"or just picking a stat or two" here's more than two, in a quick reply
Slg. Pct, single season, career average, peak seasons. Triples, career average, peak seasomns, and single season, Hits, best single season, top peak years, better career average. BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season, RBI, best single season, peak seasons and career average Total Bases, best single season, top peak seasons, best career average, Runs scored, best single season, top peak years, top career average. ALL 21 items in favor of Rice
League leading seasons; HRs, Rice 3, Murray 1, a strike shortened season RBI, Rice 2, Murray 1, a strike shortened season Total bases, Rice 4, Murray 0 OPS, Rice 1, Murray 0 Triples, Rice 1, Murray 0 Adjusted OPS +, Rice 1, Murray 0 Hits, Rice 1, Murray 0 Slg Pct, Rice 2, Murray 0 Runs created, Rice 1 Murray 0 OBP, Rice 0, Murray 1 MVP, Rice 1, Murray 0 17 to 3, being the very best for a particular season
Other items, Four times Rice got 200 hit seasons, Murray never did, Rice has a higher BA and Slg. pct. with men on base or with runners in scoring position than Murray, Rice has a better HRF than Murray, Rice has a better OPS than Murray, Rice has a better OPS+ than Murray, Rice gets a lesser, by one point, adjusted OPS+ when PF is used. Fenway probably helped Rice somewhat, however he actually hit better at Yankee Stadium.
All of the aforementioned might not "prove" any betterement, however, it would seem to indicate a comparison of the two players from the same time span would be fairly reasonable.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Slg. Pct, single season, career average, peak seasons. Triples, career average, peak seasomns, and single season, Hits, best single season, top peak years, better career average. BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season, RBI, best single season, peak seasons and career average Total Bases, best single season, top peak seasons, best career average, Runs scored, best single season, top peak years, top career average. ALL 21 items in favor of Rice
League leading seasons; HRs, Rice 3, Murray 1, a strike shortened season RBI, Rice 2, Murray 1, a strike shortened season Total bases, Rice 4, Murray 0 OPS, Rice 1, Murray 0 Triples, Rice 1, Murray 0 Adjusted OPS +, Rice 1, Murray 0 Hits, Rice 1, Murray 0 Slg Pct, Rice 2, Murray 0 Runs created, Rice 1 Murray 0 OBP, Rice 0, Murray 1 MVP, Rice 1, Murray 0 17 to 3, being the very best for a particular season
Other items, Four times Rice got 200 hit seasons, Murray never did, Rice has a higher BA and Slg. pct. with men on base or with runners in scoring position than Murray, Rice has a better HRF than Murray, Rice has a better OPS than Murray, Rice has a better OPS+ than Murray, Rice gets a lesser, by one point, adjusted OPS+ when PF is used. Fenway probably helped Rice somewhat, however he actually hit better at Yankee Stadium.
All of the aforementioned might not "prove" any betterement, however, it would seem to indicate a comparison of the two players from the same time span would be fairly reasonable.
Jaxxt,
In all seriousness, you claim in prior posts that you are not implying that Rice was better than Murray, but then you use all of these stats to indicate otherwise. I don't think you'd find more than 1 out of a 50 informed baseball fans that would say that Rice had a better career than Murray based on these stats, mainly because Rice played all his home games at Fenway Park.
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.
Grote 15, Would you feel a comparison of Rice and Murray is perhaps somewhat reasonable, possibly Rice is not as far removed from Murray than a quick perception might give, worth looking into further at least ?
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Grote 15, Would you feel a comparison of Rice and Murray is perhaps somewhat reasonable, possibly Rice is not as far removed from Murray than a quick perception might give, worth looking into further at least ?
I was a fan of Jim Rice's growing up (even though I lived in NY) and he was a fearsome hitter for about a 4-5 year stretch, but Murray is definitely the better all-around player, IMO, and a slam dunk first ballot HOFer. I would not be upset if Rice made it into the Hall, but his road to enshrinement (and he is not guaranteed to get in this year either) when compared to Murray's accurately depicts the difference in talent level between these two players, IMO.
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.
My long list was merely a reply to Skinpinch claiming I only listed a stat or two. While I feel Rice is a bit closer overall to Murray, I do agree with much of your assessments.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i> BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
>>
Jaxxr, your true colors show right here in this line among your flawed lists.
Notice how in this one only, you chose to limit the Batting Average criteria to "best AL season." Hmmm, I wonder why you would do that?
Is it because you simply chose to ignore that Murray hit .330 with the Dodgers, thus eclipsing Rice's best single season average, therefore ruining one of your goofy methods?????
This is a pure weasel move! This exemplifies the Wagner/Kingman method probably better than anything else!
Don't even bother to try and fix it by saying, "we can give him that one," because it is the weasel cherry picking that gives you away.
You desire to look further into Rice/Murray, and it HAS BEEN looked further in the comprehensive methods. They all say the same thing, Murray>RIce in peak and in career. It isn't even that close. But you would rather use the Kingman/Wagner method and be a weasel to fulfill some void in your life to make yourself feel better about Jim Rice.
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. "
"Some" stat betterment means just that, several aspects show Rice betters Murray , not all, nor conclusive, but enough to provide an ample base for a comparison.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Another aspect of the Kingman/Wagner method is to simply ignore or gloss over important information. In this case you are now glossing over the importance of how your weasel method takes away all of your credibility(at least on this topic). It exposes you, as outlined below and above.
<< BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
>>
Jaxxr, your true colors show right here in this line among your flawed lists.
Notice how in this one only, you chose to limit the Batting Average criteria to "best AL season." Hmmm, I wonder why you would do that?
Is it because you simply chose to ignore that Murray hit .330 with the Dodgers, thus eclipsing Rice's best single season average, therefore ruining one of your goofy methods?????
This is a pure weasel move! This exemplifies the Wagner/Kingman method probably better than anything else!
Don't even bother to try and fix it by saying, "we can give him that one," because it is the weasel cherry picking that gives you away.
Kindly be so good as to piont out the specific incorrect stats I may have inadvertnetly listed, there certainly were many which show Rice's betterment over Murray, and there could be an error.
Here's another list you may enjoy,
JIm Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, only nine other retired HOF ballplayers 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.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
You didn't make an error by purposely limiting the batting average to AL only. Nowhere else in your list did you go out of the way to establish some meaningless criteria like that. You did it ONLY because you know that Murray had a higher average than Rice in his best season. So you found some meaningless angle to negate that...much like all the other arbitrary angles you have done. It was a weasel move.
As for your list of career batting average and total HR and only certain guys being higher. Sure, it is worthy of recognition, but again, without accounting for Fenway inflating that average, or a short career 'protecting' it from the inevitable drop, that list is basically trivial. SO why would I enjoy something that is missing big pieces of information? Also, I can make several lists where Bobby Bonds belongs, and Babe Ruth doesn't. Those are trivial. What matters is their ultimate value.
Rice was good. He simply was not as good as Eddie MUrray. He was appx 300 runs worth of baseball away from him. If you feel that is worthy of being a HOFer I can't argue with you(I would point out all the others who then should be included who were better). But if you feel that this run value difference is somehow incorrect and the jaxxr method is more accurate, than we are back at sqaure one of the Jaxxr method.
You seem to thirst for a detailed comparison, but they have already been compared in very high detail with WinShare, Situational Batter RUns, etc... It doesn't get any more detailed than that, and it is so far more valid than your guessing and assumption game that it is ridiculous that you choose the Jaxxr method over the details you seem to crave for.
Various established HOF rankings or inks, calculate that BOTH Jim Rice and Eddie Muarry are equally qualified for the HOF, by positives in 3 out of 4. Thus a reasonable similarity exists, both all stars from a similar time era, and both fine hitters. There are more than just a few stats which actually favor Rice. Probably a full detailed comparison might show Murray was a bit better than Rice, but still reasonably worth a comparison, as 71 % of the most current HOF voters felt Rice was indeed a HOFer.
No one wth even a mediocre baseball knowledge, would gauge Honus Wagner worthy of a comparison to Dave Kingman.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Jaxxr, again, there are a few stats that favor Rice here or there and without looking at Context. The totality is what matters. The 300 runs difference is what matters. Within the systems that all produce the full look, there are small errors to account for. None of those errors are big enough to erase a difference that large, not even close.
Those HOF monitors by Bill James were created to show a likelihood of a player being elected(based on the ignorance of the writers). They are by no means there for a valid measure of being qualified.
You still keep saying a valid detailed comparison "might" show Murray being better than Rice. There isn't any might, the valid comparisons DO show he is better...about 300 runs worth better. It isn't even close. Only the Jaxxr method makes them close.
You obviously have some hidden Rice agenda, otherwise I don't know what else would prompt you to do the weasel method you did, and to completely ignore factors that you recognize in other comparisons.
You are still trying to defend your comparisons of Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman as somehow rational.
Well good for you, you may finally be willing to admit you wrote the treads and inserted them into many others. Perhaps you will realize you yourself, or an internal demon, also wrote one comparing Dave Kingman with Pete Rose.
"Those HOF monitors by Bill James were created to show a likelihood of a player being elected(based on the ignorance of the writers)."
I would guess Bill James did not base any rankings on the "ignorance" of HOF voters. If you investigate them a bit deeper you will perhaps understand what they do actually measure. Merely because a member of the BB Writers Association of America might not agree with your personal opinions, ( such as comparing Wagner to Kingman ) does not mean they are ignorant, please try to be just a little open-minded.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Jaxxr, you need to take your own open minded advice.
You tried a weasel method and you have lost ALL credibility. Your entire process has been weasal-like & biased...the jaxxr method.
Since I am having fun debating one w/ limited mental capacity, I will continue.
Murray is appx 300 runs worth greater than Rice.
Without looking it up for preciseness, Wagner is probably about 900+ runs worth better than Kong.
As I said way back when, both comparisons Wagner/Kingman, and Rice/Murray are silly comparisons. They are on different levels of silliniess, but silly nonetheless. The difference of silliness is probably around 600 runs worth.
<< <i>I would guess Bill James did not base any rankings on the "ignorance" of HOF voters. If you investigate them a bit deeper you will perhaps understand what they do actually measure. >>
And your guess would be wrong. I have told you at least ten times that you are wrong to cite the HOF Monitor, etc. in the way that you do - as "established", "accepted", etc. - but you just plug right along.
If there is one person on this planet who thinks less of Jim Rice than I do, it is Bill James. If you cited Black Ink or any of those other measures to Bill James as evidence that Rice was qualified for the HOF he would either laugh at you or slap you and then laugh at you. If in no other area, please believe me that you are making a fool of yourself citing those James measures as "evidence" of anything. They indicate that Rice is likely to get in the Hall - which nobody is arguing; they tell us NOTHING about whether he deserves to.
And you telling hoopster to investigate a bit deeper to perhaps understand what a statistic is actually measuring - that may be the funniest thing I have ever read on these boards. Thank you if that was intentional; my condolences if it was not.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"I have told you at least ten times that you are wrong to cite the HOF Monitor, etc. in the way that you do - as "established", "accepted", etc."
Steve, no matter how often you repeat something does not make you correct.
You apparently feel the four different, quite popular, and often quoted ranking systems are not "accepted" by many. They may not be accepted by you personally, but they are , in fact, used and accepted by many.
You have your own thought process, and own opinions, you evidently still feel a Wagner-Kingman comprison is rational, as well.
BB Refernce .com , a very widely used and respected source, actually uses all four with almost each and every MLB player there ever was. Great numbers of posters herein , or on other baseball related sites, very often quote those rate methods. Some tests or ranks apply a numerical value for particular hitting items, some may add the importance of league leading sasons, some compares stats with current HOF members, one measures likelyhood of HOF election. None are perfect, neither is any other system, not RC per 162 games, not Win Shares, not Batting average, nor Runs Produced either.
One may consider the well known "Black Ink" test to evaluate HOF merit acceptable, or unacceptable, regardless; Black Ink: Batting - 11 (208) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Eddie Murray Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Jim Rice
The 3 times betterment shown by Rice might tend to lead reasonable people to feel Rice could rationally be compared to Murray.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Jaxxr, I think YOU have officially labeled yourself, as well as your Kingman/Wagner methods...as officially mentally retarded. There can't be another explanation.
I already pointed out how you are a weasel. I just can't believe you keep posting nonsense after nonsense...but it makes for good comedy, as I am sure many are getting a good laugh.
Yeah, you can call me another Axtell or whatever. THe thing is Axtell was probably 10X more clever and smarter than you are...and he even knew more about baseball than you. He said some horrible things to people's physical well being, and he should have apologized and made good for those things(He never did). He should have never said them to begin with.
So if my writings have me being called an Axtell for calling out a biased fool, I guess that is the way it is.
But keep in mind, your writings have labeled you moronic and weasel-like, and you have now created the Jaxxr method, a term which one day may be equated on the same level of notoriety as with being Munsoned...LOL!
The comparison of Kingman-Wagner was made by You and you alone, you yourself posted it, then inserted it in other spots, You constantly bring it it up and claim you did not start it, you even once cleverly posted that I, in fact, never did compare "them two" You also went on to compare Pete Rose to Kingman, you can check the posts you startd to verify all this.
The quite solid comparison of Skinpinch/Hoopster-Axtell currently on the CU board, was NOT started by me, just as the insane Wagner-Kingamn comparison, was not either. The most recent count shows a majoity of voters feel you are more offensive.
You noted about Axtell, "He said some horrible things" and "He should have never said them to begin with". Here are some of your own recent personal comments;
"...as officially mentally retarded.", or " the weasel method you did", or maybe "a biased fool", or "just plain ignorance on his part.", or a very mature one, " I am having fun debating one w/ limited mental capacity, I will continue", or even, "Jaxxr is the new village idiot, "
It is a shame you fail to grasp the obvious similarity in your style, and Mr Axtell's.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I don't care if you, or anyone, likens me to Axtell.
You should be more concerned about your Kingman/Wagner METHODS making you looking mentally retarded.
All this time I was hoping that you were pulling a JoeStalin, and that you were just doing this dumb act to aggravate Dallas or I. That hope is getting harder and harder to have a chance to come true.
And Jaxxr, you were the ultimate weasel in your methods. Don't ever let that escape you.
<< <i>Steve, no matter how often you repeat something does not make you correct.
You apparently feel the four different, quite popular, and often quoted ranking systems are not "accepted" by many. They may not be accepted by you personally, but they are , in fact, used and accepted by many. >>
No, but my being right makes me right no matter how many times you ignore me.
You say "four different" as if Bill James did not invent all four. You say "quite popular" and "often quoted" as if that means something - WHY are they popular, HOW are they quoted? You have no idea but you plug along as if you do. You say they are "accepted", but accepted for what purpose? You don't know, you have made a wrong assumption, and you plug along knocking over every stop sign in your path like my grandmother in her Oldsmobile. Yes, they are "used and accepted by many" as are Oldsmobiles; but other people use them correctly.
Bill James invented these measurements to predict who would make the HOF. As such, they have proved to be reasonably effective. THAT is their purpose; that is their ONLY purpose. Ignore me if you want to, but what you are really doing is telling Bill James that his inventions do not do what he invented them to do, instead they do something that would make him sick to his stomach. None of those measures were designed to, nor do they, say anything at all about who deserves to be in the HOF; whether you believe it from me or you (lol) do your own research that is simply a fact. It is a fact that you have misused them repeatedly despite being told you were wrong and it is a fact that it annoys me more than fingernails on a chalkboard. PLEASE make up your own stats to demonstrate that inferior players are better than superior players, and stop dragging Bill James' name down into your statistical sewer.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Your continious posting of crude, foolish, and very coarse personal remarks, seem to indicate a true instability, and complete lack of common courtesy.
It is very evident, the lack of an intelligent respone, can often cause immature people to stoop to insults rather than think reasonably. You post; "making you looking mentally retarded."
For some people a serious family problem, or a deep emotional problem thay may have, your constant use of such insults is quite shallow and very unfortunate . It is truly a shame your personal thinking allows you to make light of such matters.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
It is awful when a family has a medical problem, and I make no light of that. I wish everyone in the world prosperous health and wealth. I hope you are just having a lapse or something, rather than a deficiency.
In all seriousness, what on earth do you expect anyone to think after reading you downright moronic thoughts/methods. Knowing that it is obvious that you cannot see this yourself, maybe you are missing a chromosome. There has to be something at work here. Like I said, I was hoping that you were just doing this to be a pain, and I still hold hope that is what it is.
Why don't you address the weasel move you did?? You still are glossing over that.
Why don't you address again what Dallas told you about Bill James's creations?
You won't, because that is all part of the Kingman/Wagner method that you have developed and possibly perfected.
Edited to add: All intelligent responses to you are a waste, because you either simply ignore them, or can't comprehend them.
I did once have the pleasure of meeting Bill James, very brief, and never did go into any detail about Black Ink, nor did I have the chance to ask him what he might feel about a Wagner-Kingman comparison.
Those tests are widely used, abd popular, that does, in the real world, count for something, and they still are apllied today to current ballplayers, Oldsmobiles are not produced anymore. Those tests, still cceptable to many, despite what you many think, are broad, general indicators, as are many methods, in your opinion they may be useless and in your opinion the BWA may be ignorant. It is still hard to understand how one can feel Mr James actually created these measures to be "based on the ignorance of HOF voters", but, if one truly believes, that is why he produced Grey Ink and similar, so be it.
And Skin still emulates Axtell very well, "I hope you are just having a lapse or something, rather than a deficiency."
In a prior post I did state, Some of us probably over rate Jim Rice, some of us probably under rate JIm Rice, the voters shall decide.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Just for clarity here is what James wrote about the Hall of Fame standards: "I'm not here to advocate the position that this is a good way to find the best players. It has its points; it has its weaknesses. Sometimes the numbers give a misleading impression of a player's value. "
In regard to the Hall of Fame monitor, "The monitor is an amoral system; it is concerned with what does happen in the voting, now what should, and thus it gives various accomplishments a somewhat illogical weight, to make players' records match up with the voting........ This isn't my judgment; it just reflects the voting."
<< <i>and thus it gives various accomplishments a somewhat illogical weight, >>
No wonder why Jaxxr likes it so much.
I find it funny that Jaxxr embraces a James creation that James states is not the best way to find the best players, etc..
Yet he dismisses the James creation that James does promote as scientific and far more accurate.
Why would Jaxxr do this? Because he has perfected the weasel method. Jaxxr, you made a similar weasel move as pointed out already. You have a pretty solid M/O going. Jaxxr, you do this to find some angle to try and promote a notion that isn't true...the notion that Rice is as good as Murray.
Once you finally recognize that Rice is appx 300 runs in value(or any equivalent distance with another method) behind Murray and state that Rice should be in the HOF for other reasons pertaining more to the fame portion, then I don't have a beef with you. I would respect your opinion because it would make sense, and opinon would come into play in that regaard.
Once you recognize that Rice was as good as Murray at their ONE YEAR Peak, and close at their two year peak... then the gap continues to widen much more from every year after that, then you are on your way to understanding the two players's ability.
Jim Rice has quite reasonable HOFconsideration value, and just narrowly missed selection last year,getting 71% of the vote, he has some stat betterment in several areas, HRs and Slugging especially, over a peer HOFer or two. He is ranked qualified by 3 of 4 popular and widely used tests, he has had a few very noteable single season marks. The former AL MVP has a career combination of power and batting average, that is surpassed by only a few HOF batters.
A guy like Dave Kingman, the actual topic of this thread, has some, but relatively few, HOF credentials, and is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from a truly elite member of the baseball HOF, Honus Wagner.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Those tests are widely used, abd popular, that does, in the real world, count for something, and they still are apllied today to current ballplayers, Oldsmobiles are not produced anymore. >>
You win. I am speechless. My hope is that the damage done to my brain by that sentence is not permanent. hoopster, I will never doubt you again.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I must admit, I admire Jaxxr's tenacity at this point...
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.
Comments
here's more than two, in a quick reply
Slg. Pct, single season, career average, peak seasons.
Triples, career average, peak seasomns, and single season,
Hits, best single season, top peak years, better career average.
BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
RBI, best single season, peak seasons and career average
Total Bases, best single season, top peak seasons, best career average,
Runs scored, best single season, top peak years, top career average.
ALL 21 items in favor of Rice
League leading seasons;
HRs, Rice 3, Murray 1, a strike shortened season
RBI, Rice 2, Murray 1, a strike shortened season
Total bases, Rice 4, Murray 0
OPS, Rice 1, Murray 0
Triples, Rice 1, Murray 0
Adjusted OPS +, Rice 1, Murray 0
Hits, Rice 1, Murray 0
Slg Pct, Rice 2, Murray 0
Runs created, Rice 1 Murray 0
OBP, Rice 0, Murray 1
MVP, Rice 1, Murray 0
17 to 3, being the very best for a particular season
Other items,
Four times Rice got 200 hit seasons, Murray never did, Rice has a higher BA and Slg. pct. with men on base or with runners in scoring position than Murray, Rice has a better HRF than Murray, Rice has a better OPS than Murray, Rice has a better OPS+ than Murray, Rice gets a lesser, by one point, adjusted OPS+ when PF is used. Fenway probably helped Rice somewhat, however he actually hit better at Yankee Stadium.
All of the aforementioned might not "prove" any betterement, however, it would seem to indicate a comparison of the two players from the same time span would be fairly reasonable.
There is the Kingman/Wagner method at work again!! The complete neglect of ballpark, career length, and then some!
This is great...keep 'em coming.
Triples, career average, peak seasomns, and single season,
Hits, best single season, top peak years, better career average.
BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
RBI, best single season, peak seasons and career average
Total Bases, best single season, top peak seasons, best career average,
Runs scored, best single season, top peak years, top career average.
ALL 21 items in favor of Rice
League leading seasons;
HRs, Rice 3, Murray 1, a strike shortened season
RBI, Rice 2, Murray 1, a strike shortened season
Total bases, Rice 4, Murray 0
OPS, Rice 1, Murray 0
Triples, Rice 1, Murray 0
Adjusted OPS +, Rice 1, Murray 0
Hits, Rice 1, Murray 0
Slg Pct, Rice 2, Murray 0
Runs created, Rice 1 Murray 0
OBP, Rice 0, Murray 1
MVP, Rice 1, Murray 0
17 to 3, being the very best for a particular season
Other items,
Four times Rice got 200 hit seasons, Murray never did, Rice has a higher BA and Slg. pct. with men on base or with runners in scoring position than Murray, Rice has a better HRF than Murray, Rice has a better OPS than Murray, Rice has a better OPS+ than Murray, Rice gets a lesser, by one point, adjusted OPS+ when PF is used. Fenway probably helped Rice somewhat, however he actually hit better at Yankee Stadium.
All of the aforementioned might not "prove" any betterement, however, it would seem to indicate a comparison of the two players from the same time span would be fairly reasonable.
Jaxxt,
In all seriousness, you claim in prior posts that you are not implying that Rice was better than Murray, but then you use all of these stats to indicate otherwise. I don't think you'd find more than 1 out of a 50 informed baseball fans that would say that Rice had a better career than Murray based on these stats, mainly because Rice played all his home games at Fenway Park.
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.
Would you feel a comparison of Rice and Murray is perhaps somewhat reasonable, possibly Rice is not as far removed from Murray than a quick perception might give, worth looking into further at least ?
Would you feel a comparison of Rice and Murray is perhaps somewhat reasonable, possibly Rice is not as far removed from Murray than a quick perception might give, worth looking into further at least ?
I was a fan of Jim Rice's growing up (even though I lived in NY) and he was a fearsome hitter for about a 4-5 year stretch, but Murray is definitely the better all-around player, IMO, and a slam dunk first ballot HOFer. I would not be upset if Rice made it into the Hall, but his road to enshrinement (and he is not guaranteed to get in this year either) when compared to Murray's accurately depicts the difference in talent level between these two players, IMO.
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.
My long list was merely a reply to Skinpinch claiming I only listed a stat or two. While I feel Rice is a bit closer overall to Murray, I do agree with much of your assessments.
<< <i>
BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
Jaxxr, your true colors show right here in this line among your flawed lists.
Notice how in this one only, you chose to limit the Batting Average criteria to "best AL season." Hmmm, I wonder why you would do that?
Is it because you simply chose to ignore that Murray hit .330 with the Dodgers, thus eclipsing Rice's best single season average, therefore ruining one of your goofy methods?????
This is a pure weasel move! This exemplifies the Wagner/Kingman method probably better than anything else!
Don't even bother to try and fix it by saying, "we can give him that one," because it is the weasel cherry picking that gives you away.
You desire to look further into Rice/Murray, and it HAS BEEN looked further in the comprehensive methods. They all say the same thing, Murray>RIce in peak and in career. It isn't even that close. But you would rather use the Kingman/Wagner method and be a weasel to fulfill some void in your life to make yourself feel better about Jim Rice.
"Some" stat betterment means just that, several aspects show Rice betters Murray , not all, nor conclusive, but enough to provide an ample base for a comparison.
Another aspect of the Kingman/Wagner method is to simply ignore or gloss over important information. In this case you are now glossing over the importance of how your weasel method takes away all of your credibility(at least on this topic). It exposes you, as outlined below and above.
<<
BA, career, peak seasons, best single AL season,
>>
Jaxxr, your true colors show right here in this line among your flawed lists.
Notice how in this one only, you chose to limit the Batting Average criteria to "best AL season." Hmmm, I wonder why you would do that?
Is it because you simply chose to ignore that Murray hit .330 with the Dodgers, thus eclipsing Rice's best single season average, therefore ruining one of your goofy methods?????
This is a pure weasel move! This exemplifies the Wagner/Kingman method probably better than anything else!
Don't even bother to try and fix it by saying, "we can give him that one," because it is the weasel cherry picking that gives you away.
Kindly be so good as to piont out the specific incorrect stats I may have inadvertnetly listed,
there certainly were many which show Rice's betterment over Murray, and there could be an error.
Here's another list you may enjoy,
JIm Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, only nine other retired HOF ballplayers 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.
You didn't make an error by purposely limiting the batting average to AL only. Nowhere else in your list did you go out of the way to establish some meaningless criteria like that. You did it ONLY because you know that Murray had a higher average than Rice in his best season. So you found some meaningless angle to negate that...much like all the other arbitrary angles you have done. It was a weasel move.
As for your list of career batting average and total HR and only certain guys being higher. Sure, it is worthy of recognition, but again, without accounting for Fenway inflating that average, or a short career 'protecting' it from the inevitable drop, that list is basically trivial. SO why would I enjoy something that is missing big pieces of information? Also, I can make several lists where Bobby Bonds belongs, and Babe Ruth doesn't. Those are trivial. What matters is their ultimate value.
Rice was good. He simply was not as good as Eddie MUrray. He was appx 300 runs worth of baseball away from him. If you feel that is worthy of being a HOFer I can't argue with you(I would point out all the others who then should be included who were better). But if you feel that this run value difference is somehow incorrect and the jaxxr method is more accurate, than we are back at sqaure one of the Jaxxr method.
You seem to thirst for a detailed comparison, but they have already been compared in very high detail with WinShare, Situational Batter RUns, etc... It doesn't get any more detailed than that, and it is so far more valid than your guessing and assumption game that it is ridiculous that you choose the Jaxxr method over the details you seem to crave for.
Various established HOF rankings or inks, calculate that BOTH Jim Rice and Eddie Muarry are equally qualified for the HOF, by positives in 3 out of 4.
Thus a reasonable similarity exists, both all stars from a similar time era, and both fine hitters. There are more than just a few stats which actually favor Rice. Probably a full detailed comparison might show Murray was a bit better than Rice, but still reasonably worth a comparison, as 71 % of the most current HOF voters felt Rice was indeed a HOFer.
No one wth even a mediocre baseball knowledge, would gauge Honus Wagner worthy of a comparison to Dave Kingman.
Those HOF monitors by Bill James were created to show a likelihood of a player being elected(based on the ignorance of the writers). They are by no means there for a valid measure of being qualified.
You still keep saying a valid detailed comparison "might" show Murray being better than Rice. There isn't any might, the valid comparisons DO show he is better...about 300 runs worth better. It isn't even close. Only the Jaxxr method makes them close.
You obviously have some hidden Rice agenda, otherwise I don't know what else would prompt you to do the weasel method you did, and to completely ignore factors that you recognize in other comparisons.
Well good for you, you may finally be willing to admit you wrote the treads and inserted them into many others. Perhaps you will realize you yourself, or an internal demon, also wrote one comparing Dave Kingman with Pete Rose.
"Those HOF monitors by Bill James were created to show a likelihood of a player being elected(based on the ignorance of the writers)."
I would guess Bill James did not base any rankings on the "ignorance" of HOF voters. If you investigate them a bit deeper you will perhaps understand what they do actually measure.
Merely because a member of the BB Writers Association of America might not agree with your personal opinions, ( such as comparing Wagner to Kingman ) does not mean they are ignorant, please try to be just a little open-minded.
You tried a weasel method and you have lost ALL credibility. Your entire process has been weasal-like & biased...the jaxxr method.
Since I am having fun debating one w/ limited mental capacity, I will continue.
Murray is appx 300 runs worth greater than Rice.
Without looking it up for preciseness, Wagner is probably about 900+ runs worth better than Kong.
As I said way back when, both comparisons Wagner/Kingman, and Rice/Murray are silly comparisons. They are on different levels of silliniess, but silly nonetheless. The difference of silliness is probably around 600 runs worth.
Or you can use the Jaxxr method, LOL!
<< <i>I would guess Bill James did not base any rankings on the "ignorance" of HOF voters. If you investigate them a bit deeper you will perhaps understand what they do actually measure. >>
And your guess would be wrong. I have told you at least ten times that you are wrong to cite the HOF Monitor, etc. in the way that you do - as "established", "accepted", etc. - but you just plug right along.
If there is one person on this planet who thinks less of Jim Rice than I do, it is Bill James. If you cited Black Ink or any of those other measures to Bill James as evidence that Rice was qualified for the HOF he would either laugh at you or slap you and then laugh at you. If in no other area, please believe me that you are making a fool of yourself citing those James measures as "evidence" of anything. They indicate that Rice is likely to get in the Hall - which nobody is arguing; they tell us NOTHING about whether he deserves to.
And you telling hoopster to investigate a bit deeper to perhaps understand what a statistic is actually measuring - that may be the funniest thing I have ever read on these boards. Thank you if that was intentional; my condolences if it was not.
Steve, no matter how often you repeat something does not make you correct.
You apparently feel the four different, quite popular, and often quoted ranking systems are not "accepted" by many.
They may not be accepted by you personally, but they are , in fact, used and accepted by many.
You have your own thought process, and own opinions, you evidently still feel a Wagner-Kingman comprison is rational, as well.
BB Refernce .com , a very widely used and respected source, actually uses all four with almost each and every MLB player there ever was. Great numbers of posters herein , or on other baseball related sites, very often quote those rate methods.
Some tests or ranks apply a numerical value for particular hitting items, some may add the importance of league leading sasons, some compares stats with current HOF members, one measures likelyhood of HOF election.
None are perfect, neither is any other system, not RC per 162 games, not Win Shares, not Batting average, nor Runs Produced either.
One may consider the well known "Black Ink" test to evaluate HOF merit acceptable, or unacceptable, regardless;
Black Ink: Batting - 11 (208) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Eddie Murray
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Jim Rice
The 3 times betterment shown by Rice might tend to lead reasonable people to feel Rice could rationally be compared to Murray.
I already pointed out how you are a weasel. I just can't believe you keep posting nonsense after nonsense...but it makes for good comedy, as I am sure many are getting a good laugh.
Yeah, you can call me another Axtell or whatever. THe thing is Axtell was probably 10X more clever and smarter than you are...and he even knew more about baseball than you. He said some horrible things to people's physical well being, and he should have apologized and made good for those things(He never did). He should have never said them to begin with.
So if my writings have me being called an Axtell for calling out a biased fool, I guess that is the way it is.
But keep in mind, your writings have labeled you moronic and weasel-like, and you have now created the Jaxxr method, a term which one day may be equated on the same level of notoriety as with being Munsoned...LOL!
The comparison of Kingman-Wagner was made by You and you alone, you yourself posted it, then inserted it in other spots, You constantly bring it it up and claim you did not start it, you even once cleverly posted that I, in fact, never did compare "them two" You also went on to compare Pete Rose to Kingman, you can check the posts you startd to verify all this.
The quite solid comparison of Skinpinch/Hoopster-Axtell currently on the CU board, was NOT started by me, just as the insane Wagner-Kingamn comparison, was not either.
The most recent count shows a majoity of voters feel you are more offensive.
You noted about Axtell, "He said some horrible things" and "He should have never said them to begin with".
Here are some of your own recent personal comments;
"...as officially mentally retarded.", or " the weasel method you did", or maybe "a biased fool", or "just plain ignorance on his part.", or a very mature one, " I am having fun debating one w/ limited mental capacity, I will continue", or even, "Jaxxr is the new village idiot, "
It is a shame you fail to grasp the obvious similarity in your style, and Mr Axtell's.
I don't care if you, or anyone, likens me to Axtell.
You should be more concerned about your Kingman/Wagner METHODS making you looking mentally retarded.
All this time I was hoping that you were pulling a JoeStalin, and that you were just doing this dumb act to aggravate Dallas or I. That hope is getting harder and harder to have a chance to come true.
And Jaxxr, you were the ultimate weasel in your methods. Don't ever let that escape you.
<< <i>Steve, no matter how often you repeat something does not make you correct.
You apparently feel the four different, quite popular, and often quoted ranking systems are not "accepted" by many.
They may not be accepted by you personally, but they are , in fact, used and accepted by many.
>>
No, but my being right makes me right no matter how many times you ignore me.
You say "four different" as if Bill James did not invent all four. You say "quite popular" and "often quoted" as if that means something - WHY are they popular, HOW are they quoted? You have no idea but you plug along as if you do. You say they are "accepted", but accepted for what purpose? You don't know, you have made a wrong assumption, and you plug along knocking over every stop sign in your path like my grandmother in her Oldsmobile. Yes, they are "used and accepted by many" as are Oldsmobiles; but other people use them correctly.
Bill James invented these measurements to predict who would make the HOF. As such, they have proved to be reasonably effective. THAT is their purpose; that is their ONLY purpose. Ignore me if you want to, but what you are really doing is telling Bill James that his inventions do not do what he invented them to do, instead they do something that would make him sick to his stomach. None of those measures were designed to, nor do they, say anything at all about who deserves to be in the HOF; whether you believe it from me or you (lol) do your own research that is simply a fact. It is a fact that you have misused them repeatedly despite being told you were wrong and it is a fact that it annoys me more than fingernails on a chalkboard. PLEASE make up your own stats to demonstrate that inferior players are better than superior players, and stop dragging Bill James' name down into your statistical sewer.
Your continious posting of crude, foolish, and very coarse personal remarks, seem to indicate a true instability, and complete lack of common courtesy.
It is very evident, the lack of an intelligent respone, can often cause immature people to stoop to insults rather than think reasonably. You post;
"making you looking mentally retarded."
For some people a serious family problem, or a deep emotional problem thay may have, your constant use of such insults is quite shallow and very unfortunate .
It is truly a shame your personal thinking allows you to make light of such matters.
It is awful when a family has a medical problem, and I make no light of that. I wish everyone in the world prosperous health and wealth. I hope you are just having a lapse or something, rather than a deficiency.
In all seriousness, what on earth do you expect anyone to think after reading you downright moronic thoughts/methods. Knowing that it is obvious that you cannot see this yourself, maybe you are missing a chromosome. There has to be something at work here. Like I said, I was hoping that you were just doing this to be a pain, and I still hold hope that is what it is.
Why don't you address the weasel move you did?? You still are glossing over that.
Why don't you address again what Dallas told you about Bill James's creations?
You won't, because that is all part of the Kingman/Wagner method that you have developed and possibly perfected.
Edited to add: All intelligent responses to you are a waste, because you either simply ignore them, or can't comprehend them.
very brief, and never did go into any detail about Black Ink, nor did I have the chance to ask him what he might feel about a Wagner-Kingman comparison.
Those tests are widely used, abd popular, that does, in the real world, count for something, and they still are apllied today to current ballplayers, Oldsmobiles are not produced anymore.
Those tests, still cceptable to many, despite what you many think, are broad, general indicators, as are many methods, in your opinion they may be useless and in your opinion the BWA may be ignorant. It is still hard to understand how one can feel Mr James actually created these measures to be "based on the ignorance of HOF voters", but, if one truly believes, that is why he produced Grey Ink and similar, so be it.
And Skin still emulates Axtell very well,
"I hope you are just having a lapse or something, rather than a deficiency."
In a prior post I did state,
Some of us probably over rate Jim Rice, some of us probably under rate JIm Rice, the voters shall decide.
"I'm not here to advocate the position that this is a good way to find the best players. It has its points; it has its weaknesses. Sometimes the numbers give a misleading impression of a player's value. "
In regard to the Hall of Fame monitor,
"The monitor is an amoral system; it is concerned with what does happen in the voting, now what should, and thus it gives various accomplishments a somewhat illogical weight, to make players' records match up with the voting........ This isn't my judgment; it just reflects the voting."
Absolutely correct, Mr James would probably agree there is no single method known which is 100% correct, all the time.
OPS +, Runs produced, RC600, VORP, Win Shares, Triple Crown stats, Total bases, or BA/RISP, dont completely or fully express a hitters' worth.
It would be great to have polite and courteous discussion about those items, or any topic involving baseball.
<< <i>and thus it gives various accomplishments a somewhat illogical weight, >>
No wonder why Jaxxr likes it so much.
I find it funny that Jaxxr embraces a James creation that James states is not the best way to find the best players, etc..
Yet he dismisses the James creation that James does promote as scientific and far more accurate.
Why would Jaxxr do this? Because he has perfected the weasel method. Jaxxr, you made a similar weasel move as pointed out already. You have a pretty solid M/O going. Jaxxr, you do this to find some angle to try and promote a notion that isn't true...the notion that Rice is as good as Murray.
Once you finally recognize that Rice is appx 300 runs in value(or any equivalent distance with another method) behind Murray and state that Rice should be in the HOF for other reasons pertaining more to the fame portion, then I don't have a beef with you. I would respect your opinion because it would make sense, and opinon would come into play in that regaard.
Once you recognize that Rice was as good as Murray at their ONE YEAR Peak, and close at their two year peak... then the gap continues to widen much more from every year after that, then you are on your way to understanding the two players's ability.
A guy like Dave Kingman, the actual topic of this thread, has some, but relatively few, HOF credentials, and is far removed from any real HOF consideration, and probably light years away from a truly elite member of the baseball HOF, Honus Wagner.
<< <i>Those tests are widely used, abd popular, that does, in the real world, count for something, and they still are apllied today to current ballplayers, Oldsmobiles are not produced anymore. >>
You win. I am speechless. My hope is that the damage done to my brain by that sentence is not permanent. hoopster, I will never doubt you again.
The topic of this thread, Dave Kingman,
Gray Ink: Batting - 74 (321) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 22.6 (521) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 49.0 (375) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Unqualified via 3 of 3 selected ranks.
Another player who is a reasonable HOF candidate, Bert Blyleven
Gray Ink: Pitching - 237 (25) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 50.0 (38) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 120.5 (69) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Qualidied on 3 of 3 selected ranks, possibly neutral on one, but certainly not a negative expression.
Shall we assume they are improper ? Should we think they have no value in evaluating Blylevens' merit ?
JIm Rice and Eddie Murrya rate qualified on 3 of those ranks, Honus Wagner is rated qualified on all 4 of those type of ranks.
Might one assume that they are usually somewhat accurate, not perfect of course as no system can be, in showing the potential for a HOF selection ?
4 compared to 0, seems quite vastly different, than 3 compared to 3.
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.