Consistency in HOF Voting
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The excerpt below is from a link from Neyer's column:
Responsibility 3: Be intellectually consistent.
Look, again, The Common Man doesn’t think that a writer who would vote for Jack Morris is a bad voter. Indeed, if a voter thinks that Jack Morris was a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, he should have every right to cast that vote. But that voter then needs to be willing to vote for every player who is more worthy than Jack Morris. And there are HOF eligible pitchers who were much, much better than Black Jack. Such things have been demonstrably proven. Bert Blyleven, for instance, was far superior. He pitched more and longer, he won more games, his ERA was better relative to his league than Morris, he struck out more batters, he performed better in the postseason.
And if you believe in something as stupid as pitching to the score, Blyleven was better at that too. In which his team scored0-2 runs, Bert had a 3.35 ERA and a .193 winning percentage. In games that Morris pitched, in which his team scored 0-2 runs, Jack had a 4.00 ERA and a .134 winning percentage. In fact, Blyleven has a winning percentage that’s better than Morris in games that his team scored more than 5 runs as well. And the two are virtually tied in winning percentage (.598 for Morris, .595 for Bert) in games where their teams scored 3-5 runs. The only reason Blyleven’s overall winning percentage is so much lower than Morris’s is that Bert’s teams scored fewer than 3 runs per game in more than a third (34.5%) of his starts, while Morris’s clubs scored fewer than 3 runs in only 26% of his. Blyleven lost so many more games, then, because he was more often put in a position to lose. And in every aspect of a pitcher’s job, he was better than Morris.
Likewise, a writer can think Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer. But if he really thinks that, he should be prepared to vote for Tim Raines, who was miles better than Rice was in every aspect ofthe game except hitting homeruns. And a writer can believe in his heart of hearts that Omar Vizquel is a Hall of Famer. But then he’d better be voting for Barry Larkin and Alan Trammell.
The list goes on.
Unless a writer is taking the “fame” portion of “Hall of Fame” literally, they have no excuses for thinking that Morris, Rice, or Vizquel are better candidates. If a writer argues differently, they are either being intellectually inconsistent, intentionally obtuse, or woefully and willfully ignorant for reasons that we can’t really understand.
Responsibility 3: Be intellectually consistent.
Look, again, The Common Man doesn’t think that a writer who would vote for Jack Morris is a bad voter. Indeed, if a voter thinks that Jack Morris was a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher, he should have every right to cast that vote. But that voter then needs to be willing to vote for every player who is more worthy than Jack Morris. And there are HOF eligible pitchers who were much, much better than Black Jack. Such things have been demonstrably proven. Bert Blyleven, for instance, was far superior. He pitched more and longer, he won more games, his ERA was better relative to his league than Morris, he struck out more batters, he performed better in the postseason.
And if you believe in something as stupid as pitching to the score, Blyleven was better at that too. In which his team scored0-2 runs, Bert had a 3.35 ERA and a .193 winning percentage. In games that Morris pitched, in which his team scored 0-2 runs, Jack had a 4.00 ERA and a .134 winning percentage. In fact, Blyleven has a winning percentage that’s better than Morris in games that his team scored more than 5 runs as well. And the two are virtually tied in winning percentage (.598 for Morris, .595 for Bert) in games where their teams scored 3-5 runs. The only reason Blyleven’s overall winning percentage is so much lower than Morris’s is that Bert’s teams scored fewer than 3 runs per game in more than a third (34.5%) of his starts, while Morris’s clubs scored fewer than 3 runs in only 26% of his. Blyleven lost so many more games, then, because he was more often put in a position to lose. And in every aspect of a pitcher’s job, he was better than Morris.
Likewise, a writer can think Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer. But if he really thinks that, he should be prepared to vote for Tim Raines, who was miles better than Rice was in every aspect ofthe game except hitting homeruns. And a writer can believe in his heart of hearts that Omar Vizquel is a Hall of Famer. But then he’d better be voting for Barry Larkin and Alan Trammell.
The list goes on.
Unless a writer is taking the “fame” portion of “Hall of Fame” literally, they have no excuses for thinking that Morris, Rice, or Vizquel are better candidates. If a writer argues differently, they are either being intellectually inconsistent, intentionally obtuse, or woefully and willfully ignorant for reasons that we can’t really understand.
0
Comments
And for accuracy, "fame" is not a criteria for voting....
"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Whenver a fan gets mad when an advanced measurement shows the superiority of one player over another, they always pull out the popularity argument and such, yet that is not a criteria.
In fact, the 'player's record', 'playing ability', and 'contribution to the teams' are precisely what the advanced valid measurements are deciphering, and that is basically what the Hall of Fame is based on.
Integrity, Sportsmanship, and character are things that have not gotten a player into the Hall solely on those criteria...and lets face it, those criteria are a joke and have been treated by such based on the players who have been voted in and failed miserably in those categories. Plus, those things are almost impossible to truly assess, as it is just guess work, because there is no way one can truly know that about somebody whom they don't live daily with, i.e. the Puckett debacle.
It says right there....."player's contributions," not his TEAMMATES contributions. This is why RBI should not be the thing that should get guys into the Hall of Fame(like Jim Rice got in), because when you look at RIce's portion of those RBI contribution, it isn't as great as the raw total says, because his teammates were of great contribution to those totals. Unless one can show a player who had a marked level of improvement of hitting with men on base to get a greater number of RBI than others, then you can make a case. But one cannot look at the typical stuff fans look at if they want to figure out who should be in the Hall based on their criteria.
Some say that Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall twice, once for his own play, and once for Jim Rice's RBI totals. I would also say that Fenway park was elected to the Hall
I'm not really moved either way; I don't think it'd be a travesty if he got in, I also don't think it's a crime he's not in. Either way I look forward to your thoughts on this article.
1) Content - Thought-provoking Neyer link. Thanks.
2) Opinion - None of the players mentioned in any of the first three posts are Hall Of Fame worthy. The HOF is watered-down and it's getting worse. Consequently, a ceremony for two inductees every other year or every third year hereafter would suffice.
3) Point - Fame is not a criterion for Hall Of Fame entry. It is called a "Hall Of Fame" because inclusion helps ensure "fame" for the inductee.
4) Grammar - Poster(s) above should remember that "criteria" is the plural form of the singular "criterion".
2) Opinion - None of the players mentioned in any of the first three posts are Hall Of Fame worthy. The HOF is watered-down and it's getting worse. Consequently, a ceremony for two inductees every other year or every third year hereafter would suffice.
What's the case against Raines? His numbers are as good as Gwynn's-substitute Raines' walks for Gwynn's singles. Raines reached base more than Gwynn, had more power, and was waaaaaaaaaaaay more effective on the base paths.
<< <i>Some say that Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall twice, once for his own play, and once for Jim Rice's RBI totals. I would also say that Fenway park was elected to the Hall
This statement makes no sense for numerous reasons:
1. Rice accumulated more than half his total RBI before Boggs was even in the majors.
2. If that's the case then anyone who has high RBI totals should have the hitters in front of them inducted. Hell, anyone who played with Rickey Henderson's numbers should be discredited entirely for the fact when he reached base he was almost automatically in scoring position based on his stealing abilty. Isn't that what the hitters at the top of an order are supposed to do? Get on base and score runs. The one driving in the runs still has to push them across.
3. Lastly, the Fenway argument is weak. I grew up a Red Sox fan and watched close to every home game either on TV or in person for Rice's whole career and let me tell you something if it weren't for that 37+ foot LF wall people wouldn't have any problems with Rice's belonging in the HOF for the fact that his HR & RBI total would have been well over 400 & 1500 respectively which in turn would have also raised his career Avg. I can't tell you how many HR and other extra base hits Rice lost due to that wall. And don't say the wall helped his totals either cause we aren't talking someone who hit loopers off the wall and just over the top, we are talking about someone who put dents in it on a regular basis and hit shots that would have left any park. If you want to make a case that the wall helped someone then how about Boggs. I couldn't tell you how many lazy fly balls he slapped the other way off the monster that would have been an out anywhere else.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>
<< <i>Some say that Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall twice, once for his own play, and once for Jim Rice's RBI totals. I would also say that Fenway park was elected to the Hall
This statement makes no sense for numerous reasons:
1. Rice accumulated more than half his total RBI before Boggs was even in the majors.
2. If that's the case then anyone who has high RBI totals should have the hitters in front of them inducted. Hell, anyone who played with Rickey Henderson's numbers should be discredited entirely for the fact when he reached base he was almost automatically in scoring position based on his stealing abilty. Isn't that what the hitters at the top of an order are supposed to do? Get on base and score runs. The one driving in the runs still has to push them across.
3. Lastly, the Fenway argument is weak. I grew up a Red Sox fan and watched close to every home game either on TV or in person for Rice's whole career and let me tell you something if it weren't for that 37+ foot LF wall people wouldn't have any problems with Rice's belonging in the HOF for the fact that his HR & RBI total would have been well over 400 & 1500 respectively which in turn would have also raised his career Avg. I can't tell you how many HR and other extra base hits Rice lost due to that wall. And don't say the wall helped his totals either cause we aren't talking someone who hit loopers off the wall and just over the top, we are talking about someone who put dents in it on a regular basis and hit shots that would have left any park. If you want to make a case that the wall helped someone then how about Boggs. I couldn't tell you how many lazy fly balls he slapped the other way off the monster that would have been an out anywhere else. >>
That is a tired argument, and a typical one for a fan.
First, no it wasn't exclusively Boggs, but some of Rice's big RBI years in the 80's(that made him look better than he truly was), was in large part due to Boggs and Co. Would it please you to know that Rice was often among the league leaders in FAILING to drive runners in from scoring position? If you want to look at RBI totals and ignore why they were high, then you must also accept that fact of him failing to drive them in at a league high level.
2) Rice's Home totals were .320 BA, .374 OB%, .546 SLG%....and I hesitate to use RBI without the context of number of runners provided, but he had 802 at home
2) RIce's Road totas were: .277 BA, .330 OB%, .459 SLG%...and a road total of RBI of 649
Basically, in neutral parks, Rice was about as effective as Chili Davis. Not bad, but not where u think.
So looking at his road totals, you will honesly say that without Fenway, he would have been better??
When you add that pretty much all other full time REd Sox hitters saw similar increases at home, it is pretty easy to see what is at work.
Your memory is like all other's, it remembers what it wants and in the context it wants...but it doesn't make it reality.
From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the AL in total games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging average, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games, and outfield assists. Among all major league players during that time, Rice was the leader in five of these categories (Mike Schmidt is next, having led in four). So his so called "low" numbers are reflective of the era he played in like anyone else.
Currently only 10 other retired players rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, Frank Thomas and Ted Williams. Not a bad list.
In addition to winning the American League MVP award in 1978, he finished in the top five in MVP voting five other times (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1986).
Rice is the only player in major league history to record over 200 hits while hitting 39 or more HRs for three consecutive years.
Yes I'm a Rice fan, and yes I may be biased, but his stats were upper echelon in the era which he played and that's how you determine who belongs in the HOF in my opinion. How are you vs. the peers of your era not those who preceeded or followed you. And I'm done. Feel free to disagree We each have our opinion.
As far as Bert....I never remember at any time him being considered a star. Always a good picher; but never one of the leagues elite and therefore not a hall of famer. Basically, never even considered for a post season award.
<< <i>I'll put my biased goggles on one last time
From 1975 to 1986, Rice led the AL in total games played, at bats, >>
That explains WHY he led in a lot of those categories.
Fenway Park is responsible for his leading in a lot of those categories, you forgot that. His teammates are responsible for him leading in a lot of those categories, you forgot that.
The fact that a lot of player's prime years did not cover that exact span of years is a huge reason why he led those categories, you forgot that.
Where is OB%, outs made, number of runners LEFT in scoring position, number of RBI opportunities, ballpark effect?
You left out a bunch of information that determines the true worth of a batter/player...you can't leave that stuff out if you want an accurate portrayal of a player.
One cannot just pick/choose things, and leave out important information when determining ability and such.
The goal is to determine the ability of the player, not his teammates or ballpark.
Here is a more accurate appraisal of the hitting of the peers in that time span of '75-'86. OPS+. It includes all the things you wrote, adn the things you conveniently neglected.
Schmidt 154
Brett 147
Murray 143
Winfield 136
Singleton 135
Carew 135
Lynn 134
Reggie 133
Rice 133
The thing is, that isn't even including some of the prime years of those players, and those are only guys off the top of my head.
The most telling thing is most of those guys above had many other years where they were ranging from good to excellent...wheras that time span is Rice's entire viable career!
He was no longer a viable major league player by age 35.
Let me ask you, would you think I am crazy if I walked around saying I was a better, or as good a player as Pete O'Brien?
The Myth of most feared was debunked
The Myth of Most dominant in his prime was debunked
The Myth that Fenway didn't help him was debunked
The accurate method of determining career percentages and how it pertains to career length was explained.
I don't even know why I bothered to explain any of that above, it has been explained clearly multiple times on this board.
In fact, the posts refuting the information are exactly what Neyer is talking about.
Mickey71, almost any non valid stat can be made to make a player look good or bad...and that is exactly why one should not use those.
That explains WHY he led in a lot of those categories
-Longevity and durabilty is WHY a lot of players put up numbers they do isn't it?
His teammates are responsible for him leading in a lot of those categories, you forgot that.
-Isn't that the case for any hitter in baseball? It is a team sport
The fact that a lot of player's prime years did not cover that exact span of years is a huge reason why he led those categories, you forgot that.
- That is what an era is. It occurs the years you play. Is it his fault the years he was active? Compared to who was playing at the time he was upper echelon.
Here is a more accurate appraisal of the hitting of the peers in that time span of '75-'86. OPS+. It includes all the things you wrote, adn the things you conveniently neglected.
Schmidt 154
Brett 147
Murray 143
Winfield 136
Singleton 135
Carew 135
Lynn 134
Reggie 133
Rice 133
The thing is, that isn't even including some of the prime years of those players, and those are only guys off the top of my head.
-Good list. He's comparable to most everyone on that list. 6/8 which are HOFers. BTW Brett, Murray, Lynn, Winfield, Schmidt WERE all in their prime at that exact point in their careers were they not?
He was no longer a viable major league player by age 35.
-A bad back made that the case. Maybe it's due to the fact he wasn't a sissy like most of todays players who need rest days. He was paid to play so he did. Hurt or not, 162 times a year. After a while it takes its toll.
Regardless, it doesn't matter what you or I think, he's in the HOF and always will be and most his peers agree he belongs. Who cares how long it took to get there. That was controlled by people who should have absolutely no say in who's inducted, the writers, who coincedentally never got along with Rice. If you want to counter with numerous other stats and numbers feel free. Hey Mantle and Reggie struck out way too much. Ruth and Williams were below avg fielders. Mays and Clemente didn't draw enough walks, and Aaron and Rice grounded into too many DPs. Like Mickey71 said you can make good and bad stat arguments for anyone.
Let me ask you a question on two points you are having a hard time grasping.
If you and I were to have a home run hitting contest, and I got to hit in the little league field, and you had to hit in the high school field, would you feel it was a fair assessment of our ability if someone took our home run totals from that contest and proclaimed me that much better?
If you and I were to play on a different team, and the judgement of our ability were RBI's, but I got to pick your teammates....would you feel it were fair if I had more RBI than you because I got to bat every time with a man on third base, and you didn't get to bat once with a man on third base, and then as a result I got ten million dollars and you got zero?
All those players on the list had injuries in their 30's, yet they played. Rice simply was not good enough.
He was comparable to SOME of the players on that list, but not to the guys that were in their prime in those years, 1975-1986.
Schmidt 154
Brett 147
Murray 143
Rice 133
So his prime is NOT as good as those guys, yet those guys had lots of other years outside of that time frame as well.
For example, Rice only had 1,200 more plate apperances outside of those years, and his OPS+ was 95 in those years.
You and Mickey71 are correct, one can pick and choose certain stats to downgrade a player(like you did by picking how many times Babe Ruth struck out, which is an example of how NOT to evaluate players)...but when evaluating someone, you have to take ALL events into considertion, not just pick and choose. It is the totality that counts. When a valid measurement is used, it will not make Babe Ruth, or Mickey Mantle, or any all time great look bad. It will however, put all players into their PROPER place.
You can compare Rice to anyone you want, but when it is all laid out, he is on MUCH more equal ground with guys OUTSIDE the Hall of Fame, as opposed to guys INSIDE the Hall of Fame...from the SAME era!! And that is just offensively.
There is 1 element that never can really be discussed; but is very important. What type of hitter would have been most effective for the team given the current lineup and ballpark. We just don't know those answers. Example....Would a leadoff guy with some power be more helpful for an awful Mariner lineup or is Ichiro the best fit. It doesn't change Ichiro's numbers. A lot of opinions go into all of this.
I'm sure there is a million stats for Adam Dunn.
What makes you think RIce is that much better than Singleton, RBI totals??
If you ignore the ballpark effect, Rice will be seen as better. But then I ask you to partake in that home run hitting contest I laid out above and then you can feel first hand the effect of a park.
I respect your opinion and those are some interesting numbers regarding ballparks and such; but Jim Rice was a Red Sock and he played at Fenway. I don't really think anyone should be enhanced or hurt by the ball park, because we can't change that part. I tend to believe with line drive hitters that the monster takes away some HR's from the real power guys. It is fairly tall.
<< <i>Anyone who values their time just skip all the meaningless carp posted above. Who cares? >>
Is there an age limit for being allowed to post on the boards? If not, there should be.
monster has an A+++ bathroom for Manny Ramirez. Now don't get me wrong, I hate the Red Sox, but Fenway is still tough to hit in.
First thing, if somebody doesn't recognize that if a player is presented with more base runners, that it is only logical that they should have an advantage in the RBI department....is there really any point in going further onto things a little more complicated such as ballpark effect?
Ted Williams WAS helped by Fenway, as were almost every full time hitters that played there in the 50's-80's(as compared to the other ballparks in the league). But when you take the Fenway factor into consideration with Willaims he STILL is one of the two best hitters ever.
Then we have this whole thing on base on balls, OB% and not taking those things seriously. This is NOT guess work. Each play from 1973- present has been looked at, and almost every play from 1953 to present has been. The play by play analysis shows the cause/effect of each batting event...BB, 1b, 2nd, 3b, HR, out made, Strikeout...and we know what their value is.
The play by play data shows all this....somebody's personal view has not bearing on it whatsoever. Baseball hitting lends itself extremely well to these types of measurements.
I, like Markj111, at one time in our lives determined baseball greatness based on the measurements you currently use. I am sure Mark did that in 1966 by gloriously boasting his favorite player's RBI total. I spent a long time doing it that way myself...but the more research that is done shows the folly in believing in a lot of those things.
All the analysis you guys do by using the triple crown stats...I've seen it, I've done it...and I've done it better! But I also have looked into the more accurate measures
<< <i>Anyone who values their time just skip all the meaningless carp posted above. Who cares? >>
Says the guy in the glass house has lots of free time to actually post on this thread.
When the Red Sox signed Adrian Gonzalez I read all kinds of info on how his hits last year would have been home runs in Fenway but were either outs or just hits in Petco. So I'm not disputing the ballpark factor of Fenway.
But we've read the argument that the Green Monster took away homers from Rice. Is there anyway we can prove or disprove that notion? I'm not aware of any sites that provide trajections for hits in the 70s and 80s but I think it would be very helpful to see exactly how many times Rice dented the Monster.
"Skinpinch" and "Hoopster" are the same person. I know this because I know the guy and he told me and several others. He had login issues and thought it would be easier to just start all over. I initially thought that you might be him, but it does not seem that way anymore because he would have told me.
Your use of the advanced measurements were much like Hoopster's as you know because you have seen his posts.
By voting in Jim Rice, its going to open the flood gates for a lot of other players.
One set of stats that I keep kicking around is that of Sandy Koufax. Many use traditional stats and point out he dominated for 4 years and was top notch in other years. I see what they mean when using tranditional stats. However, when using ERA+, we see he only led in that category once in his career. He really got a big boost by playing in Dodger Stadium. For a hitter like Mattingly, who also had a short career, people use traditional stats and say he had 4 powerful HOF years, but it was not with the same impact as Koufax. Mattingly did not lead in triple crown numbers those 4 years. That's true. However, a far superior stat to use would simply be OPS+ and we see that Mattingly led in that category twice. Only a handful of first baseman led in OPS+ two times or more. Its such a small class. I am not saying Koufax does not deserve enshrinement, but his domination was not to the extent that people claimed. With Mattingly, people seem to underestimate just how dominant he was--that's how he separates himself against other first baseman. As good as John Olerud and Cecil Cooper were, and as closely their career totals match that of Mattingly's in a traditional sense, That OPS+ stat and 9 gold gloves make it a no-contest.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
I am the same guy. Different handle(I like it better than Hoopster).
TheVon, the first thing about ballpark factors is that they are compared to the parks in use at the time. New parks now, and with many that have gotten smaller, I don't think Fenway is the same advantage it once was.
TheVon,
One has to use some logic,
He hit 208 home runs at home and 174 on the road.
He had 207 doubles at home and 166 on the road.
We know 1)that Fenway can take away certain balls that would be home runs in other parks...
but we also know that 2)it can take fly ball outs and turn them into home runs and doubles.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is the benefit and cost of those two things. Taking a home run and turning it into a double will lessen a players value when measured, and in traditional run measurements it is about a .6 run difference. But when you take a would be out and turn it into a home run you are looking at a benefit of 1.65 runs. An out into a double a benefit of about 1.05 runs. So the cost/benefit of those two outcomes are widely different.
Some contradictory logic....
In the past you(I think) and many others claimed that Rice tailored his swing for Fenway to explain the reason WHY he had done that much better there as opposed to what he did on the road.
But now you guys are saying that he hit all these 'rising line drives' off of the Monster that would have been home runs in other parks, which is completely contradictary to the tailoring notion.
Those statements cannot both be true, because in order to tailor one's swing for Fenway, it would have to change into one that lofted fly balls over(or off of) the monster.
But if hitting rising line drives was ineed his method of operation, then don't you think it would have materialized in those other parks you speak of(where you are claiming would have been home runs)? You guys are acting as if we are guessing what he would do in other parks. We don't have to guess. He had 4,555 plate appearances in other parks...the same parks his peers had to bat in. What he did in those other parks is well documented already as those are his road totals. 4,555 plate apperances is a very strong sample size.
Either the tailoring notion is b.s, or the rising line drive robbing(only robbing him and not everyone else has to be added in there) is.
If it were just Jim Rice that saw this marked improvement at Fenway, sure, maybe an anamoly could be at work...but all the big hitters saw it. And we know it isn't from tailoring, because then the rising line drive theory would be bunk
Just looking at his results, and the results of all the fenway hitters, I am sure people saw line drives hit high off the wall, but the results show he also had his fair shair of fly ball outs turned into doubles and home runs...unless he is the only Red Sox hitter that never hit high fly balls over the monster and just stuck with line drives off of it....but then why did he not hit those same line drives at other parks in his 4,555 plate appearances?
Now lets look at the nuts and bolts of the results...
If indeed he was hitting a lot of rising line drives off the monster, costing him all these home runs, then what would those balls be going as? They wouldn't be outs. They would either become a double or the occasional single.
Batted outs are balls put into play as an out.
.........................Home.......ROad
Batted outs......2,080........2,270.......9.1% decrease
Total Hits............1,304........1,148
Singles................845...........773.......9.3% increase
Doubles..............207............166......24.6% increase
Triples.................44...............35......25.7% increase
Home Runs.........208............174.....19.5% increase
Just using common sense here, if he truly were getting robbed of all these line drive home runs by the monster, wouldn't that materialize in the form of a boat load increase in doubles and singles then, as compared to what he did on the road?
If he truly never did take advantage of the fly balls that turned into doubles and home runs, then why was he making more batted ball outs on the road?
His percentage of increases are right in line in what Fenway produced in that era...and actually his home run rate increase looks a little higher than what Fenway normally produced....as Fenway was more a producer of Doubles and triples to the extreme.
I guess if someone really wanted to discard common sesne, and ignore the 5,000 road plate appearances, they can look at those numbers and say, "see, I was right, his home runs increased at a lower rate than doubles, so they were taking away home runs."
But then how do you exaplain the decrease in batted ball outs?
There is play by play data for every play of his...you can go to retrosheet.org and download it and search every play. In the end, you are going to come back to the same conclusions the ballpark stuff comes to, because that is where it comes from.
Accordiing to BaseballReference here are his total doubles location breakdwon...
Pulled 135
Middle 84
unknown 83
Opposite field 71
That is for road and home. So you can see it will be about 75 home doubles that were pulled, and then whatever of the unknown location of the 83 total(home/road) doubles that were pulled at HOME. Of those unknown, you can estimate that about a little more than half occured at home, and that 20 of those were probably pulled.
So you are left with about 100 home doubles that would have ANY possibility of being the type of rising line drive you guys are talking about. That is a far cry from the amounts you guys speak of.
Of those 100 home doubles that were pulled, how many were pulled on the ground past the third baseman, or pulled on a low line drive down the left field line(as both of those hits are the most commmon type of hits that are doubles). One can estimate that at least half were of that variety, leaving....
50 Possible doubles that are in question.
Now, of those 50 possible doubles in question, how many were rising line drives that we are talking about, how many were fly balls that fenway turned an out into a double....and how many were the low line drive that hit the wall and would not have been a home run anywhere??
Do you see where this is heading??? The rising line drive off the top of hte wall I am sure it has happened, but the extent that which it happened is waaaaay overblown.
What we are left with is that he probably had an equal amount of home runs turned into doubles, as he had fly ball outs turned into doubles AND Home Runs. Which goes back to the value of each of those two outcomes. It is of greater benefit to have a fly ball out turned into a double, than it is a cost to have a home run turned into a double.
THe next order of business is for Carol to lock this thread at the top so that none of this ever has to be explained again. Yeah, I know I could dig a little more exact and we can isolate that info to almost the exact....but is there really a need to waste all that time if one just uses their brain a little???
I appreciate all that research but I think you misunderstood me. I was too young and lived on the wrong side of the country to see Rice play very much so I have no idea if he was the kind of line drive hitter that was being robbed of home runs by the Green Monster. I do hear the argument that the Monster giveth and the Monster taketh away and I was just looking for some advice on where to go to find out exactly how much was given and taken. I like how you broke it down to about 100 doubles and I think that's a logical figure to keep in mind when this argument comes up.
I'll check out retrosheet.org. Thanks for the tip.
My apologies....the post was in general and not directed to you.
Retrosheet will only provide the yearly download play by ply logs, and you would have to do it for each year...it would be a chore. Why do you think i did it that way
Realistically, of that 100 doubles it is most likely 33 of them that had possiblities of taking away a home, 33 turning an out into a double, and 33 plain old doubles off the wall regardless of hte park.
But the main thing is the outs that are turned into Home Runs or Doubles. This is the advantage the Red Sox hitters got that the league mates did not. This is where almost all the advantage comes from(and the foul territory advantage).
For the people that will STILL diagree, my advice to them is to go to the elementary school that went to. They can do it this week(since no kids are in school), and ask the custodian to let them into their old gym. When they realize how much smaller the gym is than what they remembered, then they will be on the path to understanding.
<< <i> When they realize how much smaller the gym is than what they remembered, then they will be on the path to understanding. >>
This is without a doubt the best slam at the "Eye Test" I've ever heard. Niiiiice.... I'm gonna steal it.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>I did this the other day....the all star coach is filling out the line up. It's in the 80's. He is a manager from Milwaukee and he gets to pick the last player to fill out his lineup and Singleton, Rice, Lynn, Yaz, and others are sitting there. The manager writes Rice on that scorecard without a doubt. When Rice got over 400 total bases in 1978...how long had it been since that had been done? >>
You mean been done with the aid of Fenway. No doubt, it was a FANTASTIC 1978 season for Rice, probably the ONLY season that matches the praise heaped upon him!
Your manager all star thing is meaningless exercise on many counts. So what? If you add Mattingly, Murphy, Guerrero, Hernandez, Will Clark, Jack Clark, Dewey Evans to the list of those choices, they are all better choices than Rice during the 80's for that manager...and non of them are in the Hall of Fame.
But once and for all, it is time to lay the Green Monster line drive nonsense to rest, and recognize that Fenway did indeed aid Rice...and any measurement that DOES NOT take it into account is fatally flawed from the get go.
P.S., Thanks Bking
Here are their lifetime OPS+
Rice 128
Hernandez 128
Same career length, same era. Really the only difference between the two is position and defensive ability. I think it is well documented which of the two has the edge there
Of course, people are fooled by the RBI totals, of which Rice's are enhanced greatly by his lineup and home ballpark. The OPS+ takes care of the home ball park.
People HAVE to remember that advancing runners is only part of the equation of valuing a hitter...the other half is getting onto the base, and not using up one of the precious three outs your team is given in an inning!
I know, "It is their job to drive the runners in..."
But let me ask the biggest RBI fan. Being that it is their job to drive in the runner from second base, are you satisfied that they are doing their job when they accomplish that feat? I will take the liberty to answer for that person...yes they are happy.
Since great zeal is expressed when they do drive in that run, shouldn't great disdain be expressed when they FAIL to drive in that run and make an out instead.... chasing a pitch that the pitcher wanted them to chase???
If you are to exhault the virtues of a player driving in the run and put it on the positive side of the ledger, YOU MUST ALSO count the negative side of the ledger when he failed to do 'his job'. Yet with Rice, this is NEVER accounted for by the fans. This would be like measuring a guys batting average by only looking at his hit totals and ignoring the number of at bats.
Back to the On Base portion..knowing the value of driving in a runner from 2B, you MUST recognize the value of that player being ON second base to be driven in. If a batter is batting third or fourth, and in a good lineup like Rice was in...don't you think it is of great benefit for him to not only drive in runs, but to ALSO be on base for the other excellent hitters behind him. After all, since you value RBI so much, don't you think it is important for Pudge Fisk to drive in runners too?
Granted, as most know, the play by play data basically makes the use of the RBI stat meaningless, because each base and out situation is measured and accounted for. Stats like situational batter runs, or Win Probability Added measure EVERYTHING that RBI's are suppose to be measuring(but that RBI fails to).
Jim Rice had his last good season at age 33, and retired three years later. Though he initially was not a strong candidate for the Hall of Fame, a legion of fans and writers have retroactively elevated him past Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Eddie Murray and Dave Parker into the most feared hitter of his generation. Brian Downing, if he’s remembered at all among fans of teams other than the Angels, is remembered for his funny stance, and maybe for being thrown out at the plate by Dave Parker in the 1979 All-Star game. In 1998, his only year on the Hall of Fame ballot, Downing received just two votes.
I’m not here to argue that Downing should be in the Hall. He was, however, my favorite player. He was the best player in the history of my favorite team, at least until Tim Salmon came along. I used his open stance with great success in softball (though I didn’t have the bat speed to make it work in baseball.) In addition, I named my cat after him. I’m no fan of the Red Sox, but I have nothing personal against Rice. I just feel that there are many better players worthy of Cooperstown’s honor ahead of him. One example is his teammate Dwight Evans. If Rice had long ago fallen off the ballot and Evans was entering his final year of eligibility, I would fully support the induction of a Red Sock. A more relevant example is Tim Raines, a far superior player who has received little support in the voting so far.
In the 1987 Baseball Abstract, Bill James wrote “can’t understand how anybody could watch the playoffs and still think Jim Rice was a better player than Brian Downing,” though James himself ranked Rice third and Downing fifth among American League left fielders. Despite my biases, I will try to answer the question of who was better as objectively as I can.
"Listen, Buster" Redux
By Rich Lederer
During Jim Rice's incredible 1978 season, a total of two American League players had on-base percentages over .400: Rod Carew, with .411, and Ken Singleton, at .409. In 2007, eight AL players achieved an OBP of .400 or higher. In fact, in the seven seasons played since the start of 2001, there already have been 42 AL players who have posted OBPs of .400 or better; in the entire decade, of 1970-79, there were only 36 AL players who achieved OBPs of .400 or better. It was a time of less offense and fewer runs, a time when teams didn't value walks the way they do now, a time when the strike zone was larger, a time when hitting 20 homers and driving in 80 runs was an excellent year.
Rice's OBP in 1978 wasn't anywhere close to .400. It was .370. He ranked 12th in that category. Rice, in fact, never finished higher than ninth in OBP in any single season. As such, mentioning Rice and on-base percentage in the same sentence does more harm than good when it comes to discussing his Hall of Fame qualifications.
I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that runs were more difficult to come by during the 1970s than in the current decade. By the same token, I don't know anyone who is comparing Rice's raw totals to today's sluggers. The case "for" or "against" Rice should be based on how he performed versus the competition over the course of his career. More on that later.
As far as teams not valuing walks the way they do now, I believe there is some truth to that. However, more than anything, I contend writers and voters (both HOF and MVP) have never given walks their proper due. I played APBA during a large portion of Rice's career and used to count how many "on base numbers" players had on their cards. Walks have always been important. If anything, walks were more valuable in Rice's day because bases and runs were scarcer than they are today.
So it's almost laughable to hear and read about how Rice was nothing more than a very good player in his time. Look, if you stick his statistics into offensive formulas tailored for the way the game was played in the '90s, he's not going to look as good. Giving him demerits because he failed to draw walks is like diminishing what Pedro Martinez has accomplished because he has only two 20-win seasons.
Speaking of "laughable," comparing Rice's failure to draw walks to Martinez's lack of 20-win seasons is mixing apples and oranges. Of course, Rice deserves "demerits" for not walking more often. It's not like Rice's lack of walks wasn't his own doing. He has nobody to blame but himself for not earning more bases on balls. As such, Rice's low walk rate detracted from his value as a hitter every time he went to the plate. It was one of the weaknesses in his game. The fact that Martinez only won 20 games twice over the course of his career had little, if anything, to do with his value as a pitcher every time he took the mound.
But, if you want to go down this alley, let's at least be fair about it. To Martinez's credit, he had a pair of 20-win seasons. Rice, on the other hand, never had even one season in which he walked 100 times. (Rice's career high was 62 in 1986.) For context, there have been 54 20-win seasons during Pedro's career. By the same token, there were 72 100-walk campaigns during Rice's career. In other words, winning 20 games has been an even bigger rarity in Martinez's time than walking 100 times in Rice's era.
Olney then spends time pointing out how highly Rice ranked in HR (3rd), RBI (1st), and OPS (4th) from 1975-1986. I generally find such arguments unconvincing because the time frames chosen almost always favor the player in question. To wit, Rice gets the benefit of all 12 years whereas his competition in many cases loses the early or latter portions of their careers in such studies. Nonetheless, I believe it is instructive to see where Rice ranks in outs during this period.
OUTS
1 Steve Garvey 5402
2 Jim Rice 5298
3 Robin Yount 5099
4 Dave Winfield 5069
5 Buddy Bell 5040
6 Dave Concepcion 5025
7 Don Baylor 5006
8 Mike Schmidt 4890
9 Bill Buckner 4887
10 Cecil Cooper 4846
That's right, Rice made more outs than anyone other than Steve Garvey over the course of his 12 best seasons. I make this point not to put Rice down but to show that his counting totals and rankings were highly influenced by the fact that he had more plate appearances (7754) than any player in baseball during this period.
As for RBI, it's important to recognize that Rice benefited from hitting with runners on base much more frequently than most players. In fact, it is one of the reasons why he ranks first by a wide margin in grounding into double plays (GIDP) over this stretch.
GIDP
1 Jim Rice 269
2 Steve Garvey 215
3 Buddy Bell 195
4 Dave Concepcion 194
5 Dave Winfield 186
6 Ted Simmons 185
T7 Bill Buckner 174
T7 Ken Singleton 174
9 Larry Parrish 168
10 Doug DeCinces 167
Put another way, Rice's GIDP and RBI totals are inflated for no other reason than he had so many opportunities to accumulate both. Hitting with runners on base will do that. Rice's backers will build their case around his RBI and ignore GIDP. Those who oppose Rice will mock how many times he hit into a double play and disregard RBI. You can't really view one without the other.
Thanks to Baseball Prospectus, we can check where Rice ranked in RBI Opportunities in each of those dozen years.
RBI Rank | ROB Rank | OBI OBI% Rank
1975 102 5 458 3 80 17.5 9
1976 85 15 391 27 60 15.3 21
1977 114 3 426 17 75 17.6 15
1978 139 1 461 7 93 20.2 4
1979 130 2 474 4 91 19.2 8
1980 86 16 370 33 62 16.8 17
1981 62 10 367 1 45 12.3 53
1982 97 14 466 7 73 15.7 31
1983 126 1 504 2 87 17.3 14
1984 122 2 545 1 94 17.2 10
1985 103 9 496 2 76 15.3 33
1986 110 4 514 3 90 17.5 10
ROB = Runners On Base: the number of runners on base during a batter's plate appearances.
OBI = Others Batted In: runs batted in, except for the batter driving himself in via a home run. Equals RBI-HR.
OBI% = Others Batted In Percentage: the fraction of runners on base who were driven in during a batter's plate appearances.
Although Rice led the AL in RBI in 1978 and 1983 and ranked in the top ten nine times, he was among the top three in terms of coming to bat with runners on base in six of those 12 seasons. More telling is the fact that Rice never ranked in the top three in OBI%.
In 1981, Rice had 47 more ROB than any other batter in the AL, yet ranked 10th in RBI because he was 53rd (out of 73 qualifiers) in OBI%. In 1984, Rice had 57 more ROB than anyone else so it should not be surprising that he finished second in RBI that season. Rice had the second most ROB (behind teammate Bill Buckner) in 1985 and the third most ROB in 1986 (behind teammates Buckner and Don Baylor). Hmmm. I wonder if Wade Boggs had anything to do with that?
Rice was a significantly better hitter at home than on the road, hitting .320, with a slugging percentage of .546 and 208 career homers in Fenway, compared with an average of .277 and 174 homers on the road. Let me display Rice's home/road splits a bit more visually. I'm mean, there's no reason to gloss over something that is so fundamental to Rice's "for" or "against" case than his home and road performance.
AVG OBP SLG OPS
Home .320 .374 .546 .920
Road .277 .330 .459 .789
Rice hit like a Hall of Famer at home and closer to Ben Oglivie (.273/.336/.450) or George Hendrick (.278/.329/.446) on the road.
Let's drill down deeper and see just how Rice fared away from Fenway Park year-by-year. His MLB and AL rankings are nothing more than where his road OPS would have placed among all qualifiers (both at home and on the road).
Road OPS MLB Rank AL Rank
1975 .807 41 18
1976 .746 55 30
1977 .886 19 11
1978 .837 24 15
1979 .809 49 27
1980 .810 40 27
1981 .703 92 50
1982 .859 22 15
1983 .903 7 4
1984 .741 71 42
1985 .743 73 47
1986 .835 28 19
Rice's performance on the road would have ranked him in the top ten in the AL in OPS one time in his entire career. ONCE. Now I recognize that this exercise unfairly penalizes Rice in the theoretical rankings because his Boston teammates get the full benefit and visiting players the partial benefit of playing games at Fenway Park. Bump Rice's rankings up a bit if you would like to compensate for the simplicity in my methodology.
But again, consider the era, and how much less offense there was. If you were a team, you would like to have the guy considered to be most dominant home-field hitter in the game? Of course you would.
Look, Rice wasn't the "most dominant home-field hitter in the game." Olney makes that statement as if Rice would have hit well at any home park. There is no evidence to suggest that at all. Simply put, Rice hit well at home because he played his home games at Fenway Park. From 1975-1986, Fenway's park factor averaged 107.5, meaning it favored hitters by 7.5% over the league average. In 1977, Boston's home park played like Coors Field in 2002.
Rice was taking advantage of the conditions in the games he played, much as Sandy Koufax did. From 1962-1966, Koufax had a home ERA of 1.37, in the pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium, and a road ERA of 2.57. Does anyone say that this diminishes what Koufax accomplished, the way it is said about Rice?
I don't know anybody who would dispute the fact that Koufax benefited by pitching his home games at Dodger Stadium during the last five years of his career. But to try and compare Jim Rice to Sandy Koufax? Oh my! Koufax's 1.37 ERA at home is much, much more impressive than Rice's .920 OPS at home. But, more to the point, Sandy's 2.57 ERA outside of Dodger Stadium is also much, much more impressive than Rice's .789 OPS away from Fenway.
Like Rice's OPS rankings in the illustration above, Koufax's MLB and NL rankings are nothing more than where his road ERA would have placed among all qualifiers (both at home and on the road). As in the case of Rice, feel free to adjust Sandy's rankings upward due to the simplicity in methodology as well.
Road ERA MLB Rank NL Rank
1962 3.53 26 14
1963 2.31 2 2
1964 2.93 19 10
1965 2.72 16 6
1966 1.96 1 1
Koufax was also much better than generally believed in 1960 and 1961 when his season totals were negatively affected by pitching home games at the Coliseum. His 3.00 ERA on the road in 1960 would have ranked fourth in the National League and sixth in MLB. His 2.77 ERA on the road in 1961 would have topped the senior circuit and placed third overall. It's all a distant memory now but Koufax's 269 strikeouts in '61 broke Christy Mathewson's NL record that had stood for 58 years.
In any event, Sandy's road ERA was good enough to theoretically lead the league two times and finish in the top ten six times in a span of seven seasons! Koufax was not only one of the greatest pitchers ever inside the confines of Dodger Stadium, but he was a terrific pitcher on the road as well. Too bad the same can't be said about Rice's hitting.
<< <i>OMG. Are we comparing Ken Singleton to Jim Rice. Now don't get me wrong....Singleton was a very good major leaguer; but let's not get crazy.
>>
Consider the source. This is the same person who thinks Terry Bradshaw is in the hall because his receivers made him look good lol.
<< <i>
<< <i>OMG. Are we comparing Ken Singleton to Jim Rice. Now don't get me wrong....Singleton was a very good major leaguer; but let's not get crazy.
>>
Consider the source. This is the same person who thinks Terry Bradshaw is in the hall because his receivers made him look good lol. >>
Yikes, now the thread just dropped to the kindergarten level with the entrance of this clown.
Nobody thinks bradshaw is in the hall because of his receivers...however, because of his teammates he had an advantange that very few QB's enjoyed, and as a result he looked better than he truly was. It fools a lot of people...and it doesn't surprise me at all that it fools you.
I am still waiting on the reasons why it is silly to compare Singleton to Rice. Let me guess...."Rice had more RBI, more Total Bases, blah, blah, blah, etc.., etc.." The same stuff that is often said, except none of it takes the Fenway factor into account, and it usually leaves out important measurement criteria(like OB%)....and it never takes into account the number of baserunners he had to drive in those runs.
I don't excpect someone like you to be able to read something more than a lengthy paragraph...but it is laid out above pretty clearly that even a first grader could handle.
On second thought, just go find the kiddie board somewhere. My only future responses to you will be an arrow, or nudge pointing upward to answer any and all questions you will need answering on. Thanks for the attempt.
THe list is their best seasons, all the way down to their worst...stacked up next to each other.
Singleton vs Rice
165.............157
155.............154
153.............147
152.............141
148.............136
142.............130
135.............127
132.............123
131.............122
120.............120
119.............116
110.............112
101.............102
99...............101
62...............70
Singletons best beats Rice's best almost every year! Even if you assign a margin of error for the measurement, to think it is silly to compare the two??? Are you kidding?
This is not a knock on Bradshaw. It just is what it is. He was dealt the cards he was dealt and he did played them into four Super Bowl wins. He deserves to be in the HOF. But let's not put him on a pedestal higher than what he deserves.
The Jim Rice argument is similar, but it does leave me with a question. Are we arguing that Rice shouldn't be in the HOF, or that other, better players should be in as well? I will say that I am comfortable with Jim Rice in the Hall. Is he the overwhelming candidate like Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, or Schmidt? Certainly not. But is he the weakest player inducted? Not hardly. There are a number of players that are Hall of Famers that were not as good as Rice. I would equate Rice to Chuck Klein, or very similar. He had huge home park effects, put up nice traditional numbers, and was in the top ten in OPS+ a few times in his career, but certainly not every year. Neither was known as Richie Ashburn or Fred Lynn in the outfield. I don't think we lowered our HOF standards to let in Jim Rice. The standard is already below Jim Rice. If you want to make the argument for Tim Raines, don't use Jim Rice. Use Johnny Evers. An average defensive infielder, or slightly above average, with no notable hitting skills, Evers got in through some great mystery.
Keith Hernandez was compared to Rice earlier. Hernandez was a solid offensive player, who was arguably one of the five best defensive first basemen of all time. He also was instrumental on two World Series champions. I think Hernandez should have gone in years ago.
Saberman, I appreciate your statistical breakdowns. Unfortunately, there is no requirement for knowledge of advanced sabermetrics for becoming a HOF voter. It only requires ten years of being a baseball writer. So, if a 22 year old kid fresh out of college got hired in 2000 as a beat writer, he is eligible to vote in this year's election. And he/she is deciding whether Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, etc are worthy of election, even though they retired before or near 2000. My guess is that a lot of these voters base their decisions on "I think this guy was a really good player. I've heard a lot about him. He played on some good teams. He was in a lot of All-Star Games. He sure was famous. OK, I'll vote for him."... You need to educate the writers, my friend!!!
I don't think we can go back and raise the standards for the Hall of Fame. I also don't think we can enshrine every single player that is better than the worst player already in. If so, we'd have over 1,000 inductees. We can only hope to make more educated decisions in the future. We can still induct Hernandez, Blyleven, Raines, and a few others that are equals (if not better) than Rice without diluting the honor.
How correct.
To add more on the 22 year old writer in 2000 fresh out of journalism school...he went to journalism school...you don't learn baseball evaluation there...you learn other things, including how to create interesting stories to hook people. And boy do they do a good job at making a story to hook people. Good God, just read this board to see that!
People get confused on what should be an opinion. It isn't an opinion that one player is better than the other. There are three possible facts, Player A was better than B, they were equals, and Player B was better than A. There is no opinion in that...people just go wrong on deducing it...and choose methods that are extremely faulty that lead to false answers. Contrary to popular belief, one can state with a strong degree of certainty if one player was better than another. Some guys just need to learn more about it and sort through the noise to find the truth of the fact.
If I ran a 40 in 4.6 seconds, and Carl Lewis did it in 3.9, can I be of the opinion that I was faster than him? No, pretty cut and dry. If we had a team meet, and he had a better time than me, but all of my teammates beat his, and my team won...can I go around saying I was faster than him because we beat them? No...but that is what people do.
It is an opinion on where to 'draw a line' on the Hall of Fame, or if past mistakes should be rectified by letting the better players in, or just living with the mistakes, etc... There is also some opinion built into the criteria, such as the integrity, sportsmanship. But people have to understand that FAME is not a criterion, and that is a mistake everyone makes.
Your ability gets you elected, and your election ensures your fame(as a poster above pointed out). It is not be the other way around(as was the case with Rice).
Rice has some merits to his side. It is of MY opinion that writers need to do a better job electing and educating themselves, and that it is absolutely foolish to vote a player in when a superior player is completely ignored. It is also of my opinion that we just have to live with the mistakes...and not water it down further by saying so and so should be in because that guy is in.
You really think the HOF has room for Hernandez and some others because Rice is in? I know there are still many good players out there that were as good or better than Rice, but we have to be careful not to dilute this exclusive club.
Comparing the OPS+ of Hernandez and Rice reveals that they were equals in offense. You can take defense into account too. Hernandez has 11 gold gloves. Also, it would not hurt to use character and sportsmanship too since the HOF requirements also suggest those criteria.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
NAME, CAREER OPS+, SEASONS LED MLB IN OPS+
Lou Gehrig 178, 3
Mark McGwire 162, 4
Frank Thomas 156, 3
Jeff Bagwell 149, 1
Will Clark 137
Fred McGriff 134, 1
Rafael Palmeiro 132
Eddie Murray 129, ?
Keith Hernandez 128
John Olerud 128, 1
Don Mattingly 127, 2
Cecil Cooper 121
Cecil Fielder 118
Wally Joyner 117
Steve Garvey 116
Tino Martinez 112
JT Snow 105
There are a lot of players close with Hernandez, so other factors have to be used to distinguish him from the rest. His 11 gold gloves imply strong defense. McGwire was also strong in defense, but Mattingly kept collecting all the gold gloves except for one (1990 when McGwire won it due to Mattingly being on the DL).
I am on the fence with Hernandex, meaning we have to take more exhaustive looks at his stats. He is not an easy candidate to scratch. I always thought his numbers looked anemic, but now I understand that it had to be looked in the context of the 70s and 80s.
What do we do with Will Clark and McGriff. Are they mere products of the live ball era or is there something more to them.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>I am still waiting on the reasons why it is silly to compare Singleton to Rice. Let me guess...."Rice had more RBI, more Total Bases, blah, blah, blah, etc.., etc.." >>
Let me ask you to take a step back for a moment and ask yourself how you feel when someone makes that comment "Rice had more RBI" or something to that effect. Your blood boils...You ask yourself "How could anyone be so stupid?" You think these things because you have convinced yourself that your view on the HOF debate is THE correct view. Fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
On the other side of this debate are people, MANY people, who care about things that don't show up in your spreadsheet. People go watch their team at the ballpark for decades and realize that there is a something in the air that makes a stadium electric only when certain people step into the batters box. Fans time their trip to the hotdog stand so that they don't miss this guy when he's due up the next inning. Jim Rice, I would argue, was one of these guys, as was Mattingly, as was Murphy, and was a few others that have been named here already. Singleton was most certainly NOT one of these guys and neither was Tim Raines. Some people don't give a sh*t about ballpark effect or OPS+, and they view the game based on feel and emotions. Most people I know would no more take a trip to a ballpark to see Singleton or Raines play than they would if their replacement were playing instead.
I want you to realize that the way you feel about the "Rice had more RBI" guy...you know the guy that makes your blood boil.. Those people feel the same way about you when you turn into the "Singleton was just as good as Rice" guy. It comes across as ridiculous to them because it doesn't pass their gut feel/emotions view of baseball that is how MANY MORE people view the game.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am still waiting on the reasons why it is silly to compare Singleton to Rice. Let me guess...."Rice had more RBI, more Total Bases, blah, blah, blah, etc.., etc.." >>
Let me ask you to take a step back for a moment and ask yourself how you feel when someone makes that comment "Rice had more RBI" or something to that effect. Your blood boils...You ask yourself "How could anyone be so stupid?" You think these things because you have convinced yourself that your view on the HOF debate is THE correct view. Fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
On the other side of this debate are people, MANY people, who care about things that don't show up in your spreadsheet. People go watch their team at the ballpark for decades and realize that there is a something in the air that makes a stadium electric only when certain people step into the batters box. Fans time their trip to the hotdog stand so that they don't miss this guy when he's due up the next inning. Jim Rice, I would argue, was one of these guys, as was Mattingly, as was Murphy, and was a few others that have been named here already. Singleton was most certainly NOT one of these guys and neither was Tim Raines. Some people don't give a sh*t about ballpark effect or OPS+, and they view the game based on feel and emotions. Most people I know would no more take a trip to a ballpark to see Singleton or Raines play than they would if their replacement were playing instead.
I want you to realize that the way you feel about the "Rice had more RBI" guy...you know the guy that makes your blood boil.. Those people feel the same way about you when you turn into the "Singleton was just as good as Rice" guy. It comes across as ridiculous to them because it doesn't pass their gut feel/emotions view of baseball that is how MANY MORE people view the game. >>
We aren't measuring the feelings that are evoked in people, we are measuring how good the player was. If one cares to isolate the goodness of the player, then you use the measurements that do that. It doesn't matter how people felt, or what their perceptions were, when a player was batting. We already know the failures of the eye test and perception.
People used this argument as a reason to put Rice into the Hall because he was popular(though he was popular because he played on a good team, and in boston, and in a park that was offensively exciting. Remove all those aspects, and you and your friends no longer have these feelings you do about him...but HIS true ability would not change). How 'excited' were people watching the .277 hitter on the road hitting into double plays? Maybe they were excited...but dissapointment must soon have followed.
You see, the feelings you speak of are a result of Rice's surroundings, rather than just about Rice himself. Like I said before, you need to elect Fenway, and Boggs again, not just Rice!
Popularity is not a criteria for the Hall of Fame. Neither is Fame.
If the people you know would not mind seeing the replacements play instead of Ken Singleton or TIm Raines, that is their choice...but it doesn't change the fact that Singleton was as good, and Raines was better than Rice.
YEar.....AB...........BA.........OB%..........SLG%......OPS+.......RBI.........BA w/RISP.........BA w/men on base
1979.....591......284.........319...........437............97..........66............272..................298
1986.....621......267.........311...........427............97..........102..........242..................276
1979 was with the Cubs, and '86 with the Red Sox. Coincidentally both were the top two hitter parks in the league(but this isn't about the parks, though that helps to take out a step).
Really, the only noticeable difference is the RBI total, which is VASTLY different. He did not achieve more RBI in 1986 because he hit better with men on base...he actually hit WORSE with men on base. He simply got the extra RBI because of a boatload more opportunities.
So was Buckner a better player in 1986? Hardly. He didn't do anything different...his environement changed. In this case it was from an entirely new lineup. Some guys get the advantae of a great lineup AND a great home park(like Rice).
So when evaluating Buckner, are you looking to evaluate him, or the lineup?
P.S.
Keith Hernandez and Will Clark have high career OPS+ due to a shorter career(as did Jim Rice). OPS+ in 2001 is not the same as in 1978, so for Will Clark(I would want more comparisons to the contemporaries in that era). Mattingly has a shorter career too, but why not the Kirby Puckett sympathy for him??
McGriff needs a thorough look, and more in depth.
<< <i>TheVon,
My apologies....the post was in general and not directed to you.
Retrosheet will only provide the yearly download play by ply logs, and you would have to do it for each year...it would be a chore. Why do you think i did it that way
Realistically, of that 100 doubles it is most likely 33 of them that had possiblities of taking away a home, 33 turning an out into a double, and 33 plain old doubles off the wall regardless of hte park.
But the main thing is the outs that are turned into Home Runs or Doubles. This is the advantage the Red Sox hitters got that the league mates did not. This is where almost all the advantage comes from(and the foul territory advantage).
For the people that will STILL diagree, my advice to them is to go to the elementary school that went to. They can do it this week(since no kids are in school), and ask the custodian to let them into their old gym. When they realize how much smaller the gym is than what they remembered, then they will be on the path to understanding. >>
Funny story (or at least funny to me) that's in the same spirit as this 'eye test'.
Back in 1996, when I was 24, I went back to the playground of the elementary school I had attended. I moved when I was 12, right after 6th grade, so I hadn't been there in 12 years. I entered the playground, and fully expected to discover that it was much smaller than I remembered, since this has happened to me countless times when I've gone back to places I frequented as a kid.
Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that the playground was the exact same size that I remembered it to be. I just couldn't believe it. In fact, I still can't. This still dumbfounds me , to the point where I keep planning to make the 500 mile drive back there on of these summers to make sure it's 'really' the same size I remembered, and that I didn't make a mistake back in 1996.
Let's look at the numbers they sometimes avoid. In an offensively mediocre era, Hernandez had a lifetime OBP of .384. He was a consistent .300 hitter for more than a decade, but he did it while walking more than he struck out and walking a lot. In 1982 he hit 7 home runs, but walked 100 times. So, you look at his .299 average and you might think it was a disappointment. But his on base percentage was .397. He was on base nearly 40% of the times he came to bat! And that season is just an average one for him. He was over .400 several times. This translates into runs for the team. He was in the NL's Top Three in OBP seven times! He was in the top ten in OPS+ six times. I know that this isn't going to compare him to Lou Gehrig on the list of all-time first basemen, but I'd put him up to Bill Terry any day of the week. Bill Terry was a .400 hitter and a Giants legend, but when you look at the data in context, Terry was no better than Hernandez. He finished in the NL's top ten in OPS+ six times, and that was in the days of only eight teams. Hernandez played with 12 teams in the league. Terry hit .341 lifetime to Hernandez only .296. But when you look at the on base percentage, the gap shrinks to .393-.384. And remember, Terry put these numbers up in a HUGE offensive era. Terry hit .401 in 1930 with 254 hits. But that year Hack Wilson hit .356 and finished TENTH!!! The league hit .303. When Hernandez hit .344 in 1979, the league average was .261. His OBP was .417, while the league had an OBP of .325. I'd venture to say that if Hernandez had played in Terry's era, he would have hit .400 as well. And Terry's power numbers were nothing spectacular either.
And Sunny Jim Bottomley? He finished in the top ten in OPS+ five times in his career (again in eight team leagues). He has a lifetime batting average of .310, which impresses voters/Vets committees. But Bottomley hit .310 when the leagues were hitting near .300. In the aforementioned 1930 season, he hit .304. We look at that and give Bottomley credit for another fine season of hitting over .300. But, in truth, he hit ONE POINT above the league average. In Hernandez's career, that would be hitting in the mid .260's. We don't generally reward guys for hitting .265. And Bottomley's OBP was .369, well below Hernandez's, even though Bottomley played in the much more offensive era. And Bottomley wasn't exactly Willie McCovey swatting homers.
George Kelly finished in the top ten in OPS+ twice. Twice. But he's in the Hall of Fame. His lifetime batting average is .297, in an era when guys like Hornsby and Sisler were hitting over .400. But he's in. His OPB is only .342. His best season would not be in Keith's top five.
What about Tony Perez? Three times in the top ten in OPS+, and Tony played a LONG time. And I saw Tony play. A Gold Glover he was not. He had a lot of RBI's. But, if you are any decent major leaguer and you find yourself in a situation hitting behind Pete Rose and Joe Morgan who LIVED on the bases, aren't you going to be hitting with men on base a lot? I'd venture to say at least half the time from 1970-1976, Tony batted with one of those two guys on base. And Johnny Bench batted behind him, so it wasn't like Perez was getting pitched around. Hernandez certainly compares well with Tony Perez. And to Orlando Cepeda. And Jake Beckley. And Frank Chance. And George Sisler. From what I can tell, there are 18 first basemen in the Hall of Fame, and Keith Hernandez is as good or better than 8 of them. Not one of the guys mentioned could even come close to Hernandez in the field. And there's a couple more that I just don't feel too sure about the comparison. But as good or better than 8 of 18? That's a solid HOFer in my mind.
And let's not even get started about comparing HOF outfielders to Tim Raines....