Park Factors, Jim Rice...and Yes, Gene Tenace!

Hoopster

Many fans prefer to view Jim RIce as the player who had a nice career, but they tend to ignore the effect that Fenway park had on enhancing his numbers to make him look better than he truly was.

It has been said by people that Rice and other Fenway players only hit better at home because they learned how to, and tailored their swings and such to them. So they shouldn't be 'penalized' when compared to other hitters in the league.

Some even point out that Rice hit better at Yankee Stadium as proof that if he played there, saying he would have done just as good or better. Of course these same people neglect to take into account a stadium like Kansas City where he was horrible...and then fail to make the same premise that he would have been Freddie Patek at that stadium.

Lets look at the main RH hitters of who played a lengthy amount of time at Fenway in the 70's/80's. We will use their OPS to compare what they did at home and on the road. These are career totals....

Rice
Fenway .920
Yankee..1.047
KC.........626
ROAD.....789

I put Rice's Fenway total, his Yankee stadium total being that was his best road park, his KC total being that was his worst road park, and his Road total which includes all road at bats.

It is very evident that Rice was much better at Fenway, and merely ok on the road.

I want to check other players to see if any pattern develops.

FISK
Fenway...908
Yankee....665
KC...........754
Road.......776

Pattern so far? Yes, Fisk was also much better at home than on the road. But why wasn't he able to master Yankee stadium like his RH teammate did? Why was he o.k at KC, while Rice was garbage? Hmmm.

Evans
Fenway....888
Yankee.....705
KC............904
Road........798

Pattern so far? He too was much better at Fenway than on the road. But how come he couldn't master Yankee stadium. And why was KC HIS best stadium to hit in, while it was Rice's worst??

Hobson
Fenway....790
Yankees...561
KC............283
Road.........670

Patter so far? He too was much better at Fenway than on the road. He was terrible at both Yankee stadium and KC.

Scott
Fenway....829
Yankee.....700
KC.............717
Road.........636

Pattern so far? He takes the cake in being better at Fenway than on the road...jsut like the other RH sluggers. He was somehow better at both Yankee Stadium and KC, than his other road stadiums. How was he able to hit better at KC, and Rice couldn't? Didnt' they talk about stadium nuiances in the clubhouse?

Yaz(ok I threw a lefty in there, but he was a longtimer)
Fenway.....904
Yankee......782
KC.............752
ROAD.........779

Pattern so far? What would you expect? The Yankee/KC stadium success compared to other road stadiums and Fenway continues to be a mixed bag. Not much consistency there.

The prevailing consisten pattern is overwhelminging that these guys all hit at Fenway at an extremely higher rate than on the road. None of them showed that consistent pattern in the other parks.

So why did Rice hit better at Yankee stadium? Fluke, luck, chance, circumstance...whatever. If there really was something to that, i would have expected to see his RH teammates in the same lineup have some similar success.


But, people still may say that they tailored their swing to Fenway. FOrget for a moment that these guys played many years at the other parks, and should have also been able to do some tailoring there as well. What about other guys in the league?


Oakland was a notorious pitchers park. Call me crazy, but if the Fenway guys had some ability to tailor their swing, shouldn't the Oakland guys do the same for their park? Maybe they should stop hitting pop fouls because there is so much room. LOL.

REGGIE
Oakland.......844
Milwaukee...948
KC................715
Road............860

The same as I did for Rice, Reggie's Oakland at bats, Milwaukee his best road park, and Kc his worst. Pattern? He was worse at Oakland than all other road parks.

Tenace
Oakland.....807
Milwaukee..838
KC..............859
Road..........825

Pattern so far? He, along with Reggie, were both worse hitters at Oakland, compared to the road stadiums. Kc was reggie's best, but Tenace's worst.

Rudi
Oakland.......733
Milwaukee....651
KC................668
Road............752

Pattern so far? He was also worse at Oakland, as opposed to the road stadiums. Mixed bag for te other two.


Campy
Oakland..........647
Milwaukee.......697
KC....................641
Road................663

Pattern so far? He was also worse at Oakland as opposed to the road. Pretty neutral the other two...unlike the other guys.

Green
Oakland......609
Road...........665

Pattern so far? he was also worse at Oakland as opposed to the road. I didn't type the other two, because what is the point by now.


Call me crazy, but are the Oakland guys stupid? Didn't they have the same sense as the Red Sox hitters to tailor their swings to their park? All they had to do was not hit foul pop ups in the vast territory, and there are points for your batting average right there. I am saying this in jest of course, because hitters don't have that type of control to tailor their swings(like maybe they would in 16 inch softball).

Now this is only a study of a few guys, but they are the guys who played long enough in those years.

Isn't it odd that Fenway made all the hitters VASTLY better at home than on the road? Don't you think at least one of them sluggers would have done at least as good onthe road if Fenway didn't matter?

Afer all, when you look at guys who played in neutral parks, you get some there were vastly better at home, some slightly, some worse. It is more of a mixed bag.

When you look at the tough hitters parks like Oakland, they too are consistent in their hitters doing worse at home. Some tough parks like St. Louis or other astroturf parks may not affect the guys as much, because many are speed guys who actually benefit from the turf, but when you look at hitters, and not runners, that isn't the case.

Like I said, this is a look at a few...but all the players in MLB have been measured like this, ALL OF THEM. The resulting affect when all of them are measured is that Fenway was found to be the park that aided hitters to the highest degree in the AL in the 70's/80's. That information can be easily attained at the ballpark factor numbes on baseball-reference.com

The bottom line is that Fenway aided Rice a great deal. Without Fenway, he just isn't the same hitter. How do we know? Because we saw exactly what he did when he wasn't at Fenway...and it wasn't that impressive.


Fans of this board, when an astute baseball guy like Dallasactuary says that Gene Tenace is closer to Rice than you think, he is basing it partly on the fact that a guy like Tenace was hurt by being a hitter at Oakland, and Rice was helped by being a hitter at Fenway.

Morgoth

<< <i>Nobody wants to believe that Jim Rice was aided by Fenway park >>



Wait here comes the sermon

Again, you stat guys want to strap yourself to a cross and try and convert the faithless.

Can't you guys try and convey this information without the condensention? Maybe present your data in a more upbeat manner might get people to actually look at it.

I have to sit through endless hours of boring scientific paper presentations at conferences, I do appreciate people that take the time to make it interesting. Seriously, the "in 1945 player A hit 10 points higher than park adjusted league averages than player B" is not compelling to most people.

jaxxr

Jim Rice averaged 2 more HRs per season at home , than on the road, over a 16 season career.

In 1983, when Rice hit 39 HRs, something Eddie Murray, Gene Tenace, Fred Lynn, John Kruck, or Dwight Evans never did,
Jim got 16 at home, 23 on the road. Rice has also another 39 HR season plus a 46 one, as well.

Dick Dietz is another similar OB type catcher, his career OPS + is 137, Tenace has 134, when "adjusted", the OPS+ has Dietz with 129, Tenace 136. Dick Dietz is quite un-heralded also.

Hoopster

Morgoth,

If you ask why I have to sometimes be condesending, just read the post below yours for Pete's sake.

You have a guy who picks out one or two random seasons, and spouts off that Rice had 39 HR's, something those guys never did. THis has no matter in what is written above.

Jaxxr, HR are not the only method of offense. Fenway was best for changing fly ball outs into doubles. That is a huge swing in a players performance.

Morgoth, you can call me condeseding, but looking at the other poster on here, it has been tough not to be.

Give me my medicine, I deserve it, but talk some sense into the other guy as well.

If you agree with what Jaxxr is saying(which I doubt from you) that is one thing. But if you can show me an example from one of your classes on how to relay stuff to the simples, then show an example here. I know that you recognize this stuff. Forget me. I am an ahole, show me how to relay this info to Jaxxr to make him understand.

Morgoth

I would say just present your information and don't make it so personal. Remember if you are truly trying to present useful and good data in a way that is friendly you might get some people on the fence about sabermetrics to look at it more closely. Using it just to ridicule one person to me is short sighted. Also if the data is so clearly in your favor you don't have to convince anyone you are right, the facts will win even if the person who is arguing doesn't concede.

These arguments could be great learning tools for people interested in stats and baseball. When it turn into fights over subtle nuiances then it becomes something that is better solved in PMs.

Have respect for those that you argue with, it makes the boards more fun.

ymarea

<< <i>Jim Rice averaged 2 more HRs per season at home , than on the road, over a 16 season career.

In 1983, when Rice hit 39 HRs, something Eddie Murray, Gene Tenace, Fred Lynn, John Kruck, or Dwight Evans never did,
Jim got 16 at home, 23 on the road. Rice has also another 39 HR season plus a 46 one, as well.

Dick Dietz is another similar OB type catcher, his career OPS + is 137, Tenace has 134, when "adjusted", the OPS+ has Dietz with 129, Tenace 136. Dick Dietz is quite un-heralded also.

>>

In 1983, when Rice hit 39 HRs, something Eddie Murray, Gene Tenace, Fred Lynn, John Kruck, or Dwight Evans never did

Just for accuracy sake, Fred Lynn hit 39 HRs in 1979 to go with his 122 RBI and .333 BA, his best season.

Hoopster

Morgoth, good advice.

I edited a few sentences above, but for the msot part, this lead post was pretty straightforward.

jaxxr

Ymarea,

Good catch,
I also forgot Rice had 39 HRs in two other seasons, not merely one additional one. So to be correct, Jim Rice has 3 different seasons with 39 HRs, and one with 46, and only Fred Lynn had enough peak power hitting ability to compare for a single season amongst those aforementioned players.

"Fenway was best for changing fly ball outs into doubles."

Many feel Fenway was best for changing HRs into doubles or singles, thanks to the "Green Monster"

Hoopster

Jaxxr, Many may feel a lot of things, but the reality shows something completely different. The reality is stated in the opening post.

You are welcome to use that info any way you wish.

jaxxr

In reality,

there is NO stat which can measure with complete accuracy, how many balls were hit against the wall which in other parks, would have been Home runs. Most informed observers of the game can only assume the wall, with such an extreme height, will certainly prevent normal HR type line drives from going out.

Just like you cant measure with complete accuracy, how a player would have or could have or should have performed, had his career been shorter or longer, or even how he may have used his talents to adjust to a different ballpark.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

While it is true that the Green Monster turned some HR into doubles, it also turned fly outs into HR. IN totality, it was a fairly neutral HR park. How do I know? We know exactly what happened.

HR are but one offensive event..a very good one, but one.

The key is how the OPS changed, and that directly relates to the number of runs scored.

You like to use RBI and Run scored. How does the OPS correlate with RBI and run scored?

Here are Rice's Home/Road figures for his RBI and runs scored.

HOME RBI 802
ROAD RBI 649

HOME- RUNS SCORED 681
ROAD- RUNS SCORED 568


If you do this exercise with all the other hitters, you will get the same thing. Any way you slice it, Rice and the othe hitters on that team were beneficiaries of hitting at Fenway park, and the result is that it makes them look better than they are.



As you can see above, hitters adjusting to different ballparks simply did not happen. The only consistent pattern is that Fenway GREATLY enhaned all the Red Sox hitters. Rice's spike at Yankee stadium is merely a random blip on the radar, due to luck, chance, and small number of at bats there. There is one overwhelming patttern up, and that is Fenway.

Are the Oakland playres dumb for not adjusting to their park? No. Because none of the hitters truly adjust to the park. They go up there and swing, and the park dictates a lot of what results from the swing. If you are lucky to be in Fenway, it turns a lot of outs into hits. The result is listed above.


As for guessing what a player would have done in the future, it is not a guess. 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. Other guys 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.

jaxxr

As with most good hitters,
They do usually hit better at home than on the road.

A good hitter will adapt and adjust to take advantage of the 81 home game park. No one has said Fenway was not a good hitters' park, although it does vary from year to year, in 1983 it was almost neutral at 101.
Rice has had single years where he hit better on the road, over his career he has hit better at some parks other than Fenway.
Some RH hit left handed pitchers, better than they do righties, there are always exceptions and unusual performances.

It is still an estimate or speculation, not a proven fact, how Rice, or any player would have hit, with a different home ballpark as the most familar.
Did he hit 46 HRs because of it, did he produce over 400 total bases due only to Fenway, was he MVP in spite of playing half his games in Boston, did he get 200+ hits, four different times because he was a RedSox ? When he was minor league player of the year, was it due only to the home park ?
Did it help, perhaps, probably, maybe, however, was it the only reason he hit so well, probably not.

Hoopster

Jaxxr, most do see a small uptick in home hitting, and that is accounted for when a park factor is created.

Jaxxr, in a given season, the small sample size will often deviate from the whole. It makes no sense to pick a season or two and say, well he hit better on the road...because that is randomness at work.

TRY THIS FOR CONSISTENCY!

Jim Rice played 14 full seasons at Fenway, and in every single one of them he had a higher OPS at home!

Knowing that fact of how consistent that trend was, and how strong and consistent the OVERALL trend is among ALL hitters in MLB at Fenway, this is about a slam dunk as there is in the world!!


It is randomness at work that he hit better at Yankee stadium. Why didn't Evans do better at Yankee stadium? Didn't Rice share his park nuiances with him? Why was Rice so bad at KC, while Evans was great? Didn't he share the KC nuiances with Rice? No. There is no nuiance to share. It is just random that each of them hit like that at those parks.

The OVERWHELMING pattern is that Fenway was the reason for the inflated numers...no matter which way you slice it.

He is Chili Davis on the road, and it is an absolute certainty that Fenway inflated his stats, just look above. The park factor puts his stats into corect context. Absolutely YES the reason he got 400 total bases in '78 was because playing in Fenway aided him enough to do that!

PS. Yankee stadium is the only stadium Rice did better at...unless you think the five games at Shea matter.


Try these same exercises with ALL the sluggers from that era, and see if any of them come close to this park inflation. The guys you find will be from known hitters parks. Look at the Oakland guys, it shows you already that you are wrong that all good hitters will do better at home.

jaxxr

"PS. Yankee stadium is the only stadium Rice did better at...unless you think the five games at Shea matter."

He had a better HRF at four other AL parks as well.
He had a better BA and Slg %, in Balt., than Eddie Murray did.
He hit more HRs on the road some seasons, than at home.

I relaize the "home park" factor exists,
I probably do not give the all-empowering influence to the same degree, as some do.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

Picking out a few tidbits at a stadium doesn't really provide much useful info.

The degree park factor exists isn't really a matter of what one feels, it is the difference in runs it created compared to the other parks.

jaxxr

"Picking out a few tidbits at a stadium doesn't really provide much useful info."

It shows exceptions to preconcieved notions are real, and do exist.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

It just shows basic randomness, much like if you look at what Rice hit every May 20th of his career, and compared to what he hit every May 21st of his career. If he had much better stats at one of those dates, is it because of the date??

jaxxr

Again, exceptions to preconcieved notions are real, and do exist.

Several times he hit more HRs on the road,
Several times he got more base hits on road,
Several times he got more triples on the road.

His natural abilty and skills are more of a given rather than random, they may be enhanced or lessened, by external influences, such as the pitcher he faces, the defense alignment, the ballpark, the weather, what he ate for lunch, and other non-exact calculated factors.

The homeball park influence is a factor, however, the full complete and absolute amount of influence does vary, from game to game , from month to month, from season to season. Some see it as relevant, some percieve it as very important.

One criticism is that Park Factor does not account for differences in pitching between teams. An above average pitching staff may distort their home stadium's Park Factor by making it seem more pitcher-friendly than it really is, and of course the reverse may be true. Some variation can be attributable to fluctuations in offensive and defensive performance. The problem with park factors, or really any statistic, is that they are based on sample data, which can be strongly affected by randomness.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

All those minute examples you point out are exactly why you need to measure things with a valid sample size. It allows those things to even out...like they do. That is why it is foolish to look at a few tidbits, in a few frozen moments in time. Those tell you nothing.

Again, you didn't answer this question...If it is found that Rice hit better on every May 20th, as opposed to every May 21st...is it becaue of the date?

An above average pitching staff does not distort anything. Those pitchers are measured vs. the what they do in the other parks. Read the ballpark description on baseball reference for that, or elsewhere. That is too basic for me to type here.

It doesn't really matter if something varies from game to game...again the sample size. The ONLY way that would make a difference if somehow every time Rice came up, the wind shifted. If somehow when Rice came up, he and only he faced the best pitcher on the other team. You are grasping. And if this stuff was indeed true, then Rice wouldn't have such dramatic home/road splits.

If the Fenway factor wasn't an OVERWHELMING factor, then there wouldn't be such consistency on the results posted above, and posted on the park factors at BBREFERENCE.

I am not sure why you look past this. Do you want me to stop saying that the park factor is 100% of what the park factor suggests? I will. But if you are thinking anything below 90%, you have the most darkened blinders on. Even if you apply 75% of what the park factor suggests to Rice, it blows all your notions about him out of the water. Even 50% of what the park factor suggests does that.

SO do one thing, stop posting all your information about Rice with a complete ignoring of the park factor. You will look much better off as a result.

jaxxr

"SO do one thing, stop posting all your information about Rice with a complete ignoring of the park factor. You will look much better off as a result. "

Of course, with a such a large ego, you would probably percieve one's main interest herein is to look good !

Why did you start this thread about Jim Rice ? Merely to promote YOUR personal view ?

How do calculate in your thought process, that posting of information about the subject of the thread, you began, is improper ?

Why are you ignorant of the fact, that I have discussed park factor, and realize it is relevant, while only differening in the dergree of external influence ? If you read and comprehend what others post, you will see your statement "complete ingnoring of the park factor" is completely wrong. It might not make you look good, if you are incorrect about simple things, you might be percieved to not be correct about more complex items.

FACT: Jim Rice has a carer OPS + of 134, higher than Eddie Murray.
FACT: When adjusted by the imperfect process of park factor, Rice goes to 128.
FACT: The percentile affect is nowhere near the 90% claimed by Hoopster. It affects the stat by about, 4.47 %

bigfische

He wasnt saying it effects stats 90%, he said you only accept 90%, or less, of the value attributed to the park factor.

jaxxr

From a prior post within this thread, I stated;

" I relaize the "home park" factor exists,
I probably do not give the all-empowering influence to the same degree, as some do."

From prior posts, within this thread Hoopster stated, per park factor;

"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 "

I cant see that I am completely ignoring park factors, nor not realizing every stat should be taken into perspective, nor ignorant of the fact , Rice occassionally hit better on the road.

I fully realize Rice is among many, who had somewhat brief "Peaks" and is among those marginal, questionable, or border-line, in their HOF merit. He is certainly worthly of objective consideration or discussion, I find no harm in hearing "both" sides of the argument, and may continue to comment.

Hoopster

Jaxxr, the marginal peak is less than marginal when park effect is added.

Jaxxr, if you understand park effect, then you need to go back to all those posts where you list Rice's accomplishments and then account for them being inflated due to park effect. When you continue to posts list like that with total ignorance of park affect, what do you expect me to think?


When you continue to promote his 400 total bases in 1978, you need to add something like..."of course playing at Fenway played a part in him eclipsing the 400 level." "In a neutral stadium, he is most likely down at 380 or something." Otherwise, it is just a misleading figure you are promoting.

Bigfische, thank you again. I was afraid that would be taken wrong.

jaxxr

"his 400 total bases in 1978, you need to add something like..."of course playing at Fenway played a part in him eclipsing the 400 level." "In a neutral stadium, he is most likely down at 380 or something"

Well at least "played a part" is flexible, not like "ALL" or 'ONLY because of" and other such terms so common herein.

Of course your number is actually wrong,
In 1978 when Jim Rice became the last man to surpass 400 total bases, pre-roid era, he got 406. One of his remarkable four different league leading seasons.

Total bases do reflect a hitters RBI potential very well, probably better than walk ladden , all hits equal, OB% for instance.
And since you mentioned it,

Your suggested PF ( park factor ) adjustment, would give him 380,............... considerably more than Murray's best ever of 322.
If we use 4.47 %, which was in the OPS + numbers, Rice would still get 388, .....much better than steady Eddie ever did as well.
If he played only on the road, with perhaps just 12 games at Fenway a projection gives him about 360,..... topping Murray's peak.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

Why would I believe that Rice's success is entirely due to Fenway? I am giving it its proper value.

Total bases are a mere part of the equation. Before you can tackle understand that and how it equates to runs, you have to get the Park Factor into perspective.

I should see you no longer touting that 406 Total Bases, because without Fenway it isn't over 400. So why on earth do you continue to use that?

Without Fenway, those RBI are way down too. Not only because his hitting goes down, but so does that of the hitters in front of him, thus less baserunners.

The proper value accounting for all the total bases you desire, and all the HR you desire...but all the outs and GIDP you seem to ignore, comes to the following conclusion...

Rice was 190 Runs over a league average player
Murray was 509 runs over a league average player

All the other stuff you say may be great for a trivia question when you are drunk at a party, but when it comes down to recognizing the players value, the 190 and 509 are what matters.

Is that 190 and 509 the be all end all? No. There are small variances in there too. But those variances dont' favor Rice, and if they did it would be a 10 or 20 runs at the max. So yeah, I will agree that they aren't the be all end all. You have a plus or minus of 5% or so. In that, you are correct.

jaxxr

Why would I believe that Rice's success is entirely due to Fenway? I am giving it its proper value.

Maybe, because you say things like this,
"When you continue to posts list like that with total ignorance of park affect,"

Even though this is about the fifth different post where I acknowledge PF, and try, unsuccesfully to explain there are some differences in opinion, among sabremeticians, among ardent fans, and among casual observers, in the exact amount of degree. Total ignorance in your view, I suppose.

As shown before, Rice's career OPS+ is 134 ( higher by 6 points than Murray ), and when the imperfect PF is used to change the real actual numbers, it goes to 128. That is an influence for PF, of about 4.47 %

Considering most players, like Rice himself, do hit better at times on the road, knowing the same park changes from season to season in its PF rate, and along with other not easy to quantify aspects, like the quality of pitchers faced, and other items, it might lead one to believe the 4.47% number, is perhaps reasonable, however, probably not 100% exactly perfect.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

Your blinders are among the most amazing I have seen on this board...even more than joestalins. I am not ridiculing, but the information is there. Enjoy.

jaxxr

Blinders?

Who is more blind in respect to understanding what someone has posted ???

"When you continue to posts list like that with total ignorance of park affect,"

"Even though this is about the fifth different post where I acknowledge PF, and try, unsuccesfully to explain there are some differences in opinion, among sabremeticians, among ardent fans, and among casual observers, in the exact amount of degree. Total ignorance in your view, I suppose."
You can not comprehend or understand what is being posted ??

In the very same prior post, some figures were offered per PF and calcualted rates, 4.47% was shown as reasonably proper in one case,
Are you too "blind" to grasp that ?

bigfische

<< <i>Blinders?

Who is more blind in respect to understanding what someone has posted ???

"When you continue to posts list like that with total ignorance of park affect,"

"Even though this is about the fifth different post where I acknowledge PF, and try, unsuccesfully to explain there are some differences in opinion, among sabremeticians, among ardent fans, and among casual observers, in the exact amount of degree. Total ignorance in your view, I suppose."
You can not comprehend or understand what is being posted ??

In the very same prior post, some figures were offered per PF and calcualted rates, 4.47% was shown as reasonably proper in one case,
Are you too "blind" to grasp that ?

>>




How can you continue ignore the fact that the only reason Murray's OPS+ is the same as a park weighted Rice's OPS+, is because of extra non-peak years?

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

If you truly acknowledged park factors, you would not have continued to post those top five HR totals, RBI totals, Hit totals, etc.. Because those are all inflated due to park totals. Those are blinders.

The experts argue about the minute differences in them. They are not anywhere near your total ignorance of them.

And as bigfische said,

How can you continue ignore the fact that the only reason Murray's OPS+ is the same as a park weighted Rice's OPS+, is because of extra non-peak years?

jaxxr

I am quite aware Murray choose to play on, beyond his peak,
and that it does affect his career averages, however, it certainly does not change what they are, in fact.

It might be something like PF, some choose to use it when it greatly helps an inference, some choose to use "late" years as unlike actual years, to infer other things.

I have stated prior, I know Jim Rice is a questionable, marginal, border-line candidate for HOF, as others with somewhat short peaks.
He does compare very well with Murray in many aspects. By showing these I do not mean to discredit Murray, merely provide some examples of how Rice is not that much distant to a present HOFer. Depending on your personal evaluation method, he may or may not be worthy. I would sincerely hope, most are capable of objective consideration.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

It isn't a matter of choosing to play beyond your peak, more a matter of being capable of and providing value. Rice was basically fired because he was a bad baseball player at that point.

Rice's closeness is appx 329 runs away from Murray. If you view that as close, then there you have it, what are you arguing about?

aro13

As I have stated on numerous occasions a left-handed hitter probably receives more benefit playing in Fenway than a righty, especially in the 70's and 80's. Without going over the numbers I would think the three biggest home park advantages at Fenway are Yaz, Lynn and Boggs. Managers were reluctant to start left-handed pitchers in Fenway and consequently the lefties saw more right handed pitching.

Hoopster

Aro,

They see a big advantage too. I found those figures with the number of LH started at Fenway, as opposed to the road. I think i sent them to you before, or posted them.

There was more, but it wasn't an astronimical amount more. I think it ended up being like an extra 110 plate appearances that Rice could have had vs. lefties.


Jaxxr, I appreciate you pointing out things that Rice comapres favorably to Murray, but it really in matters in totality.

Think of it this way, Rice blows Cobb, Wagner, and Speaker out of the water in certain aspects. You can make those HR, RBI, adn Total bases lists with them too, and try to make Rice look favorable to them...and he will look favorable to them if you only use certain categories, while ignoring others. It is the sum of them that matters.

jaxxr

"Rice's closeness is appx 329 runs away from Murray. If you view that as close, then there you have it"

I still think Rice's advantage over Murray, is somewhat close,

Actual real runs scored in MLB games,
per season average, Rice 97, Murray 87 and best years, Rice 121, Murray 115
Actual real runs driven in during MLB games,
per season average, Rice 113, Murray 97, and best years, Rice 139, Murray 121

A similar advantage to Rice, if the five best seasons for each are used, so as to lessen the, unfortunate, but real, past prime years effect.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,

Are you retarded?

I am done.

jaxxr

I do certainly hope you are a man of your word,

and you are done.

Your constant personal insults are really a poor lack of manners, and any semblance to open-mindedness or discussion.

bigfische

I can not see how you can speak of other not being open minded when all this thread has done is the following pattern.

Jaxxr-Rice has more RBI per season and has a similar ops+

hoop/dallas-RBI are not an independant stat, and their OPS is similar becuase of x and y and z.

Jaxxr-Rice has random records with Mantle and Cobb

hoop/dallas-Those "records should be looked at suspiciously and are not really that important.

Jaxxr-Rice has more RBI per season and has a similar ops+, open your mind



I really dont see how you can call others close minded when multiple ideas have been prosposed and shown how Rice was not as good a player as Murray, yet you continue to harp and hang onto your two or three ideas without attempting to incorporate their ideas into your thoughts.
I still can not fathom how you can't grasp that when a 41 year old is playing baseball, his numbers will probably not be represtantive of his prime ability. Can you really not see how when you play to 41, your counting stats go up while you average stats go down? THe extra years do nothng to take away from how good you were during your prime and normal playing years. So because Murray played below his average ability at 41 years of age, he was somehow worse at 28 because of it? That is what you are arguing by refusing to take that into account.

Hoopster

Bgifsiche, thank you again.

I owe an apology...to myself! I apologize to myself for wasting valuable time debating with somebody who was not dealt a full deck(or just says nonsense just to be funny). Myself, I am sorry.

Jaxxr, I am done trying to explain anything to you. You are on your own, do as you please, say hi to the Easter Bunny for me.

jaxxr

Sorry if the post gets to be a bore,

Somewhere before I posted, that in many or most offensive stats, Rice has the edge in best single year, the edge in carrer, and an edge if just the best five seasons are used.
Murray has the edge if just the best 10 seasons are used.

The 5 and 10 year peak seasons comparisons should allow for Murray to minimize the seasons he played beyond his peak.
Murray tops Rice in some stats as well. Overall, Rice compares favorably to Murray. According to BB Ref, he compares well to Orlando Cepeda and Duke Snider, also.

Should guys like Rice who did not play overly long times, like Sandy Koufax and George Sisler for example, be penalized for whatever caused them to not post more counting numbers ?
Should guys like Murray who played well after prime, like Steve Carlton and Willie Mays for example, be penalized for reducing their career averages ?
There is no absolute correct answer, and as you suggest, they should be taken into account, and do have a real effect.

I do truly enjoy hearing other opinions, other persperctives, and talking about baseball and its rich history. I do find most players abilty, not as completely and fully ironclad or absolute, as some may do. The HOF is not any exact measure of stats, or popularity , or awards, only a few are undoubtably deserving, it is fun to discuss the others.

Hoopster

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.

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.

WinPitcher

I do truly enjoy hearing other opinions, other persperctives, and talking about baseball and its rich history. I do find most players abilty, not as completely and fully ironclad or absolute, as some may do. The HOF is not any exact measure of stats, or popularity , or awards, only a few are undoubtably deserving, it is fun to discuss the others.




Best post in this thread.



Steve

jaxxr

Is all the information and stats posted as accurate as these claims posted before ?

From Hoopster about 7 posts back;
"I am done."
From Hoopster about 3 post back
"Jaxxr, I am done"

Are the following other quotes from Hoopster reflective of his courtesy, open-mindedness, and conversational skills ?

" Jaxxr, are you retarded", I am sure people with "special needs" family members appreciate that.
" Your blinders are among the most amazing I have seen on this board...even more than joestalins"
" say hi to the Easter Bunny for me. "
" with total ignorance"
" somebody who was not dealt a full deck"

All the false claims and personal insults in the world, do not change the fact that Rice compares favorably with Murray in many categries.

Hoopster

My eyes have been opened by our new evaluative methods on this board recently, and I must say with these new evaluative methods that Dave Kingman should be in the Hall of Fame.

After all, he does compare VERY favorably with Honus Wagner in many certain key areas...

TOp Five HR Seasons...
Kingman 48, 37, 37, 36, 35.
Wagner..10,10, 9, 7, 7, 6.


Highest Total Bases in a single season...
Kingman 326
Wagner..308

Number of times leading the league in HR
Kingman TWICE
Wagner ZERO

Highest Slugging PCT. in a season
Kingman .613
Wagner .573

Career average in RBI per 162 games
Kingman 101
Wagner 100
Yes, those are REAL runs too!!!!!!

Career average in HR per 162 games
Kingman 37
Wagner 6
HR are the best hit. No need to walk when you can hit that many HR.

Career Home Run Frequency.
Kingman One HR every 15 at bats
Wagner ONe HR every 101 at bats

And HR Frequency is not directly expressed in OPS+. Nowhere in the OPS+ forumula do I see HR/ab. So this is just another perspective on one of the newer stats guys like to use(like OPS+). I'm not completely discounting OPS+, but rather showing another person's view on how to look at it.

All Time Record for Most HR in last season, Kingman: 35. I may be wrong on this record, but it sounds right.

The longest HR on record at Wrigley Field
Kingman: three houses past Waveland.
Wagner: never crossed Waveland.



TheVon, you seem to be on board with these new stats as well, as is Winpitcher. You guys have to be drooling over the fact that Kingman has a higher number of RBI than Wagner per 162 games for his career. Those are REAL runs too! I feel like part of the group now! This is great.

Yeah, I know they played different positions, but that isn't the point. The point is that Kingman compares very favorably with Wagner in MANY key areas, and even holds some records that Wagner does NOT, and Wagner is a HOFer. Since Kingman compares so favorably in many Key areas with a HOFer, it makes his induction sensible. If you dont belive me, just look at those lists. If you STILL dont belive me, I CAN POST THEM AGAIN FOR YOU!! These are the facts.

PS. In Kingman's stint with the Yankees he had an OPS+ of 208! Had he played his full career there, we are in Ruth Territory. Wagner nver had an OPS+ of 208!!!! Just think of how he was able to adjust to that park!!

-------------------------
The element of chance is actually the one thing that most fans don't understand that is responsible for a lot of the things that they truly believe as real.

jaxxr

Runs scored is the only kind of meaningless "Stuff" HOF voters look at.

Wagner tops Kingman in best single season, and average runs scored per season.

Same as with Rice when compared to Murray.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Runs scored is the only kind of meaningless "Stuff" HOF voters look at.

Wagner tops Kingman in best single season, and average runs scored per season.

Same as with Rice when compared to Murray.

>>



You know that things have gotten out of hand when I am stopped from posting what I thought was a joke response by finding a similar response already posted that is intended to be serious.

If you want to believe that runs scored is an important stat, you are going to believe it no matter what anyone else says. If you want to think that Charlie Gehringer was "better" at scoring runs than Honus Wagner, then nothing anyone says will ever make a dent.

I surrender.

jaxxr

Runs scored are quite important, they do actually determine the outcome of all baseball games.

However,
my past post mentioning them in a response, was an attempt at a satire of Skin's Wagner-Kong comparison, try to have a bit of a sense of humor.

dallasactuary

My point, jaxxr, is that it is no longer possible to determine when you are joking and when you are not; the serious posts are as funny as the joke posts and the joke posts make exactly as much sense as the serious posts. Apparently you think it is a joke to compare Wagner's and Kingman's runs scored, but you don't think it is funny to compare Rice to Murray on TB or RBI or whatever. And while you are going to go right on seeing the difference, those of us who can't are just lost - trying to follow your train of thought further and further into a long dark tunnel from which there is no exit. And every time we think we see light at the end of that tunnel, all that pops up is the 453rd post of Jim Rice's TB in 1978 and the light fades again into darkness. Inky, total darkness devoid of hope.

And the only possible escape is to surrender.

So I surrender.


A sense of humor?
jaxxr beat it out of me.
Nothing left but tears.

jaxxr

I admit a sense of humor varys from person to person, some enjoy The Marx Bros. type, some enjoy Monte Python's, many like both.

I would guess most could see an outlandish comparison of Hounus Wagner to Dave Kingman being not fully serious, merely an attempt to claim many comparisons may be"stretched".
I would guess most could see there are some reasonable and comparable aspects, in a comparison of Eddie Murray and Jim Rice.

I would guess the incorrect reference to 453 posts, was also an attempt at humor. Regardless, dont be overly concerned with just the 1978 season alone, for total base comparisons. That is only one of four separate and different single seasons, in which Rice produced more total bases than Murray's best ever single season.

Hoopster

Jaxxr,


Perhaps you were not interested in the several KEY categories that Kingman beats Wagner in. I want to highlight the fact that Kingman averaged more RBI per 162 games than Wagner for their entire career! Yes, those are real runs, real producing of runs.

After all, he does compare VERY favorably with Honus Wagner in many certain key areas...

TOp Five HR Seasons...
Kingman 48, 37, 37, 36, 35.
Wagner..10,10, 9, 7, 7, 6.


Highest Total Bases in a single season...
Kingman 326
Wagner..308

Number of times leading the league in HR
Kingman TWICE
Wagner ZERO

Highest Slugging PCT. in a season
Kingman .613
Wagner .573

Career average in RBI per 162 games
Kingman 101
Wagner 100
Yes, those are REAL runs too!!!!!!

Career average in HR per 162 games
Kingman 37
Wagner 6
HR are the best hit. No need to walk when you can hit that many HR.

Career Home Run Frequency.
Kingman One HR every 15 at bats
Wagner ONe HR every 101 at bats

And HR Frequency is not directly expressed in OPS+. Nowhere in the OPS+ forumula do I see HR/ab. So this is just another perspective on one of the newer stats guys like to use(like OPS+). I'm not completely discounting OPS+, but rather showing another person's view on how to look at it.

All Time Record for Most HR in last season, Kingman: 35. I may be wrong on this record, but it sounds right.

The longest HR on record at Wrigley Field
Kingman: three houses past Waveland.
Wagner: never crossed Waveland.


Perhaps Kingman was the better hitter, and that is why he beats Wagner in several KEY statistical measures. Perhaps you are not inerested in other viewpoints.

jaxxr

The title of this particular thread indicates park factor discussion is realative.

Only very little items per PF about Dave Kingman in your fine presentation,
nevertheless, if you feel Kingman is worthy of the HOF, good for you.