HOF Credentials - Dave Kingman
SDSportsFan
Posts: 5,136 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I just thought it was interesting to compare Dave Kingman's stats to those of Harmon Killebrew, Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt. Here's what I've come up with:
---------------- Years--AB-----HRs--Hits---Dbls--Tpls--Ave---Lg Ave--RBIs----BB------K------OBP---Lg OBP--SLG----Lg SLG---OPS-----Lg OPS---AB/HR
Killer------------22----8147--573--2086--290---24--.256---.259-----1584--1559--1699---.376---.376-----.509----.393-----.885----.724--------14.2
Kong-----------16----6677---442--1575--240---25--.236---.262-----1210---608--1816---.302---.329-----.478----.389-----.780----.718--------15.1
Reggie---------21----9864---563--2584--463---49--.262---.255-----1702--1375--2597---.356---.322----.490----.382-----.846----.704--------17.5
Schmidty------18----8352---548--2234--408---59--.267---.267-----1595--1507--1883---.380---.335----.527----.394-----.907----.729--------15.2
---------------------------AB---HR--Hits---Dbl---Tpl---Ave-----RBI---BB-----K------OBP----SLG
Killer's Ave Ssn-------542--38--139---19-----2----.256--- 105--104---113----.376---.509
Kong's Ave Ssn-------557--37--131---20-----2----.236---101---51----152----.302---.478
Reggie's Ave Ssn-----567--32--148---27-----3----.262---98----79----149----.356---.490
Schmidty's Ave Ssn--563--37--151---27-----4----.267---107--102---127----.380---.527
Intangibles
Killer
6-times Top-4 MVP
13-Time AS
6-time League Leader in HR
2-times finished 2nd in HR
3-time RBI Leader
4-time BB Leader
1-time Lead League in Ks
3-times Lead League in Intentional BBs
Kong
3-time AS
2-time HR Leader
4-times finished 2nd in HRs (the first two times to Schmidt, by 2 and 1 HR)
3-times Lead League in Ks
Reggie
5-times Top-5 MVP
14-time AS
4-times HR Leader
3-times finished 2nd in HRs
1-time RBI Leader
5-times K Leader
Schmidt
12-time AS
5-times Top-3 MVP
8-Times HR Champ
1-time finished 2nd in HRs
4-time RBI Leader
4-times BB Leader
4-times lead league in Ks
2-times lead league in intentional BBs
So, after you've objectively looked at the above, what do you think of Kingman's Hall of Fame status?
(edited to add Mike Schmidt)
Steve
---------------- Years--AB-----HRs--Hits---Dbls--Tpls--Ave---Lg Ave--RBIs----BB------K------OBP---Lg OBP--SLG----Lg SLG---OPS-----Lg OPS---AB/HR
Killer------------22----8147--573--2086--290---24--.256---.259-----1584--1559--1699---.376---.376-----.509----.393-----.885----.724--------14.2
Kong-----------16----6677---442--1575--240---25--.236---.262-----1210---608--1816---.302---.329-----.478----.389-----.780----.718--------15.1
Reggie---------21----9864---563--2584--463---49--.262---.255-----1702--1375--2597---.356---.322----.490----.382-----.846----.704--------17.5
Schmidty------18----8352---548--2234--408---59--.267---.267-----1595--1507--1883---.380---.335----.527----.394-----.907----.729--------15.2
---------------------------AB---HR--Hits---Dbl---Tpl---Ave-----RBI---BB-----K------OBP----SLG
Killer's Ave Ssn-------542--38--139---19-----2----.256--- 105--104---113----.376---.509
Kong's Ave Ssn-------557--37--131---20-----2----.236---101---51----152----.302---.478
Reggie's Ave Ssn-----567--32--148---27-----3----.262---98----79----149----.356---.490
Schmidty's Ave Ssn--563--37--151---27-----4----.267---107--102---127----.380---.527
Intangibles
Killer
6-times Top-4 MVP
13-Time AS
6-time League Leader in HR
2-times finished 2nd in HR
3-time RBI Leader
4-time BB Leader
1-time Lead League in Ks
3-times Lead League in Intentional BBs
Kong
3-time AS
2-time HR Leader
4-times finished 2nd in HRs (the first two times to Schmidt, by 2 and 1 HR)
3-times Lead League in Ks
Reggie
5-times Top-5 MVP
14-time AS
4-times HR Leader
3-times finished 2nd in HRs
1-time RBI Leader
5-times K Leader
Schmidt
12-time AS
5-times Top-3 MVP
8-Times HR Champ
1-time finished 2nd in HRs
4-time RBI Leader
4-times BB Leader
4-times lead league in Ks
2-times lead league in intentional BBs
So, after you've objectively looked at the above, what do you think of Kingman's Hall of Fame status?
(edited to add Mike Schmidt)
Steve
0
Comments
Steve
<< <i>Slim and none.
Steve >>
The correct answer is none.
The jaxxr method has this....
Dave Kingman 176 runs realized per 162 games
Pete Rose.......158 runs realized per 162 games
Those are real runs, not perspective runs or runs that should have happened, but runs that the player actually did(this is a Jaxxr mantra).
The Jaxxr method says it does not matter how long a player played, as that is his choice, so when you see Kingman dwarfing Rose in runs realized per 162 games, it matters none that Rose was good enough to play so long, because Kingman's last two seasons were comparable to Rose's last two.
The Jaxxr method does not take positional difficulty into consideration. It does not take it into account when comparing Jim Rice to Fred Lynn, so it doesn't take it into account with Kingman and Rose.
So according to the Jaxxr method, a case can be made.
As a Mets fan, I can attest to that...
Kingman was an exciting player to watch at the plate, but he embodied the definition of one dimensional...in 1976 while with the Mets he hit 37 homers and had only 86 RBIs!
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.
Pete Rose.......158 runs realized per 162 games "
Skinpinch / Hoopster now compares Pete Rose to Dave Kingman, truly sad,... but anyway,
He could at least get his method CORRECT
Runs produced is the proper term, a decent stat, but as with any, not fully all-inclusive. The correct way to calculate it is; RBI +Runs, less HR = Runs Produced.
Thus with proper math, the runs produced, over a typical 162 season are,
Rose 151, Kong 139
There is NO method anyone has, which can be used in all cases, which can be absolutely correct all the time. It is really narrow minded to think there is such.
The most accurate comaprison I can recall,
was the recent post comparing Skinpinch / Hoopster to Axtell. Any method used, shows they compare quite well.
<< <i>Runs Realized are the cats pajamas! >>
No, there isn't just one method. There are a few quite good ones that have high validity, such as Situational Batter runs based on the millions of play by play data, WinShares, Batter Runs, or Baseballprospectus Warp.
Or even the beloved RBI method where you actually take RBI opportunties into account...earth shattering I know, but would you believe that some people dont' even understand that??????
Or you can do the Jaxxr method which is to probe to find some angle to help you feel better about your hero, harp on that angle, ignore logic, and ignore all the VALID findings.
Or that Jaxxr method can look the millions of actual MLB play by play data in the face when it tells you how detrimental hitting into a double play is towards run scoring, and then figure that detrimental effect only affects everyone else, but somehow does not apply to Jim Rice. LOL!!! The jaxxr method.
All stats contibute to an evaluation of a player, there are many variable to consider, the quantity and the quality of play, an overall impact and much specific data as well.
Just because Jim Rice hit far more HRs in a single season than Eddie Murray does not prove he was a better power hitter.
Just because Jim RIce has a league leading OPS+ season and Murry never led, does not prove he was a better hitter.
Just because Jim Rice has a much higer lifetime BA than Murray does not prove he was the better batter..
Just because Rice had a better BA and Slg % with men on base or with runners in scoring position, does not prove Rice was the better situational hitter.
Just because Rice has more MVP awards, RBI titles, Total bases titles, and Triple titles, than Murray, does not absolutely prove anything.
Those above facts seem to indicate, in some aspects, at least, Rice might possibly be better than Murray.
When the overall stats are similar, no single method whatsoever, can positively "prove" one player superior to the other, most rational fans of baseball realize that.
There is your kingman/Wagner method again! LOL!
Come on man, I am always going to rib a little about the Kingman/Wagner Jaxxr method.
We got the millions of play by play data to show how valuable each event is(and by the way if Rice advances a runner on a GIDP he gets credit for that...and credit for that if it is in a clutch environment). Rice was actually bad in the clutch though(late innings).
This all has been studied, checked for validity, rechecked....checked again. Matched up against tests. WinShares...same thing. Warp, same thing. They are all very valid findings.
Then we have Jaxxr coming on and just making assumptions and using personal preferences to draw a conclusion of Rice being as good as Murray...a conclusion mind you that none of the high validity stuff comes close to saying.
No, they aren't 100% accurate, but they are without a doubt 1000% more valid than your methods.
A conclusion that you use that STILL ignores the number of RBI OPPS, the Park, Length of career, etc... When pointed out, you post things like above that made the Kingman/Wagner method as valid as yours. That is where I am coming from my man. Relax a bit.
You cant quite grasp what I posted, you quote or attribute to me that somehow I; "draw a conclusion of Rice being as good as Murray "
What I actually really truly correctly did post was:
"Just because Rice has more MVP awards, RBI titles, Total bases titles, and Triple titles, than Murray, does not absolutely prove anything."
" Does not absolutely prove anything", I am trying to be open minded, Rice tops Murray in some stats, Murray tops Rice in some stats, they are quite similar in maqny respects. One could reasonmably argue Rice was a better hitter, the alternate argument is probably just as valid. There are a multitude of stats, the percieved relative importance of each weighs the debate in that favor.
Somehow you cant politely, accept the fact, that many, including myself and 71% of the HOF voters, do feel Rice is worthy of serious consideration for the HOF, and of course you are entitled to your opinion. I never said Rice was absolutely better than Murray, but know he exceeded Eddie in several aspects of the game. To somehow reason and vigoriously promote, that a comparison of Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman correlates to Rice- Murray appears very unstable.
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>One could reasonmably argue Rice was a better hitter, the alternate argument is probably just as valid. >>
This is where you're wrong - there is no REASONABLE argument that Rice was a better hitter than Murray. The ONLY arguments that can be made that appear to show that Rice was better than Murray can also be used to show that Kingman was better than Wagner.
Which is, of course, how we got into this circle in the first place.
If for no other reason than that you appear to be the only one who doesn't get hoopster's point and that you look awfully silly debating it with him, if I were you I would just let the whole subject drop.
I have said he is worthy of HOF consideration. I have also said , numerous times, I realize he is a marginal selection, the HOF will do fine without him, nor would it be harmed by his inclusion.
I never have said Wagner compares with Kingman, nor Brooks Robinson with Castilla, please be sure of that.
Jaxxr, you never seemed to understand the point of the Kingman/Wagner exercise.
Any method you use to show that Rice is as good as Murray is one that could also be used to show other similarly incorrect assertions with other obvious mismatched players. By just comparing certain things and not accounting for appropriate values or logic, Kingman lined up better than Wagner in a few areas too. The point of that was to show the danger of selective or low validity comparisons, and the danger of use of inappropriate values applied.
That is why I showed the Castilla/Brooks comparison...because if you don't account for park factor, and length of career, you get silly comparisons such as those, that were as valid as your RIce/Murray comparisons.
There is no question that a single method can't completely harness a players worth, but we are talking about minor things here.
None of the good valid measurements are that far off to even make a RIce/Murray comparison worth looking at, let alone staking your reputation on a case for Rice in that comparison.
If you want to talk value and gray area, then enter a 2B or SS compared to a LF. There is some gray area there...maybe not as much as you would hope for, but some nonetheless.
<< <i>I never have said Wagner compares with Kingman, nor Brooks Robinson with Castilla, please be sure of that. >>
And nobody ever said you did. The point that you are missing - and you are missing it big time - is that the comparisons that you HAVE made are no less silly than Wagner/Kingman and Robinson/Castilla, and the logic you use in the comparisons you do make - if applied to Wagner and Kingman - would show them as comparable. For whatever reason, you can see how silly the Wagner/Kingman comparison is but you can't see it when the same logic is applied to other players. That's hoopster's entire point, and yet every other time you reply to him you post about Rice's high season of TB or other such nonsense and you just prove his point even more. Which is why I suggested you just drop it; but carry on, others appear to be entertained.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Oh yes! Ioved to watch Sky Kingman "swing for those fences" he was soooooooo
If only the rest of his game was "home run like", he'd be a shoe-in for the Hall!
rd
P.S. If the hall of fame made a tiny spot for Dave at Cooperstown, just dedicated to his home run swings and long balls and all the fans who loved to watch him play, it wouldn't hurt!
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Your personal opinion for certain .
An assesment of HR power, MVP awards, League leading titles, career BA, Total bases, and many other stats, show a definite advantage towards Rice ovr Murray. If you cant realize that, there is no point in any serious discussion.
The question might be, do they offest Murray's fine total numvers, 3000 hits and 500 Hrs, probably not. But they do deserve a rational comparison, probably yes.
71% of HOF voters think Rice is HOF worthy, plenty of other bseball fans do as well, can you see similar support for Vinnie Castilla, or Dave Kingman ???
Might possibly was Brooks Robinson the best defender of all time at 3B, is Honus Wagner so elite a performer that very few players deserve comparison with him,and let alone a different time era and position ???
Do you truly feel the following is representative or similar of Kingamn or Castilla ???
Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, only nine other HOF hitters rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average. They are: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams.
So you in all honesty feel a serious discussion of a potential HOF candidate like Jim Rice, using favorable stats with a peer from the same time era, are the SAME as comparing a true elite HOFer like Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman ???
If you do compherend the data and the players to be of identical proportion, it is your right to have that opinion about baseball.
in all due respect, you are not taking the ball park factor into account in your comparisons. You have to compare numbers in context or it will be a flawed comparison. What your comparisons amount to are marketing ploys, not scientific reasoning.
Compare the OPS+ of both players, since that is a more valid statistic than lifetime batting average or total home runs, which are given no context whatsoever as it stands.
Rice played in Fenway Park and his stats there are much better there than in other ball parks. However, his Fenway stats weigh heavily on his final numbers. Steve Garvey played at Dodger Stadium, it was a very hitter unfriendly park. That needs to be taken into account. A .300 average in Fenway is worth less than a .300 average at Dodger Stadium. I don't know if all this makes any sense, but I am trying my best.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
You are making sense, ball park factor is real, the extent is qustionable, Rice hit better at Yankee stadium than at Fenway, there are exceptions. Despite most good hitters larning how to adapt and take advantage of the home park, it did probably assist Rice.
BA less Important than OPS + ?, perhaps true in the proper context,
Rice has a much higher career BA than Murray, A higher raw OPS + than Murray, and when ball park factor is applied, Murray tops Rice by one percentage point in OPS +.
In no way did I intend for this thread to go into a deep or detailed comparison with Jim Rice the key figure. Ther are countless other stats, records, factors, items, and information available but I merely wished to show a quick highlight of a few of Rice's feats.
He does have reasonable HOF merit, and just narrowly missed selection last year, Kingman is far removed.
What's my opinion of Kingman's performance?
You STILL do not get it. It is beyond being comical at this time. Your Kingman/Wagner methodology is in full force. You may as well embrace it forever now.
here is what you STILL do not get, understand, realize or comprehend,
He does have reasonable HOF merit, and just narrowly missed selection last year, Kingman is far removed.
Your Kingman/Wagner methodology is in full force. The method you use to put RIce on par with Murray also puts Kingman on par with Wagner.
Your method puts Vinny Castilla ahead of Brooks Robinson.
Everyone is a HOF candidate. RIce is one too, he just isn't as good as Murray. HE is FAR closer in ability to Chili Davis than he is to Eddie Murray.
You Skin / Hoop are the only one who started such a thread,
and inserted it elsewhere , constantly talk about it, and continue to deny your own writings.
Only a fool would compare Kingman to Wagner, yet the Jaxxr method does exactly that...it picks/chooses certain areas where Kingman beats Wagner, ignores key elements, assigns inappropriate values to events...and there you have it, the Jaxxr method making them comparable.
The same Jaxxr method puts Vinny Castilla dwarfing Brooks Robinson.
has started posts, inserted into other posts, and constantly refers to, his own comparisons of Dave Kingman,
he has used Honus Wagner and also Pete Rose in his own posts, yet he still claims he was not the author of such nonsense.
There is NO method. anyone has,
which can be used in all cases, which can be absolutely correct all the time.
The evaluation of similar ballplayers like Rice and Murray involves numerous stats, records, items, factors, and usually involves some subjectivity as well. It is really narrow minded to think there is such a singular method available.
No, ther isn't just one method...there are excellent ones like Situational batter runs, Winshares, Batter Runs, Baseballprospectus that are on the money.
Then there is the jaxxxr method that makes comparisons like Kingman/Wagner, Castilla/Robinson, and Rice/Murray as comparable...LOL!
You choose which works best, and it is appearant what you have already chosen, LOL!
He also never insinuated it either, that is something that only you and maybe one other guy did.
For some reason you want everyone to take whatever you say as gospel yet you don't allow for any opinion
that may be contrary to your own. Jaxx makes some very valid points, states them in a way that most can
understand and never crosses the line that you (and I) seem to always do.
Steve
A hitters worth or value isn't up for opinion. A person's fame is. Jaxxr is welcome to use his methods on how much fame Rice has, but when he starts using inaccurate information and on the value of events, then that is different and needs to be corrected.
Or when he just conveniently leaves out key pieces...which is part of what makes his Kingman/Wagner method famous, then it should be addressed.
I would like to see his valid points tested for validity. His points are few and far between, and his methodology is terrible, terrible enough to put Castilla on par with Brooks.
jaxxr doesn't recognize defensive value or position...well he seems to in the case of Brooks and Castilla...but does not recognize it with Fred Lynn being a CF and Rice a LF. So waht is at work then? Either bias, or just plain ignorance on his part.
By the way, he is welcome to his opinion...it just isn't a very informed one. LOL
<< <i>There is NO method. anyone has,
which can be used in all cases, which can be absolutely correct all the time. >>
The only thing that makes your statement correct is the use of the word "absolutely", because there are methods that can be used in all cases that are more or less correct all of the time. You choose to ignore those methods.
But that simply evades the real point. The methods that hoopster uses are MORE correct than the methods that you use ALL of the time. There is NEVER a case where looking up AS appearances or league leaders in TB or whatever else you pick and choose from depending on which players you are comparing adds anything of value to an analysis based on Win Shares, situational batter runs or any of the comprehensive measurements.
Well, that's not quite correct; those things tell us how famous a player likely is, and how impressed many of the HOF voters will be with that player, which is why Bill James HOF Monitor, etc. look at those things. But Bill James, despite inventing the HOF Monitor, etc., knows that they are crappy evaluation tools. They are measures not of a player's performance but of how dumb HOF voters are, at least in James' opinion.
So maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate. If what you are trying to do is explain why Jim Rice WILL make the HOF, despite the demonstrable fact that he was not nearly as valuable or productive as other HOF LF/DH or of many non-HOF LF/DH, then say that to avoid confusion. The problem with that is that we all agree on that point so there really isn't a debate to be had on that subject, but nobody will criticize your posts if you make that clear. But if what you are trying to do is to show that Jim Rice OUGHT to make the HOF because he was as valuable and productive as other HOF LF/DH then your methods are next to useless; at best, they pick and choose random elementts of what Win Shares and situational batter runs have already measured and ignore everything else. Hoopster compared Wagner and Kingman using, virtually word for word, an analysis that YOU did concerning Rice and Murray - he just picked and chose different stats.
Think of it this way - no, don't just think of it but rather accept it and act on it: a comparison involving Jim Rice that ignores Fenway and GIDP is as useless as a comparison involving Honus Wagner that ignores the dead-ball era. If you really got that, you wouldn't post 99% of what you do.
for your personal evaluation and interpretation, of my brief listing of a few of Jim Rice's feats.
I have made no in depth detailed comparisons of Rice-Murray in 2009, obviously no inclusion of Fenway, or a multitude of other items, the topic of this post is Kingman's HOF credentials, odd, how popular Jim Rice always becomes whenever the HOF is mentioned.
Wins Shares, regardless of your personal opinion, are not perfect, there are four different WS methods quite popular, any may offer different results, even Mr James himself, admits they are not without flaws. They do contribute, in part, to a player evaluation.
Batting avearge, RBI, Home runs, Total bases, Slg Pct, Runs scored, Triples, or HRF, among many other viable stats, are not perfect as well, but all contribute to an assessment of a player. The value, importance, rank, and weight given to various stats are all relative, and very subjective.
It is remarkable to me, a personal observation purely,
that you consider a player of Honus Wagner's ability can somehow be compared to Dave Kingman, that alone is kind of remarkable, then add that a comparison of Jim Rice and Eddie Murray is identical in the respective quality of the players involved. Truly remarkable that somewhow your reasoning shows Wagner-Kingman = Rice-Murray. Perhaps you enjoyed Skin's Rose- Kingman comparison, even though he calculated runs produced incorrectly.
<< <i>Thanks much Steve,
for your personal evaluation and interpretation, of my brief listing of a few of Jim Rice's feats. >>
You're welcome. I am trying to save you from further embarrassment, even if you don't realize it.
<< <i>It is remarkable to me, a personal observation purely,
that you consider a player of Honus Wagner's ability can somehow be compared to Dave Kingman, that alone is kind of remarkable, >>
Now that's an odd thing to say; any two players can be compared. In some cases the winner will be more obvious than in others, but a comparison can always be made.
<< <i>then add that a comparison of Jim Rice and Eddie Murray is identical in the respective quality of the players involved. >>
See, here's where understandable questions about your ability to read arise. I never said anything even remotely close to that. I said it takes an equally horrendous EVALUATION to compare Wagner/Kingman as it does to compare Murray/Rice. If I say that 5 is greater than 7 have I been any less stupid than if I say 5 is greater than 10? The relative magnitude of the numbers doesn't matter, once I demonstrate that I don't understand the basic concepts of math. This is where you are with baseball.
"I said it takes an equally horrendous EVALUATION to compare Wagner/Kingman as it does to compare Murray/Rice."
Wagner/Kingman;
one player a true elite all time great, deadball era time peroid, an excellent defender at SS. The other guy a fairly good hitter no one ever felt was really HOF worthy, played in a quite differnt time era, was a noted poor defender at a different, less difficult position.
Rice/Murray;
One player qualified via HOF rankings, Inks, Etc., and 71% of the most recent official ballot, the other already n the HOF and equal via the HOF ranks, Iks, Etc., Both were AS game teamates, league leaders, played primarily in the same time era and even the same league, both slightly above average defenders via stats, at two of the more "easy" positions to defend.
Even though I am where I am in baseball, and have a questionable ability to read, per your personal insights greatly contributing to a polite discussion,
The two different sets of items to be compared, .........are horrendously UNEQUAL.
A point I have very unsuccessfully tried to promote, via this and many other posts, is,
Jim Rice has reasonable HOF merit, and just narrowly missed selection last year, he has some stat betterment in several areas, over a peer HOFer or two, however, a guy like Kingman is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from Honus Wagner.
lol
Steve
please put down your crackpipe lol
<< <i>Even though I am where I am in baseball, and have a questionable ability to read, per your personal insights greatly contributing to a polite discussion,
The two different sets of items to be compared, .........are horrendously UNEQUAL.
>>
I get that. Hell, I not only get that, I SAID that. If your point is to argue that it shows a greater comprehension of math to say that 5 is greater than 7 than it does to say that 5 is greater than 10 then I simply disagree. There is no way to reach either conclusion without a complete lack of comprehension of even basic concepts. That Wagner is "more better" than Kingman than Murray is than Rice is completely irrelevent - it takes a complete lack of comprehension of even basic baseball concepts to reach either conclusion. In logical terms, Rice is better than Murray is the same thing as false equals true; whatever got you to that conclusion was an error and unless it is corrected then literally ANY conclusion is possible after that, including that Kingman is better than Wagner.
And I promise I will never question your ability to read if at any point you demonstrate that you have actually read what I have said. The constant misquotes and the constant drawing of conclusions based on things I never said can be explained by an inability to read, among other things. If you want me to rule that possibility out, I need a little more effort on your part.
How can you recognize the fact that Wagner was a SS and apply that to his value compared to Kingman, and NOT recognzie that Lynn was a CF and apply that to HIS value in regard to Rice?
Actually, RUns REalized are your creation. That is what you called them. YOur stance was that a real run scored is what coutns, and a real RBI is what counts. You weren't referring to runs produced.
Your evaluative methods put Vinny Castilla as better than Brooks RObinson offensively.
Reagarding my point, which I assumed was quite clear, with no question of anyone's math skills whatsoever,
As I said in my most recent prior post, which you may not have fully read,
"A point I have very unsuccessfully tried to promote, via this and many other posts, is,
Jim Rice has reasonable HOF merit, and just narrowly missed selection last year, he has some stat betterment in several areas, over a peer HOFer or two, however, a guy like Kingman is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from Honus Wagner. "
<< <i> he has some stat betterment in several areas, over a peer HOFer or two, however, a guy like Kingman is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from Honus Wagner. "
Jaxxr, this is where you are missing it. Kingman also has some stat betterment in several areas over a peer HOFer or two.
The thing is with your RIce/Murray comparisons, most of the stat betterment was due to two reasons
1)Fenway inflation, 2)Being bad and retiring early...a short career. YOU CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR BOTH!
So he really didn't have stat betterment in SEVERAL areas. It was only in the spots where you ignored key information, or just focused on his Total Base season. Dave Kingman bested people in a total base season too. So what. WHat matters is the totality of their contribution.
Again, Kingman and Castilla have betterment in several areas than other HOFers as well. I don't care what the voters said, many of them are baseball morons. WHat I do care is when you DID directly say that Rice was as good as Murray in another thread. That was insane, but you said it.
Yeah, I know...you will say "there is NO one method." Yeah we know that, however, ALL the valid methods are better than the wildly inconsisten Jaxxr method. Yet you ignore the better measurements, call concrete items subjective, and then use bits and pieces to find an angle for your agenda.
<< <i>"If your point is to argue that it shows a greater comprehension of math to say that 5 is greater than 7 than it does to say that 5 is greater than 10 it ............."
Reagarding my point, which I assumed was quite clear, with no question of anyone's math skills whatsoever,
As I said in my most recent prior post, which you may not have fully read,
"A point I have very unsuccessfully tried to promote, via this and many other posts, is,
Jim Rice has reasonable HOF merit, and just narrowly missed selection last year, he has some stat betterment in several areas, over a peer HOFer or two, however, a guy like Kingman is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from Honus Wagner. "
OK, ignore my analogy about the math skills; I would if I were you, too.
But there you go again: " he has some stat betterment in several areas". SO DOES KINGMAN OVER WAGNER!!!!! You keep acknowledging that Wagner was much better than Kingman, but you never explain HOW you know Wagner was much better than Kingman. And I'm not saying you can't do it - it's child's play to demonstrate something like that. But the WAY that you demonstrate it, if you would ever dare to apply it to any other comparison, would blow your Murray/Rice comparison out of the water. So when you compare those two, you use completely different stats and completely different methods.
Demonstrating "some stat betterment in several areas" adds precisely NOTHING to our understanding of the comparison of any two players. Virtually any player will have "some stat betterment in several areas" over any other player if you pick and choose correctly. But, with the single exception of Wagner and Kingman, that's all you ever demonstrate.
The mention of some stat betterment was just a footnote, there are more than a half dozen different important stats, in which Rice tops Murray, in a single season, or for 4-5 year peak, and also in total career stats as well. League leading performances, awards, and records set also favor Rice.
I have tried to NOT go into detailed extensive comaparison of the two similar players Rice and Murray, you seem to want very much to re-hash many many items posted before and that is your right, however this thread is supposed to about Dave Kingman's HOF merit.
The rankings and Inks, ALL rate Kingman as not qualified.
3 put of 4 rank Rice and Murray both equally qualified for the HOF.
All rate Honus Wagner as qualified.
From that simple and short data set, my own personal reading and/or math comprehension levels, still conclude any Wagner-Kingman comparison may not be excused or explained away for any sound reason.
<< <i>The mention of some stat betterment was just a footnote, there are more than a half dozen different important stats, in which Rice tops Murray, in a single season, or for 4-5 year peak, and also in total career stats as well. League leading performances, awards, and records set also favor Rice.
Jaxxr,
Again, many of those pick/choose items you are using are not taking into accout Ballpark factor, or career length. WHen those aspects are added, Rice's advantages are not many.
Any 4-5 yeark peak advantage you say RIce has is primarily due to ballpark, or just picking a stat or two while ignoring the others. That is the exact same thing done in the Kingman/Wagner method.
You seem to understand this with Kingman/Wagner, but somehow it is not grasped with Rice/Murray.
Do you know what the Gray ink/blank ink tests are designed for?