at his peak.
Like I said before, those seasons where Murray has a 115 OPS+ brings down his career 'average', but that 115 OPS+ is of value to a team. If you cannot recognize this, then you are giving Murray the same value as you or I in all of those years.
When you look at the rate stats like OPS+, and take it a step further and add the men on base hitting, you will say that Rice's play was worth the following...
Rice was 190 Runs above the average player Murray was 509 runs above the average player
This is giving the credit to Murray for ALL those thousands of at bats where he was still producing. You need to understand the value of this.
YOU ARE STILL PUTTING RICE'S TRIVIAL RECORDS AS IF THE PARK HAD NO EFFECT ON THEM. I THOUGHT YOU WERE OVER THAT? Those aren't exactly great records either. Murray has a bunch of switch hitting records. Murray is also the all time leader in sac flies. So what. So what to those things you have for Rice. Murray has a ton of 5 year span leaderboard triumphs, and tne year leaderboard triumphs. So what. Plus those are NOT park aided like Rice's. Get past the piddly stuff, and look at the great stuff.
The key number to put their value into perspective is 509 vs. 190. That is the difference between the two players, and why one of them is viewed as a deserving HOFer, and the other is not(by most). Murray's peak also beats Rice's in the important measures.
Best Hits per season Rice = 213, 206, 201, 200, 191 Murray = 186, 184, 180, 179, 178
More various IMPORTANT measures could be listed, like Total Bases, Rice far and way tops Murray's peak, or triples, or even MVP awards, the aforementioned should suffice.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
"one of them is viewed as a deserving HOFer, and the other is not(by most)."
Perhaps the corpse of Mr. Charles would also be interested in an expaination of Skinpitch/Hoopster's definition of the English meaning of word " Most "
A majority of the voters in the most recent past HOF election viewed Rice as deserving.
3 of 4 major HOF measurements, Grey Ink, Black Ink, HOF Stanards, and HOF Monitor, view Rice ( and Murray also, he's not unanimous, one shows/rates he is not suited ) as deserving.
All members of the James Edward Rice household think he is desering, and even Ray Charles himself once said, Jim Rice was as HOF worthy as any ballplayer he ever saw.
Most, is properly defined as Hoop and his Cronies ?????
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>3 of 4 major HOF measurements, Grey Ink, Black Ink, HOF Stanards, and HOF Monitor, view Rice ( and Murray also, he's not unanimous, one shows/rates he is not suited ) as deserving. >>
jaxxr, if there is a better example of how little you listen than this, I don't know what it is.
All of those measurements were invented by Bill James. You could scour the Earth for someone who feels that Jim Rice is less deserving of the HOF than Bill James and you'd come up empty. "Deserve", as I have pointed out about 10 times, has nothing to do with these measurements. They are predictors of who WILL make the HOF. One of the key revelations of James that underlies all of these measurements is that HOF voters look at stuff that means nothing, while ignoring the important stuff. And that's exactly what has to happen to get Rice in the HOF, and why James formulas are correct so often.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Perhaps, you might suggest to Mr James, whom I once had the pleasue of meeting,
That he could "invent" yet another measure for determing HOF merit. Since 75% of those ones aforementioned indicate Rice and 75% also indicate Murray, as qualified, the system, criteria, calculations, projections, stats, whatever, could they possibly be percieved as reasonable ? Could any measure, of any type, which which could rate Rice as possibly qualified, be reasonable ?
"HOF voters look at stuff that means nothing"
The actual "stuff" or items they consider, does vary among the individual voter. Some unfortunately, do have pre-concieved opinions about certain players, favorable and unfavorable, as well. They may somehow be so un-informed about baseball they actually do see some meaning in being a league leader in major offensive stats, they might someway assume a MVP award has a little meaning, they could feel a 400+ total base mark is a bit meaningful, they might see things with different values or degrees of importance.
The paid, professional observers of baseball games, might actually have different frames of reference and opinons, than others. I am sure some people feel everyone should think like them, but in reality, many ( most ? ) do not.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
hoopster, I'm no doctor but I think I am correct that beating your head against the wall with a fractured skull could be dangerous. You're about to get a reply about how many total bases Rice had in 1978 and I fear for your life.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Since you completely ignore the on base portion of hitting, lets examine that too.
You seem to think that it was good for Jim Rice to make a ton of outs, just so he could get a few extra singles and RBI. The result is a lower OB% and a lot of outs in key situations...he was after all among the very top of the middle order hitters in FAILING to drive in runs.
You seem to feel that it would be bad baseball for Jim Rice to talk a walk with men on base.
Do you actually believe that Boston is better off with Jim Rice whaling away no matter what when there is a man on second, as opposed to taking a walk to make it first and second?
Think of all the good hitters that were behind him...Yaz, Scott, Evans, Fisk. YOu don't think it would be advantageous for THEM to be batting with extra runners on base?
Think about it. With a right handed pitcher on the mound, and Rice being a .300 hitter, he basically has a 28% chance of getting a hit to drive in that runner. If he is swinging at bad pitches for the sake of getting an RBI, then that 28% goes down due to hitting a pitchers pitch.
If he takes a walk and makes it first and second, the next batter most often was Yaz, Fisk, Evans, Scott. Those guys all had a 27-29% chance of getting a hit as well. Basically, they have the same chance to get a hit as Rice, but now they have TWO men on, and with two men on they will more likely have a hitters pitch, instead of a pitchers pitch. So their chances actually increase.
Even if the next guy had a 25% chance of getting a hit, they will still score more runs in the long run, as opposed to Rice refusing to take a walk.
Now those figures I am using a basic estimates, but that research has been done, and each percent is known...based on the play by play data.
Walks are very important for middle of the order and top of the order hitters. If he were batting eigth in the NL, then swinging away at all costs would be beneficial...but that wasn't the case.
The value of a walk is not the same as a hit, and I have no special insight into what Jim Rice's objective's, or instructions, or impluses were, while he has hitting or walking.
Before you bring up more new points to talk about, perhaps you could answer a few old ones you ignored.
"one of them is viewed as a deserving HOFer, and the other is not(by most)."
What is YOUR definition of the word "most" ???
"But if you are thinking anything below 90%, you have the most darkened blinders on." --------and also------- " information about Rice with a complete ignoring of the park factor " While I never ignored the PF, I did provide the ratio for it via career OPS +, at 4.47%
What is YOUR opinion for percentage of effect ???
And most importantly,
Why did you, start two different threads regarding Jim Rice, was it for promoting interesting polite discussion, a sincere interest in others' opinions, or a form of self serving grandiose ???
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I think the who is worthy thinking is funny to begin with. They should put 4-6 people in a year. It is not that hard to find 4-6 people. I don't think stars, world series rings or anything should be much of a factor. I would likely honor beside the players, with their own cast, Harey Carey and the San Diego Chicken. Give the sports writers something to mull over.
I know they make separate of exhibits of the history of baseball, but I will still honor the famed, stat wise, or non stat wise, the same. Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire in their unwilling role as the Bash Brothers had more effect then most of the honors, I would even make room for a young Dwight Gooden, Bret Saberhagen before he spit on reporters. Bobby Thompson, Willie Wilson, Billy Martin, I guess I would really open the gates, as I could go further.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The value of a walk is not the same as a hit, >>
yes, but the value of a walk is MUCH greater (obviously) than that of an out. That is the key, not to replace hits with walks, but to replace outs with walks.
The value of a walk is appx 2/3 that of a single overall.
The overall value of a single is negated by the overall value of making two outs.
Each of those values are different depending on outs, and number of baserunners. All of that information is known and tracked from the play by play data.
Rice 190 Runs above averag, Murray 509. All other info you provide is contained within those numbers...plus all the other information you are ignoring by purpose or ignorance.
I started one thread about Rice, and the other was primarily about Fenway, of which Rice was a part of.
Most is, most of the time you look at ONLY the information that allows you to have your viewpoint certified, while ignoring all the information that makes your viewpoint cooky. Much like you continue to negate how to account for the non peak years of Murray while he was providing value, thus making his career OPS+ similar to Rice's, and therefore allowing you to get excited for some reason.
"The value of a walk is appx 2/3 that of a single overall."
Despite no one asking, thanks for stating a widely accepted average, and it is merely an average, like another well-known one, an error is worth .33 negative runs. The situational value changes considerably, many variations possible, such as with a runners on 2nd, and/or 3rd, a single is much more valuable than a walk.
What I did say was, "The value of a walk is not the same as a hit" Perhaps I should have added all hits are not singles ? Maybe I should have also said walks are better than outs, in most cases ?
As shown many times before, In actual runs scored and/or driven in during MLB games, Rice is above Murray in seasonal average, above Murray via best single year performance, and tops Murray if five peak season spans are used, so as to allow for those, unfortunate but real, past your prime seasons, many ballplayers have.
What you have constantly avoided, is enlightening the posters, with your own opinion of percentage effect of the ballpark factor. I offered an example calculated upon real numbers, while you claim it quite important, you dont offer a suggested value.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
For the general posters on this board, Courtesy of Tom Ruane at Retrosheet, here are the number of RBI's Jim Rice achieved, compared to the number of expected RBI's one should achieve with his number of opportunities, and being at Fenway.
Jim Rice Total RBI 1,451
Expected RBI for league average hitter, accounting for Rice's number of opportunties and playing half games at Fenway = 1,216
Difference = 235 RBI achieved over that of league average hitter given the same number of chances and playing half games at Fenway.
Top 12 seasons=54, 39, 34, 28, 23, 15, 14, 12, 11, 8, 8, 3. These numbers are number of RBI's over Number of expected RBI. Same as above.
For context, a comparison to another slugger of HOF caliber...
Eddie Murray TOtal RBI 1,917
Expected RBI for league average hitter, accounting for Murray's number of opportunitites and playing in his home parks = 1,427
Difference = 490 RBI achieved over that of league average hitter given the same number of chances and playing in his home parks.
But remember, this accounts for only half of a hitters value, as it is counting only the RUN DRIVING IN PORTION. THe other half is the getting on base portion and providing RBI chances for the next hitters in the lineup. Since both of these guys are middle of the order hitters, it is very important to also get on base, especially if you have guys like Yaz, Fisk, Evans, etc...batting behind you.
For context, in real life, actual MLB games played,
JIm Rice had a single season better than Murray, Jim Rice's top five seasons were batter than Murray's top five Jim Rice's per season average was better than Murray.
The above may be applied to Runs Driven in, Runs scored, HRs hit, Total bases, and several other items.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>For context, in real life, actual MLB games played, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE PARK ADVANTAGE AND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT JIM RICE HAD >>
jaxxr, I added the text that I know you meant to include, because if you didn't mean to include it then you're just being cruel to poor hoopster at this point. Either that or you still just don't get it, but I don't want to assume that.
Is this the new code, by the way, for completely ignoring information - "in real life"?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I try to be courteous, perhaps not as well as some,
I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, should the stats be altered by 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or 99% ? Should all marks set, records held, league leading perfomances , Etc., deemed to have no meaning whatsoever ? Probably differs only to the precise extent. It does make for an intersting discussion, and see either point of view.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>I try to be courteous, perhaps not as well as some,
I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, should the stats be altered by 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or 99% ? Should all marks set, records held, league leading perfomances , Etc., deemed to have no meaning whatsoever ? Probably differs only to the precise extent. It does make for an intersting discussion, and see either point of view.
>>
There many extensive studies measuring park effects. I suggest that you read some of them. A mind is a terrible thing to waaste.
<< <i>I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, >>
You keep saying you realize this, but then every time you post a stat or a comparison of stats you ignore it; which makes the fact that you realize it moot. As for how the opportunities to drive in runners affects actual RBI or how the hitters behind you affect runs scored, I don't think you've even acknowledged these things yet.
Everyone understands that Jim Rice had some higher RBI, TB, etc. totals than Eddie Murray, and the information exists throughout this and other threads to explain WHY he has some higher totals. The constant re-posting of the same stats without so much as a nod to the context is, frankly, frustrating and at this point seems intended to be so. That's not really an excuse for a lack of courtesy, but it is an explanation.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Everyone understands that Jim Rice had some higher RBI, TB, etc. totals than Eddie Murray, and the information exists throughout this and other threads to explain WHY he has some higher totals. The constant re-posting of the same stats without so much as a nod to the context is, frankly, frustrating and at this point seems intended to be so. >>
Speaking of constant reposting of the same information . . . a quick search using the key words of Jim Rice and HOF turned up the following links on this forum all from 2008. I'd say that you and Hoopster have made your case against Jim Rice and suggest that maybe it is time to move on to discussing another player or topic. Anyone that wants to look into what you guys are saying already has and anyone that doesn't want to has already voiced their reluctance to do so.
Rice had a couple of monster years and several very good years. Murray had lots of consistent years and several very good years. One is a hall of famer and the other not. I wonder why?
"Everyone understands that Jim Rice had some higher RBI, TB, etc. totals than Eddie Murray, and the information exists throughout this and other threads to explain WHY he has some higher totals"
Could the reason possibly be Rice was a better hitter than Murray ?
You make light of total bases, if you merely took all of Rice's total bases ON THE ROAD in 1978, and then doubled them, thus making his number reflect each and every game was away from Fenway Park, he still exceeds Eddie Murray's best single year ever, by some 28 TBs. Please explain how Murray is being represented unfairly in that case, or without courtesy, or how he is somehow to be considered a better hitter via Total Bases ???.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
If anyone ever said, and I don't think anyone ever did, that Jim Rice didn't have a great season in 1978 then they were wrong. But the comparison with Eddie Murray ends there; Murray had a better second-best, third-best, ..., 20th-best season than Rice. Most of them much, much better.
But plenty of players had a better single season than Rice who aren't HOFers either. And if you take 1978 away from Rice, he's no longer even as good as Chili Davis. Nobody belongs in the HOF if they are only one season better than Chili Davis.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Steve, You are quite incorrect about Rice not having multiple years better than Murray, have you not read all of this thread ? I am not going to post several dozen seasons for a refresher.
Here's one quick similar item which also shows Rice could hit better thn Murray, without the influence of Fenway;
In 1983, a different season than 1978 by the way, Rice had 23 road game homers, double them, and he is "only"13 more, than Eddies most prolific HR season ever !
As far as I can recall Jim Rice is among a VERY FEW men who ever broke their bat while checking his swing, I am not sure if it was at Fenway, which of course must dilute its show of awesome force, or on the road.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
As far as I can recall Jim Rice is among a VERY FEW men who ever broke their bat while checking his swing, I am not sure if it was at Fenway, which of course must dilute its show of awesome force, or on the road.
Please explain the relevance of the above statement.
Merely an interesting aside, rather than an item of crucial additional importance to this very serious and weighty thread.
The actual physical power needed to break a bat, with no contact, may possibly emphasize Rice's natural talent.
Some of his HRs were of monumental projection, some which were quite likely to be hit out of any MLB ballpark. PF does not give an extra credit for HR distance or how high they may have been. Similar to the absense of evaluating the quality of the pitchers, the effect of wind velocity, the height of the infield grass, the prevailing direction of the wind, as many fine articles on PF do note.
The reference to breaking the bat at Fenway, included, though apparently a poor one, an attempt at humor.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Have you read my sigline? I have a JOB to do, man!
And only 14? I need to start a new thread. >>
Oh, I've read your sig line. Don't worry.
I stopped at 14 threads just because I enjoyed the symmetry between the number of links and the fact that Rice wore #14. There were a couple other threads on here that loosely touched on this same topic though. I also chose not to go earlier than January 1, 2008. Otherwise I think I'd still be compiling links.
I'd like to add one anecdote that has nothing to do with sabermetrics but that speaks to the persona of Rice a little bit. I remember reading on the back of a 1988 or '89 Topps Big card that Rice was known to have driven golf balls record distances. I don't think it included yardage totals on the back of this card, but I distinctly remeber that the golf ball was hit on a trajectory which made collision with a 747 a foregone conclusion.
<< <i>Steve, You are quite incorrect about Rice not having multiple years better than Murray, have you not read all of this thread ? >>
No, I'm not incorrect. Have you read all of this thread?
I've read about Rice's HR and RBI and TB ad nauseum, but those tell you nothing without context. For context, look at OPS+ or the batter runs that hoopster has posted - THOSE tell you who had the better season because THOSE - and especially not RBI, the most uselsss stat ever invented - have some context. Noting how many outs the batter used - including GIDP - also gives you context. In context, which is to say in the real world, Rice had maybe one season better than Murray (we should really say "as good"), and the remainder of his career was less valuable than Chili Davis'.
You can post stats without context until the cows come home and they still won't mean anything; they will never mean anything.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
<< <i>Of course Morgan would have more assists, lol, he was playing a pos. where you can get 5 a game. >>
Well, yeah, but that wasn't my point. The point is that a RF getting 15 assists a season simply can't be as valuable as even a medicore second baseman. At the end of the day, when you're looking back at how a team won - who got on base when, who struck out who and who struck out, and who made the plays in the field that mattered - your going to find that virtually every day the RF was a bystander and the 2B helped the team win. There is a reason that when we were little kids the worst player went and stood in RF, it's the best place to hide. Clemente, in fact, played RF very well, but he wasn't a good enough OF to play CF and he wasn't nearly good enough to play 2B. When people decide who was better than who, and they ignore half of the game, it is not a surprise that they reach wrong conclusions. Which more or less sums up 9 out of 10 of these threads, except that you need to replace "half" with "90%". As it turns out, considering these things even means I am embarrassing myself.
Dallas - was he consistently worse on the road (i.e. all seasons) or did he ever have a good road year?
Bosox1976
<< <i>Anybody that seriously thinks that Joe Morgan was a better player than Roberto Clemente is not worthy of a response. >>
Bigger icon? Clemente
Perhaps more athletic? Clemente
More valuable rookie card? Clemente
More valuable to a team in winning games? Morgan, and it's really not close.
Careful what you're debating sayheykid. You're REALLY missing the forest for the trees.
<< <i>No need to be careful. JOE MORGAN ISN'T EVEN WORTHY TO BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE GREAT ROBERTO CLEMENTE. It's an absolutely crazy statement. The only reason you feel that way is that your from Cincinnati, your just defending your own. >>
I am going to make an assumption that your older relatives still cling to the notion that the world is the center of the universe and is flat. Who needs that "GEEKY" science and information, when you have stubborness on your side?
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Clemente: 0
Morgan: 5
Now, I'm not edumicated in math or anything, so is five out of five more or less than 1 out of 1,000?
I apologize in advance if that's not worthy of a response.
<< <i>For anyone keeping track of sayheykid's claim that not 1 in 1,000 people would say that Morgan was better than Clemente, for those who have weighed in with an opinion the tally now stands:
Clemente: 0
Morgan: 5
Now, I'm not edumicated in math or anything, so is five out of five more or less than 1 out of 1,000?
I apologize in advance if that's not worthy of a response. >>
It doesn't matter, Dallas. Either you're the kind of person who is used to-and comfortable with- having strongly held opinions changed, or you aren't. If you fall in the second camp then everything written on the Internet to rebut your argument is just wasted time. I know that you know this, so I'm not trying to be condescending, but there's a point at which watching these discussions unfold is a bit like watching someone try to explain a kaleidoscope to Ray Charles-- entertaining, to an extent, but you feel a little guilty if you don't say something.
That is definitely one of your more humorous posts..
For the record, as much as I like watching Clemente play, I'd have to go with Morgan, too. He could do everything you could expect from a ballplayer, and also played one of the toughest positions in the field. If Clemente got on base more often, I'd be willing to comapre the two, but like Ichiro, his BA is misleading when you look at his OBP.
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>there's a point at which watching these discussions unfold is a bit like watching someone try to explain a kaleidoscope to Ray Charles-- entertaining, to an extent, but you feel a little guilty if you don't say something. >>
That is priceless!
Typing "sayheykid" so often took too long, now I can shorten it.
Clemente's lifetime average was .317! with 3000 hits 12 Gold Gloves. and had arguably the best throwing arm in the history of the game.
The argument was made that Morgan value was more of a defensive player, yet his lifetime fielding perectage was lower than Lou Whitaker .984 to Morgan's .981. Morgan also committed more errors 244 in 22 years, compared to Lou Whitaker's 189 in 19 years. Whitaker also turned more double plays in three fewer years.
I put the Fenway factor in the park factor thread that is up now. It explains the overwhelming advantage the Fenway hitters had compared to the road. Rice had a higher OPS at home for each and every one of the 14 full seasons he played there. The Fenway factor is such a consistent factor, it is without a doubt that it helped a great deal.
Jaxxr, without Fenway he doesn't have ANY of those trivial records you posted.
Jaxxr, his hitting spike at Yanee stadium is simlply a blip, a fluke...a random act. Much like Dwight Evan's hitting at KC was. Read the Park Factor thread for examples. Please open your mind up a bit...life is more enriching that way.
If "adjusted" via the imperfect numerical calculation of Ball Park Factor, it goes to 128.
The percentage change caused by the additional application of Ball Park Factor is, a whopping 4.47%
And I think Clemente was a great ball player.
That's all.
shawn
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Terry Forester has an OPS+ of 145, higher than both Rice and Murray. Rice and Murray are close for career OPS+, but that is very misleading, until you break it down like I already did.
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
Rice had two HOF quality seasons, Murray had six. His 149 season was an incredible MEN on Base hitting season, thrusting it up with the others.
Murray's seasons of 86 and 87 bring his career total down a bunch. While both of those seasons are below league average, they are above league replacement level. Those have value, because he was contributing better than the expected replacement level.
Actually, that 86 was in 1994 where he was a beast with men on. When men on is added he was at league average.
Murray had six full seasons between 105 and 123. Those bring hsi career totals down, but those all have value to a team, and are all above league average...even more so when you add his men on base hitting.
Jaxxr, i don't feel like doing this because it will probably fall on deaf ears. Average their top top seasons of OPS+ and get a clearer picture. Then do the same with the situational batter runs where it accounts for men on hitting. There is a vast difference between the two.
Now that we hopefully have park factor out of the way as a hurdle, we can concentrate on this aspect.
Home run titles, Career BA, RBI per season , Total base titles, Runs scored per season, AL records shared with Cobb and Mantle, a MVP award, and several other items, are all totally and completely meaningless, perhaps Jim Rice is a bit further away from Eddie Murray than the one point career Adjusted OPS + numbers suggest.
If one feels ball park factors are monumental,
Rice's career actual raw OPS + of 134, compared to Murray's 128 is completly meaningless as well. No need, either, to mention Rice has a higher RC27 than Murray of course.
I'm not sure I would agree with that as any outfielder with 15 assists in a season did pretty good.
Outfielders are throwing guys out at 3rd and home. And FWIW I find it silly that you would even compare
LL right fielders with Major league ones. Clemente was not put into RF because they were trying to hide him.
Also, and you probably did not know this but Clemente had a hell of an arm and many players chose not to run on him.
Steve
I'll try another analogy. Are we going to say that a bench player who bats .300 in 50 at bats has been as valuable as a regular who bats .290 in 500 at bats? How much difference does it make if the bench player bats .300 or .200 - a difference of 5 hits? Is it as important as whether your starter hits .300 or .275 - a difference of 15 hits? No, it's not. And Clemente doing well with his 50 important plays a year (including the runners who didn't runn) did not help his team nearly as much as Morgan doing well with his 500 important plays a year. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Morgan probably threw more people out at third and home than Clemente did every single year. He also turned more double plays, made more outs at first and second, and turned more possible hits into outs. Yes, it's the nature of playing second base vs playing RF and the players good enough to play second base deserve credit, and those only good enough to play RF deserve a lot less credit.
Morgan's defensive value vastly exceeded Clemente's - that's as straightforward and uncontroversial a fact as that Ruth's offensive value exceeded Rizzutto's. You can find it silly to compare them if you want to, but it's not. What you're really saying is that trying to determine if ANY outfielder was a better player than ANY infielder is silly, because we simply can't do that if we can't use the evidence available from half their careers, and you want to ignore half their careers.
Now unless you feel that Terry Forester is better than both, you need to understand this.
The easiest way to unerstand is to convert an OPS+ into runs. This accounts for a players value of when he is merely average or just above....but not at his peak.
Like I said before, those seasons where Murray has a 115 OPS+ brings down his career 'average', but that 115 OPS+ is of value to a team. If you cannot recognize this, then you are giving Murray the same value as you or I in all of those years.
When you look at the rate stats like OPS+, and take it a step further and add the men on base hitting, you will say that Rice's play was worth the following...
Rice was 190 Runs above the average player
Murray was 509 runs above the average player
This is giving the credit to Murray for ALL those thousands of at bats where he was still producing. You need to understand the value of this.
YOU ARE STILL PUTTING RICE'S TRIVIAL RECORDS AS IF THE PARK HAD NO EFFECT ON THEM. I THOUGHT YOU WERE OVER THAT? Those aren't exactly great records either. Murray has a bunch of switch hitting records. Murray is also the all time leader in sac flies. So what. So what to those things you have for Rice. Murray has a ton of 5 year span leaderboard triumphs, and tne year leaderboard triumphs. So what. Plus those are NOT park aided like Rice's. Get past the piddly stuff, and look at the great stuff.
The key number to put their value into perspective is 509 vs. 190. That is the difference between the two players, and why one of them is viewed as a deserving HOFer, and the other is not(by most). Murray's peak also beats Rice's in the important measures.
Important Measures ????
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
More various IMPORTANT measures could be listed, like Total Bases, Rice far and way tops Murray's peak, or triples, or even MVP awards, the aforementioned should suffice.
I believe he has gone over to Ray Charles' house to explain kaleidoscopes while he recovers.
Perhaps the corpse of Mr. Charles would also be interested in an expaination of Skinpitch/Hoopster's definition of the English meaning of word " Most "
A majority of the voters in the most recent past HOF election viewed Rice as deserving.
3 of 4 major HOF measurements, Grey Ink, Black Ink, HOF Stanards, and HOF Monitor, view Rice ( and Murray also, he's not unanimous, one shows/rates he is not suited ) as deserving.
All members of the James Edward Rice household think he is desering, and even Ray Charles himself once said, Jim Rice was as HOF worthy as any ballplayer he ever saw.
Most, is properly defined as Hoop and his Cronies ?????
<< <i>3 of 4 major HOF measurements, Grey Ink, Black Ink, HOF Stanards, and HOF Monitor, view Rice ( and Murray also, he's not unanimous, one shows/rates he is not suited ) as deserving. >>
jaxxr, if there is a better example of how little you listen than this, I don't know what it is.
All of those measurements were invented by Bill James. You could scour the Earth for someone who feels that Jim Rice is less deserving of the HOF than Bill James and you'd come up empty. "Deserve", as I have pointed out about 10 times, has nothing to do with these measurements. They are predictors of who WILL make the HOF. One of the key revelations of James that underlies all of these measurements is that HOF voters look at stuff that means nothing, while ignoring the important stuff. And that's exactly what has to happen to get Rice in the HOF, and why James formulas are correct so often.
I have never seen such blinders in my life by a single poster on this board. Even joestalin sees and understands a point once in a while.
This is just simply dumbfounding.
That he could "invent" yet another measure for determing HOF merit.
Since 75% of those ones aforementioned indicate Rice and 75% also indicate Murray, as qualified, the system, criteria, calculations, projections, stats, whatever, could they possibly be percieved as reasonable ? Could any measure, of any type, which which could rate Rice as possibly qualified, be reasonable ?
"HOF voters look at stuff that means nothing"
The actual "stuff" or items they consider, does vary among the individual voter. Some unfortunately, do have pre-concieved opinions about certain players, favorable and unfavorable, as well.
They may somehow be so un-informed about baseball they actually do see some meaning in being a league leader in major offensive stats, they might someway assume a MVP award has a little meaning, they could feel a 400+ total base mark is a bit meaningful, they might see things with different values or degrees of importance.
The paid, professional observers of baseball games, might actually have different frames of reference and opinons, than others.
I am sure some people feel everyone should think like them, but in reality, many ( most ? ) do not.
At what point are you going to factor in the extra non-peak years at the end of Murray's career?
Since you completely ignore the on base portion of hitting, lets examine that too.
You seem to think that it was good for Jim Rice to make a ton of outs, just so he could get a few extra singles and RBI. The result is a lower OB% and a lot of outs in key situations...he was after all among the very top of the middle order hitters in FAILING to drive in runs.
You seem to feel that it would be bad baseball for Jim Rice to talk a walk with men on base.
Do you actually believe that Boston is better off with Jim Rice whaling away no matter what when there is a man on second, as opposed to taking a walk to make it first and second?
Think of all the good hitters that were behind him...Yaz, Scott, Evans, Fisk. YOu don't think it would be advantageous for THEM to be batting with extra runners on base?
Think about it. With a right handed pitcher on the mound, and Rice being a .300 hitter, he basically has a 28% chance of getting a hit to drive in that runner. If he is swinging at bad pitches for the sake of getting an RBI, then that 28% goes down due to hitting a pitchers pitch.
If he takes a walk and makes it first and second, the next batter most often was Yaz, Fisk, Evans, Scott. Those guys all had a 27-29% chance of getting a hit as well. Basically, they have the same chance to get a hit as Rice, but now they have TWO men on, and with two men on they will more likely have a hitters pitch, instead of a pitchers pitch. So their chances actually increase.
Even if the next guy had a 25% chance of getting a hit, they will still score more runs in the long run, as opposed to Rice refusing to take a walk.
Now those figures I am using a basic estimates, but that research has been done, and each percent is known...based on the play by play data.
Walks are very important for middle of the order and top of the order hitters. If he were batting eigth in the NL, then swinging away at all costs would be beneficial...but that wasn't the case.
and I have no special insight into what Jim Rice's objective's, or instructions, or impluses were, while he has hitting or walking.
Before you bring up more new points to talk about,
perhaps you could answer a few old ones you ignored.
"one of them is viewed as a deserving HOFer, and the other is not(by most)."
What is YOUR definition of the word "most" ???
"But if you are thinking anything below 90%, you have the most darkened blinders on."
--------and also-------
" information about Rice with a complete ignoring of the park factor "
While I never ignored the PF, I did provide the ratio for it via career OPS +, at 4.47%
What is YOUR opinion for percentage of effect ???
And most importantly,
Why did you, start two different threads regarding Jim Rice, was it for promoting interesting polite discussion, a sincere interest in others' opinions, or a form of self serving grandiose ???
I know they make separate of exhibits of the history of baseball, but I will still honor the famed, stat wise, or non stat wise, the same. Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire in their unwilling role as the Bash Brothers had more effect then most of the honors, I would even make room for a young Dwight Gooden, Bret Saberhagen before he spit on reporters. Bobby Thompson, Willie Wilson, Billy Martin, I guess I would really open the gates, as I could go further.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The value of a walk is not the same as a hit, >>
yes, but the value of a walk is MUCH greater (obviously) than that of an out. That is the key, not to replace hits with walks, but to replace outs with walks.
edited typo
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
The value of a walk is appx 2/3 that of a single overall.
The overall value of a single is negated by the overall value of making two outs.
Each of those values are different depending on outs, and number of baserunners. All of that information is known and tracked from the play by play data.
Rice 190 Runs above averag, Murray 509. All other info you provide is contained within those numbers...plus all the other information you are ignoring by purpose or ignorance.
I started one thread about Rice, and the other was primarily about Fenway, of which Rice was a part of.
Most is, most of the time you look at ONLY the information that allows you to have your viewpoint certified, while ignoring all the information that makes your viewpoint cooky. Much like you continue to negate how to account for the non peak years of Murray while he was providing value, thus making his career OPS+ similar to Rice's, and therefore allowing you to get excited for some reason.
Despite no one asking, thanks for stating a widely accepted average, and it is merely an average, like another well-known one, an error is worth .33 negative runs.
The situational value changes considerably, many variations possible, such as with a runners on 2nd, and/or 3rd, a single is much more valuable than a walk.
What I did say was,
"The value of a walk is not the same as a hit"
Perhaps I should have added all hits are not singles ? Maybe I should have also said walks are better than outs, in most cases ?
As shown many times before, In actual runs scored and/or driven in during MLB games, Rice is above Murray in seasonal average, above Murray via best single year performance, and tops Murray if five peak season spans are used, so as to allow for those, unfortunate but real, past your prime seasons, many ballplayers have.
What you have constantly avoided, is enlightening the posters, with your own opinion of percentage effect of the ballpark factor.
I offered an example calculated upon real numbers, while you claim it quite important, you dont offer a suggested value.
Jim Rice Total RBI 1,451
Expected RBI for league average hitter, accounting for Rice's number of opportunties and playing half games at Fenway = 1,216
Difference = 235 RBI achieved over that of league average hitter given the same number of chances and playing half games at Fenway.
Top 12 seasons=54, 39, 34, 28, 23, 15, 14, 12, 11, 8, 8, 3. These numbers are number of RBI's over Number of expected RBI. Same as above.
For context, a comparison to another slugger of HOF caliber...
Eddie Murray TOtal RBI 1,917
Expected RBI for league average hitter, accounting for Murray's number of opportunitites and playing in his home parks = 1,427
Difference = 490 RBI achieved over that of league average hitter given the same number of chances and playing in his home parks.
Tops 12 seasons= 50, 40, 39, 36, 31, 29, 28, 27, 25, 25, 23, 22
But remember, this accounts for only half of a hitters value, as it is counting only the RUN DRIVING IN PORTION. THe other half is the getting on base portion and providing RBI chances for the next hitters in the lineup. Since both of these guys are middle of the order hitters, it is very important to also get on base, especially if you have guys like Yaz, Fisk, Evans, etc...batting behind you.
in real life, actual MLB games played,
JIm Rice had a single season better than Murray,
Jim Rice's top five seasons were batter than Murray's top five
Jim Rice's per season average was better than Murray.
The above may be applied to Runs Driven in, Runs scored, HRs hit, Total bases, and several other items.
<< <i>For context,
in real life, actual MLB games played, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE PARK ADVANTAGE AND ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT JIM RICE HAD
>>
jaxxr, I added the text that I know you meant to include, because if you didn't mean to include it then you're just being cruel to poor hoopster at this point. Either that or you still just don't get it, but I don't want to assume that.
Is this the new code, by the way, for completely ignoring information - "in real life"?
I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, should the stats be altered by 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or 99% ?
Should all marks set, records held, league leading perfomances , Etc., deemed to have no meaning whatsoever ?
Probably differs only to the precise extent.
It does make for an intersting discussion, and see either point of view.
<< <i>I try to be courteous, perhaps not as well as some,
I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, should the stats be altered by 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or 99% ?
Should all marks set, records held, league leading perfomances , Etc., deemed to have no meaning whatsoever ?
Probably differs only to the precise extent.
It does make for an intersting discussion, and see either point of view.
There many extensive studies measuring park effects. I suggest that you read some of them. A mind is a terrible thing to waaste.
<< <i>I realize a PF exists, and has some bearing, >>
You keep saying you realize this, but then every time you post a stat or a comparison of stats you ignore it; which makes the fact that you realize it moot. As for how the opportunities to drive in runners affects actual RBI or how the hitters behind you affect runs scored, I don't think you've even acknowledged these things yet.
Everyone understands that Jim Rice had some higher RBI, TB, etc. totals than Eddie Murray, and the information exists throughout this and other threads to explain WHY he has some higher totals. The constant re-posting of the same stats without so much as a nod to the context is, frankly, frustrating and at this point seems intended to be so. That's not really an excuse for a lack of courtesy, but it is an explanation.
<< <i>Everyone understands that Jim Rice had some higher RBI, TB, etc. totals than Eddie Murray, and the information exists throughout this and other threads to explain WHY he has some higher totals. The constant re-posting of the same stats without so much as a nod to the context is, frankly, frustrating and at this point seems intended to be so. >>
Speaking of constant reposting of the same information . . . a quick search using the key words of Jim Rice and HOF turned up the following links on this forum all from 2008. I'd say that you and Hoopster have made your case against Jim Rice and suggest that maybe it is time to move on to discussing another player or topic. Anyone that wants to look into what you guys are saying already has and anyone that doesn't want to has already voiced their reluctance to do so.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6
Link 7
Link 8
Link 9
Link 10
Link 11
Link 12
Link 13
Link 14
I decided to stop at 14 since that was Rice's uniform number.
Have you read my sigline? I have a JOB to do, man!
And only 14? I need to start a new thread.
Could the reason possibly be Rice was a better hitter than Murray ?
You make light of total bases, if you merely took all of Rice's total bases ON THE ROAD in 1978, and then doubled them, thus making his number reflect each and every game was away from Fenway Park, he still exceeds Eddie Murray's best single year ever, by some 28 TBs.
Please explain how Murray is being represented unfairly in that case, or without courtesy, or how he is somehow to be considered a better hitter via Total Bases ???.
If anyone ever said, and I don't think anyone ever did, that Jim Rice didn't have a great season in 1978 then they were wrong. But the comparison with Eddie Murray ends there; Murray had a better second-best, third-best, ..., 20th-best season than Rice. Most of them much, much better.
But plenty of players had a better single season than Rice who aren't HOFers either. And if you take 1978 away from Rice, he's no longer even as good as Chili Davis. Nobody belongs in the HOF if they are only one season better than Chili Davis.
You are quite incorrect about Rice not having multiple years better than Murray, have you not read all of this thread ?
I am not going to post several dozen seasons for a refresher.
Here's one quick similar item which also shows Rice could hit better thn Murray, without the influence of Fenway;
In 1983, a different season than 1978 by the way, Rice had 23 road game homers, double them, and he is "only"13 more, than Eddies most prolific HR season ever !
As far as I can recall Jim Rice is among a VERY FEW men who ever broke their bat while checking his swing, I am not sure if it was at Fenway, which of course must dilute its show of awesome force, or on the road.
Please explain the relevance of the above statement.
rather than an item of crucial additional importance to this very serious and weighty thread.
The actual physical power needed to break a bat, with no contact, may possibly emphasize Rice's natural talent.
Some of his HRs were of monumental projection, some which were quite likely to be hit out of any MLB ballpark.
PF does not give an extra credit for HR distance or how high they may have been. Similar to the absense of evaluating the quality of the pitchers, the effect of wind velocity, the height of the infield grass, the prevailing direction of the wind, as many fine articles on PF do note.
The reference to breaking the bat at Fenway, included, though apparently a poor one, an attempt at humor.
<< <i>TheVon,
Have you read my sigline? I have a JOB to do, man!
And only 14? I need to start a new thread. >>
Oh, I've read your sig line. Don't worry.
I stopped at 14 threads just because I enjoyed the symmetry between the number of links and the fact that Rice wore #14. There were a couple other threads on here that loosely touched on this same topic though. I also chose not to go earlier than January 1, 2008. Otherwise I think I'd still be compiling links.
I'd like to add one anecdote that has nothing to do with sabermetrics but that speaks to the persona of Rice a little bit. I remember reading on the back of a 1988 or '89 Topps Big card that Rice was known to have driven golf balls record distances. I don't think it included yardage totals on the back of this card, but I distinctly remeber that the golf ball was hit on a trajectory which made collision with a 747 a foregone conclusion.
<< <i>Steve,
You are quite incorrect about Rice not having multiple years better than Murray, have you not read all of this thread ? >>
No, I'm not incorrect. Have you read all of this thread?
I've read about Rice's HR and RBI and TB ad nauseum, but those tell you nothing without context. For context, look at OPS+ or the batter runs that hoopster has posted - THOSE tell you who had the better season because THOSE - and especially not RBI, the most uselsss stat ever invented - have some context. Noting how many outs the batter used - including GIDP - also gives you context. In context, which is to say in the real world, Rice had maybe one season better than Murray (we should really say "as good"), and the remainder of his career was less valuable than Chili Davis'.
You can post stats without context until the cows come home and they still won't mean anything; they will never mean anything.