In the determination of a ballgame, runs are a stat that really does, matter. Why no mention of that aspect of the post ? Just a critcal misinterpretation of what Skin / Hoop meant to say, by me ?
If BB is proper to list, with no breakdown of IBB, and other BB, and HBP is completely left off of the list, why would you consider it improper to mention hits as a collective positve stat ?
You never did like the 5 year peak ERA +, stats , Koufax vs Gibson either, although no outcry when another mentioned peaks, and you must feel since Skin mentioned it , it was quite proper to use Jim Rice in a comparison/analogy to a pitcher, Koufax, which did prompt all this further discussion.
It is human nature to stick up for people you like, and be critical of those you dont care for. Skin/ Hoops points are almost always copy/pasted, so as to avoid addtional claims of misunderstanding the poor fellow.
I try to open-minded and try to very particular in the use of extreme terms like ALWAYS, or ONLY, I do read all comments, and try to separate intended foolishness from mere inaccuracy, perhaps not very well at times. I do, mainly, try to address the post and its content, not the poster, though that is not always possible.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Yes, I too would like to know of a hit other than a 1B, 2B, 3B, HR. Do you have one? This is another example of the famous Jaxxr method. LOL!
Do you want those events in the order of their value? Here.
SB,HBP, BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR(the best). Then there are OUTS MADE, GIDP, and CS on the negative side.
Yeah, I know, it depends on the situation. Those values all rise or fall depending on that. But that information is known too, but you don't want to hear it. You prefer the Jaxxr method where Dave Kingman can be viewed on equal terms as Honus Wagner.
Yes, Runs are the currency of the game, and the guys who's play goes about creating the most are the ones who are the best. This does NOT mean the guy who has the most runs scored is the best. This is NOT the guy who has runs scored or RBI totals that are inflated by the better hitters surrounding him(like Rice with Boggs or Yaz). This is NOt the guy who has hit totals inflated by his park, where a run scored in a hitters park does not win as many games as the same run scored in a pitchers park(this may be hard for you to understand).
A first grade example of understanding runs and the credit given to the creation of runs is as follows. A player hits a triple, and the next guy drives him in with a single. They are each credited with a stupid 'runs realized.' One has a RUN, one an RBI. BUt any first grader knows that the triple was of far more value to go about creating said run, and it is just retarded to give them equal credit in that sequence.
This is done with EVERY event, and every play from 1960 to now is broken down to understand this. This is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR better than the jaxxr method of contradictions, misinformation, and plain ignorance.
Jaxxr,
Yes, you NEVER clarify anything.
1) I am still waiting to clarify if you mean RIce is as famous as Murray, or as good.
2) You have said you recognize the effect of teammates on RBI totals and RUns Scored total. BUt then ten minutes later you say, "RIce had more RBI and RUns Scored", completely ignoring the effect of teammates. In comedy circles, this is now known as a Jaxxr method.
3) Park effect. Again, you say you recognize it, but then you still site that STUPID runs realized jaxxr stat without considering again that the park is inflating that(as is the lineup).
4) Why do you disdain OPS+ for counting something twice, and then promote stuff that counts something FOUR TIMES?
4). Once you clarify those four above, only then will you be able to engage in the discussion of the creation of runs, and the appropriate credit given to the events.
P.S.) You threw a jab at Dallas citing Koufax's five consecutive year run at ERA+. Why don't you apply that to Murray/Rice in OPS+ for their best five year run?...
Or the more accurate SItuational Batter Runs which counts all those events you like, and then some more, you know like the ones you pretend don't exists like GIDP.
Rice......Murray 3............29(this is the strike year, so it is suppressed of course) 28..........43 46..........55 43..........60 9............55
Seems Murray is the guy that was Koufaxian in his consistently outstading peak, NOT Rice. Rice being Koufaxian is the biggest MYTH in all of sports history.
"only then will you be able to engage in the discussion of the creation of runs"
Sorry, I was not sure of those RULES, and did not know you were in charge of freedom of speech herein.
Hits are of different values, SB are also different values, a steal of home is a bit better than a steal of 2B. All walks, unless the bases are loaded, do not directly produce a run, same with HBP. All the same OPS is not made up of identical figures. All RBI are not directly related to teamates.
The game of baseball can never be perfectly, absolutely, and corrrctly quantified 100% of the time. Those who think it ALWAYS can be, are entitled to their opinion.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>In the determination of a ballgame, runs are a stat that really does, matter. Why no mention of that aspect of the post ? Just a critcal misinterpretation of what Skin / Hoop meant to say, by me ? >>
Because runs isn't a personal stat, it's a team stat. It takes at least two people to create a run except in the case of a HR, and hoopster listed HR. I read it, I understood it, I considered it, and mentioning runs doesn't add any value whatsoever to the discussion.
<< <i>If BB is proper to list, with no breakdown of IBB, and other BB, and HBP is completely left off of the list, why would you consider it improper to mention hits as a collective positve stat ? >>
Because it makes no difference to the creation of runs whether the walk was intentional or not, while it makes a great deal of difference whether the hit was a 1B, 2B, 3B or HR. There is no value to be gained in breaking down walks, and tremendous value to be gained in breaking down hits, and conversely no value to be gained in aggregating hits. I read it, I understood it, I considered it, and mentioning hits doesn't add any value whatsoever to the discussion. But you're right that hoopster left off several stats like HBP at the bottom of the value list which would have added something, though not much, to the discussion. Perhaps (see below) this was my responsibility to point out, but since they didn't really alter his point I didn't see the purpose.
<< <i>You never did like the 5 year peak ERA +, stats , Koufax vs Gibson either, although no outcry when another mentioned peaks, and you must feel since Skin mentioned it , it was quite proper to use Jim Rice in a comparison/analogy to a pitcher, Koufax, which did prompt all this further discussion. >>
I went into some detail on peak ERA+ in my Koufax post; if you'll notice I listed peak ERAs for several pitchers and it took some time to calculate those before I posted them, You're comment that I don't "like" them is both incorrect and further proof that you didn't actually read what I posted. The part about "because Skin does something, therefore I agree with it" is mind-boggling. What does it mean? Am I now charged with passing judgment on everything skin posts and realying to the rest of you whether or not I approve of it? His Rice/Koufax analogy was, of course, fine and he spelled out exactly in what sense he was using it; that you did not like it/understand it is not his fault. Sure, he used Rice to get under people's skin, and it worked. Stop being such easy prey to every Rice comment you see and that "problem" solves itself. I had the same problem myself, you may have noticed.
<< <i>It is human nature to stick up for people you like, and be critical of those you dont care for. Skin/ Hoops points are almost always copy/pasted, so as to avoid addtional claims of misunderstanding the poor fellow. >>
I don't know either hoopster or you and I have no way of knowing who I would "like" better if I ever met the two if you. I do know that your posts frustrate me more than hoopster's, that's all. There are several people on this and other boards that I truly do not care for, and I never direct a post to them. But when you completely ignore what hoopster posts how am I to know that you have not misunderstood the poor fellow? If hoopster ever misrepresents something you say in one of his posts, I'll point it out. So far, that has not been an issue, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Again, failing to clarify anything. Just more mumble jumble.
ALL that stuff you list IS accounted for in play by paly data. ALL of it.
Nothing can be perfectly 100% analyzed to the truth. Currently, the best baseball hitting measurements are like 95% accuracy to truth.
Jaxxr, your methods are about 6% accurate to the truth....if even that much.
The funny thing is, you seem to have a high interest in this stuff, hence your strong desire to continue to post and look foolish...yet the answers you are seeking and continually listed have been solved for you. But you just would rather live in the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss.
"If hoopster ever misrepresents something you say in one of his posts, I'll point it out. So far, that has not been an issue, though."
Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded.
Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run.
Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment; "You entirely ignored the only point I was making, which was the absurdity of comparing "career" ERA+" When I offered a best five consecutive year comparison, not only "career" numbers. Thus, I still cant quite figure out the hostility in saying that I "ENTIRELY" ignored something, yet showed peak figures, not only cateer, as well.
From the fine fellow himself; "the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss."
Please have a fine Holiday season, and try to believe in goodwill to all men, regardless of others' race, religion or opinions.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>"If hoopster ever misrepresents something you say in one of his posts, I'll point it out. So far, that has not been an issue, though."
Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded.
Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run.
Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run. >>
Jaxxr, ALL those offensive events you describe are already applied and given the appropriate credit to. So what then is the beef? Anything Rice did to that affect is given credit to him in the play by play data. That, and all other valid data say the same thing, Rice was not as good as Murray in the peak, or in the career. IN fact, it really isn't that close at all. For context, Rice is much closer to Chili Davis than he is to Eddie Murray.
Jaxxr, you did start the Kingman/Wagner revolutionary evaluative method. Your first experiment was Rice/Murray. The kingman/Wagner comparison is a product of your method.
<< <i>Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded. >>
He claimed no such thing, he referred to "Wagner-Kingman methods" - comparing two players without taking into account the differences in their parks and eras - of which I can find at least 100 examples that you have posted. In this thread we're calling it "the jaxxr method", but it means the same thing and by no stretch of the imagination was hoopster's post a misrepresentation of anything.
<< <i>Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run. >>
I'm not sure why you posted this, but I agree. OPS+, of course, gives greater credit for a hit than a walk, which is why it is a better stat than OBP. Because it gives some credit to a walk it is also a better stat than BA or SA. It seems like you are agreeing that OPS+ should replace BA in these debates, but I'm never entirely sure what you mean and I suspect you are going to continue to use BA when OPS+ would be more meaningful.
<< <i>Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run. >>
OK, you got me; my analysis fails to account for this .00001% subset of runs scored. I can live with that. It's how you can live with the 25%-50% that your analyses usually miss that is frustrating, especially after you point out my .00001%.
<< <i>Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment; "You entirely ignored the only point I was making, which was the absurdity of comparing "career" ERA+" When I offered a best five consecutive year comparison, not only "career" numbers. Thus, I still cant quite figure out the hostility in saying that I "ENTIRELY" ignored something, yet showed peak figures, not only cateer, as well. >>
The point of my post was to show the absurdity of comparing career ERA+ for pitchers of such different career lengths. Yes, you posted some peak ERA+ information, but it was similar to what I posted and we were in agreement on that part of the discussion - there was nothing left to debate on that score and indeed the value of Koufax's peak was never up for debate as far as I can tell. I acknowledged Koufax's peak - I even said that all by itself it made him a bona fide HOFer - but the POINT of my post was that once you account for Koufax's peak, there is nothing else, and that top-tier HOF pitchers have something else. And yes, you ignored that. I wouldn't say I felt any "hostility" over that, but nobody likes being ignored.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I am somewhat surprised you still feel I somehow, started that hread, or agreed with, any ridiculous comparison of Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman, If you honestly and sincerely believe I started that thread, or in any way feel Wagner is remotely worthy of comparison to Dave Kingman, so be it, If you still feel the meaning of "Entirely" properly reflects my inclusion of 5 consecutive season peaks, as ignoring one of your points, as I may have understood them, relating to Sandy Koufax, rather than a possible contribution wirh actual numbers added, so be it.
I do feel Jim Rice is quite worthy of comparison to Eddie Murray, for countless reasons stated before, you may not agree with some views, and place greater importance on certain factors than I do, via Murray to Rice, however no one with any baseball knowledge will compare Wagner to Kingman in any manner. Hundreds of professional baseball people feel Jim Rice might be worthy of the HOF, I would guess zero feel Dave Kingman is. I believe there was another thread, you perhaps may think I also started, but I am pretty sure it was Skin / Hoop, comparing Brooks Robinson to someone far inferior as well, to me, that also was not, contributory to a serious discussion.
I may be be unfortunate to not really respect one with whom you contstantly defend in many personal comments towards me, however you might agree with him as well, which is of course, your right. There are many items I might copy and paste from prior "serious" posts, but this most recent one is probably quite reflective of his personality and ability to maturely debate ; " the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss."
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Comments
In the determination of a ballgame, runs are a stat that really does, matter.
Why no mention of that aspect of the post ? Just a critcal misinterpretation of what Skin / Hoop meant to say, by me ?
If BB is proper to list, with no breakdown of IBB, and other BB, and HBP is completely left off of the list,
why would you consider it improper to mention hits as a collective positve stat ?
You never did like the 5 year peak ERA +, stats , Koufax vs Gibson either, although no outcry when another mentioned peaks, and you must feel since Skin mentioned it , it was quite proper to use Jim Rice in a comparison/analogy to a pitcher, Koufax, which did prompt all this further discussion.
It is human nature to stick up for people you like, and be critical of those you dont care for.
Skin/ Hoops points are almost always copy/pasted, so as to avoid addtional claims of misunderstanding the poor fellow.
I try to open-minded and try to very particular in the use of extreme terms like ALWAYS, or ONLY, I do read all comments, and try to separate intended foolishness from mere inaccuracy, perhaps not very well at times. I do, mainly, try to address the post and its content, not the poster, though that is not always possible.
Yes, I too would like to know of a hit other than a 1B, 2B, 3B, HR. Do you have one? This is another example of the famous Jaxxr method. LOL!
Do you want those events in the order of their value? Here.
SB,HBP, BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR(the best). Then there are OUTS MADE, GIDP, and CS on the negative side.
Yeah, I know, it depends on the situation. Those values all rise or fall depending on that. But that information is known too, but you don't want to hear it. You prefer the Jaxxr method where Dave Kingman can be viewed on equal terms as Honus Wagner.
Yes, Runs are the currency of the game, and the guys who's play goes about creating the most are the ones who are the best. This does NOT mean the guy who has the most runs scored is the best. This is NOT the guy who has runs scored or RBI totals that are inflated by the better hitters surrounding him(like Rice with Boggs or Yaz). This is NOt the guy who has hit totals inflated by his park, where a run scored in a hitters park does not win as many games as the same run scored in a pitchers park(this may be hard for you to understand).
A first grade example of understanding runs and the credit given to the creation of runs is as follows. A player hits a triple, and the next guy drives him in with a single. They are each credited with a stupid 'runs realized.' One has a RUN, one an RBI. BUt any first grader knows that the triple was of far more value to go about creating said run, and it is just retarded to give them equal credit in that sequence.
This is done with EVERY event, and every play from 1960 to now is broken down to understand this. This is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR better than the jaxxr method of contradictions, misinformation, and plain ignorance.
Jaxxr,
Yes, you NEVER clarify anything.
1) I am still waiting to clarify if you mean RIce is as famous as Murray, or as good.
2) You have said you recognize the effect of teammates on RBI totals and RUns Scored total. BUt then ten minutes later you say, "RIce had more RBI and RUns Scored", completely ignoring the effect of teammates. In comedy circles, this is now known as a Jaxxr method.
3) Park effect. Again, you say you recognize it, but then you still site that STUPID runs realized jaxxr stat without considering again that the park is inflating that(as is the lineup).
4) Why do you disdain OPS+ for counting something twice, and then promote stuff that counts something FOUR TIMES?
4). Once you clarify those four above, only then will you be able to engage in the discussion of the creation of runs, and the appropriate credit given to the events.
P.S.) You threw a jab at Dallas citing Koufax's five consecutive year run at ERA+. Why don't you apply that to Murray/Rice in OPS+ for their best five year run?...
Rice....Murray
120.....156
147.....156
157.....156
154.....156
122.....149
Or the more accurate SItuational Batter Runs which counts all those events you like, and then some more, you know like the ones you pretend don't exists like GIDP.
Rice......Murray
3............29(this is the strike year, so it is suppressed of course)
28..........43
46..........55
43..........60
9............55
Seems Murray is the guy that was Koufaxian in his consistently outstading peak, NOT Rice. Rice being Koufaxian is the biggest MYTH in all of sports history.
Sorry,
I was not sure of those RULES, and did not know you were in charge of freedom of speech herein.
Hits are of different values, SB are also different values, a steal of home is a bit better than a steal of 2B.
All walks, unless the bases are loaded, do not directly produce a run, same with HBP.
All the same OPS is not made up of identical figures.
All RBI are not directly related to teamates.
The game of baseball can never be perfectly, absolutely, and corrrctly quantified 100% of the time.
Those who think it ALWAYS can be, are entitled to their opinion.
<< <i>In the determination of a ballgame, runs are a stat that really does, matter.
Why no mention of that aspect of the post ? Just a critcal misinterpretation of what Skin / Hoop meant to say, by me ? >>
Because runs isn't a personal stat, it's a team stat. It takes at least two people to create a run except in the case of a HR, and hoopster listed HR. I read it, I understood it, I considered it, and mentioning runs doesn't add any value whatsoever to the discussion.
<< <i>If BB is proper to list, with no breakdown of IBB, and other BB, and HBP is completely left off of the list,
why would you consider it improper to mention hits as a collective positve stat ? >>
Because it makes no difference to the creation of runs whether the walk was intentional or not, while it makes a great deal of difference whether the hit was a 1B, 2B, 3B or HR. There is no value to be gained in breaking down walks, and tremendous value to be gained in breaking down hits, and conversely no value to be gained in aggregating hits. I read it, I understood it, I considered it, and mentioning hits doesn't add any value whatsoever to the discussion. But you're right that hoopster left off several stats like HBP at the bottom of the value list which would have added something, though not much, to the discussion. Perhaps (see below) this was my responsibility to point out, but since they didn't really alter his point I didn't see the purpose.
<< <i>You never did like the 5 year peak ERA +, stats , Koufax vs Gibson either, although no outcry when another mentioned peaks, and you must feel since Skin mentioned it , it was quite proper to use Jim Rice in a comparison/analogy to a pitcher, Koufax, which did prompt all this further discussion. >>
I went into some detail on peak ERA+ in my Koufax post; if you'll notice I listed peak ERAs for several pitchers and it took some time to calculate those before I posted them, You're comment that I don't "like" them is both incorrect and further proof that you didn't actually read what I posted. The part about "because Skin does something, therefore I agree with it" is mind-boggling. What does it mean? Am I now charged with passing judgment on everything skin posts and realying to the rest of you whether or not I approve of it? His Rice/Koufax analogy was, of course, fine and he spelled out exactly in what sense he was using it; that you did not like it/understand it is not his fault. Sure, he used Rice to get under people's skin, and it worked. Stop being such easy prey to every Rice comment you see and that "problem" solves itself. I had the same problem myself, you may have noticed.
<< <i>It is human nature to stick up for people you like, and be critical of those you dont care for.
Skin/ Hoops points are almost always copy/pasted, so as to avoid addtional claims of misunderstanding the poor fellow. >>
I don't know either hoopster or you and I have no way of knowing who I would "like" better if I ever met the two if you. I do know that your posts frustrate me more than hoopster's, that's all. There are several people on this and other boards that I truly do not care for, and I never direct a post to them. But when you completely ignore what hoopster posts how am I to know that you have not misunderstood the poor fellow? If hoopster ever misrepresents something you say in one of his posts, I'll point it out. So far, that has not been an issue, though.
Again, failing to clarify anything. Just more mumble jumble.
ALL that stuff you list IS accounted for in play by paly data. ALL of it.
Nothing can be perfectly 100% analyzed to the truth. Currently, the best baseball hitting measurements are like 95% accuracy to truth.
Jaxxr, your methods are about 6% accurate to the truth....if even that much.
The funny thing is, you seem to have a high interest in this stuff, hence your strong desire to continue to post and look foolish...yet the answers you are seeking and continually listed have been solved for you. But you just would rather live in the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss.
Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded.
Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run.
Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment;
"You entirely ignored the only point I was making, which was the absurdity of comparing "career" ERA+"
When I offered a best five consecutive year comparison, not only "career" numbers. Thus, I still cant quite figure out the hostility in saying that I "ENTIRELY" ignored something, yet showed peak figures, not only cateer, as well.
From the fine fellow himself;
"the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss."
Please have a fine Holiday season, and try to believe in goodwill to all men, regardless of others' race, religion or opinions.
<< <i>"If hoopster ever misrepresents something you say in one of his posts, I'll point it out. So far, that has not been an issue, though."
Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded.
Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run.
Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run. >>
Jaxxr, ALL those offensive events you describe are already applied and given the appropriate credit to. So what then is the beef? Anything Rice did to that affect is given credit to him in the play by play data. That, and all other valid data say the same thing, Rice was not as good as Murray in the peak, or in the career. IN fact, it really isn't that close at all. For context, Rice is much closer to Chili Davis than he is to Eddie Murray.
Jaxxr, you did start the Kingman/Wagner revolutionary evaluative method. Your first experiment was Rice/Murray. The kingman/Wagner comparison is a product of your method.
<< <i>Somehow him claiming I started the Wagner-Kingman post, and the insertion within 3 or 4 others, by him. was not a misrepresentation when he constantly posts about "MY" Wagner-Kingman thread ??? Please at least "try" to be open-minded. >>
He claimed no such thing, he referred to "Wagner-Kingman methods" - comparing two players without taking into account the differences in their parks and eras - of which I can find at least 100 examples that you have posted. In this thread we're calling it "the jaxxr method", but it means the same thing and by no stretch of the imagination was hoopster's post a misrepresentation of anything.
<< <i>Hits are a composite of four types, they are usually far more valuable than regular BB, IBB, or HBP, their compostion or percentage in OBP is important, in actually seeing how valuable, or how likely to produce a run, an OBP figur really is. With a runner in scoring position a double or a triple have the same potential to drive in a run. >>
I'm not sure why you posted this, but I agree. OPS+, of course, gives greater credit for a hit than a walk, which is why it is a better stat than OBP. Because it gives some credit to a walk it is also a better stat than BA or SA. It seems like you are agreeing that OPS+ should replace BA in these debates, but I'm never entirely sure what you mean and I suspect you are going to continue to use BA when OPS+ would be more meaningful.
<< <i>Besides just a HR , a run does not always need team contribution, a hitter may single, he may double, or if he is a league leader type, as Rice was, he may get a triple, and then might steal more bases, and eventually steal home, no "team effect". Team effects are difficult to evaluate in most circumstances. Even the dreaded GIDP may produce a game winning run. >>
OK, you got me; my analysis fails to account for this .00001% subset of runs scored. I can live with that. It's how you can live with the 25%-50% that your analyses usually miss that is frustrating, especially after you point out my .00001%.
<< <i>Perhaps I misinterpreted your comment;
"You entirely ignored the only point I was making, which was the absurdity of comparing "career" ERA+"
When I offered a best five consecutive year comparison, not only "career" numbers. Thus, I still cant quite figure out the hostility in saying that I "ENTIRELY" ignored something, yet showed peak figures, not only cateer, as well. >>
The point of my post was to show the absurdity of comparing career ERA+ for pitchers of such different career lengths. Yes, you posted some peak ERA+ information, but it was similar to what I posted and we were in agreement on that part of the discussion - there was nothing left to debate on that score and indeed the value of Koufax's peak was never up for debate as far as I can tell. I acknowledged Koufax's peak - I even said that all by itself it made him a bona fide HOFer - but the POINT of my post was that once you account for Koufax's peak, there is nothing else, and that top-tier HOF pitchers have something else. And yes, you ignored that. I wouldn't say I felt any "hostility" over that, but nobody likes being ignored.
I am somewhat surprised you still feel I somehow,
started that hread, or agreed with, any ridiculous comparison of Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman,
If you honestly and sincerely believe I started that thread, or in any way feel Wagner is remotely worthy of comparison to Dave Kingman, so be it,
If you still feel the meaning of "Entirely" properly reflects my inclusion of 5 consecutive season peaks, as ignoring one of your points, as I may have understood them, relating to Sandy Koufax, rather than a possible contribution wirh actual numbers added, so be it.
I do feel Jim Rice is quite worthy of comparison to Eddie Murray, for countless reasons stated before, you may not agree with some views, and place greater importance on certain factors than I do, via Murray to Rice, however no one with any baseball knowledge will compare Wagner to Kingman in any manner. Hundreds of professional baseball people feel Jim Rice might be worthy of the HOF, I would guess zero feel Dave Kingman is.
I believe there was another thread, you perhaps may think I also started, but I am pretty sure it was Skin / Hoop, comparing Brooks Robinson to someone far inferior as well, to me, that also was not, contributory to a serious discussion.
I may be be unfortunate to not really respect one with whom you contstantly defend in many personal comments towards me, however you might agree with him as well, which is of course, your right.
There are many items I might copy and paste from prior "serious" posts, but this most recent one is probably quite reflective of his personality and ability to maturely debate ;
" the world of jaxxr where ignorance is bliss."
They are the same methods used to make Vinny Castilla compare very favorably to Brooks Robinson as well.
Yes, they are YOUR methods..."The Jaxxr Methods."
One component of the Jaxxr method has the following...
'Runs Realized Per 162 Games'
Brooks Robinson 143
Vinny Castilla 176
Runs Realized is your baby, and so is the per 162 games. What say you?
It also has...
Willie Mays....215 runs realized per 162 games
Larry Walker 217 runs realized per 162 games
After all, thsoe are real runs, right? Mays and Walker peak at different years.
Larry Walkers OPS+ in his last season was 130! Willie Mays 81.
The Jaxxr method has the following rankings too...
Larry Walker career OPS .965
Willie Mays career OPS....941
Those are the things YOU value, and YOU promote. They are your method, just like the Kingman/Wagner methods.