How important are stats?
JHS5120
Posts: 1,968 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The Jeter thread and the Hall of Fame thread made me wonder about this. How important are stats? or, how important are stats in Hall of Fame voting?
If a player is widely successful and well respected, but has a mediocre career stat line, should he be considered for the Hall? My vote is yes.
Imagine a pitcher who has 2 Cy Young Awards, a ROY, three World Series rings, a WS MVP, a couple Gold Gloves and has been a 10 time all star. Arguably, those accomplishments would make him one of the most successful players today, but does success trump statistical performance?
That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate.
If a player is widely successful and well respected, but has a mediocre career stat line, should he be considered for the Hall? My vote is yes.
Imagine a pitcher who has 2 Cy Young Awards, a ROY, three World Series rings, a WS MVP, a couple Gold Gloves and has been a 10 time all star. Arguably, those accomplishments would make him one of the most successful players today, but does success trump statistical performance?
That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate.
My eBay Store 
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
0
Comments
Stats are an inherent aspect of baseball and the most effective and accurate tool for objective evaluation of a player's skill level.
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.
Sports is all about performance, and those who performed at the highest level for a long period of time should be rewarded.
That's the way I see it.
Edited to add that you have to take into consideration the era too (like when football QB's weren't throwing 10 yard dink plays all day long
and only threw downfield). Stuff like that.
<< <i>If a player is widely successful and well respected, but has a mediocre career stat line, should he be considered for the Hall? My vote is yes. >>
Why reward mediocrity?
I'm a SABR guy, but I have never thought stats should be the leading factor in Hall of Fame voting (or else Barry Bonds would be in). The person I listed has a Hall of Fame caliber resume, and has been much more successful in his profession than most Hall of Fame players, so who cares if his stats were below the typical "Hall of Fame" numbers?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
5. 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.
If you look at the part where it says, "player's record, playing ability, and contributions to the teams," those are all statistical measurements. Baseball statistics lend themselves perfectly to determining their ability and their contributions to a team...and that forms a "player's record."
It is the improper use of baseball statistics where mistakes can be made, so it is imperative that knowing which stats are most precise, and also knowing how to tackle the issue of players of varied career lengths, through the use of statistics.
The original poster is correct in that integrity, sportsmanship, and character are valid criteria. However, there is no valid method to evaluating that, and it is really impossible to make a determination if one guy has better character than another. Kirby Puckett is the perfect example.
Since there really is no way to determine accurately the character elements, there really has never been a player elected based primarily on character criterion.
The mistakes that get in are from mistakes in evaluating the players' true value to the team, and in valuing their true ability.
Heck, Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall of Fame TWICE. Once when he got elected, and once when he got Jim Rice elected for being on base so often and plumping up Rice's RBI totals, making Rice look more valuable to his team than he actually was. Of course, Fenway had a hand in that too
<< <i>Based on the Hall of Fame's own criteria, they are extremely important:
5. 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.
If you look at the part where it says, "player's record, playing ability, and contributions to the teams," those are all statistical measurements. Baseball statistics lend themselves perfectly to determining their ability and their contributions to a team...and that forms a "player's record."
It is the improper use of baseball statistics where mistakes can be made, so it is imperative that knowing which stats are most precise, and also knowing how to tackle the issue of players of varied career lengths, through the use of statistics.
The original poster is correct in that integrity, sportsmanship, and character are valid criteria. However, there is no valid method to evaluating that, and it is really impossible to make a determination if one guy has better character than another. Kirby Puckett is the perfect example.
Since there really is no way to determine accurately the character elements, there really has never been a player elected based primarily on character criterion.
The mistakes that get in are from mistakes in evaluating the players' true value to the team, and in valuing their true ability.
Heck, Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall of Fame TWICE. Once when he got elected, and once when he got Jim Rice elected for being on base so often and plumping up Rice's RBI totals, making Rice look more valuable to his team than he actually was. Of course, Fenway had a hand in that too
I like this, but "player's record, playing ability, and contributions to the teams," are not purely statistical measures. Even if they were, that would mean 50% of Hall of Fame voting criteria is loosely based on stats while the other +50% is based on non-statistical measurements (which I'm fine with).
So, how important are stats? Right now, using the criteria above for Hall of Fame voting I can make an argument that Ty Cobb isn't a Hall of Fame caliber player. He excels in three of the 6 categories, but do we really want someone who meets only half of the requirements in the Hall of Fame? I say no.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
I hardly think that is the case. Jim Rice had his best years well before Boggs made it to Sox. If you don't believe me, look it up.
<< <i>Heck, Wade Boggs was elected to the Hall of Fame TWICE. Once when he got elected, and once when he got Jim Rice elected for being on base so often and plumping up Rice's RBI totals, making Rice look more valuable to his team than he actually was. Of course, Fenway had a hand in that too
I hardly think that is the case. Jim Rice had his best years well before Boggs made it to Sox. If you don't believe me, look it up. >>
His best years were pre-Boggs BUT...
He did drop off in 1980 and 1981 (significantly) compared to 1979. Then his numbers perk right back up in 1982 when Boggs shows up.
<< <i>Imagine a pitcher who has 2 Cy Young Awards, a ROY, three World Series rings, a WS MVP, a couple Gold Gloves and has been a 10 time all star. Arguably, those accomplishments would make him one of the most successful players today, but does success trump statistical performance?
That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
<< <i> The person I listed has a Hall of Fame caliber resume, and has been much more successful in his profession than most Hall of Fame players, so who cares if his stats were below the typical "Hall of Fame" numbers? >>
Who were you referencing? No 2-time Cy Young Award winner fits the description you gave.
<< <i>Injuries played a part in Rice's drop off in production, and Boggs does deserve some credit for allowing Rice to increase his RBI numbers. But to say that Boggs was the reason that Rice got in is not accurate. >>
You are right, Rice had one HOF caliber year in 1978, one other...then the rest, not so much HOF caliber.
Boggs inflated Rice's RBI totals from 1983-1989...which is 3,900 plate appearances out of his 9,000 career total.
Fenway was also elected to the HOF when Rice was elected. Fenway played a role in other HOFer's performances too...but they were still HOFer's without. Rice, no.
So what it comes back to is measuring the players contribution to the team, his ability, and his player record. When you do that properly, use the right measurements and accurately measure the players performance(as opposed to measuring other players by using RBI totals)...then you get a faulty election with Rice, because his ability and contributions to the team were not properly weighted because the writers used the wrong measurements.
They elected Boggs twice.
<< <i>T
Imagine a pitcher who has 2 Cy Young Awards, a ROY, three World Series rings, a WS MVP, a couple Gold Gloves and has been a 10 time all star. Arguably, those accomplishments would make him one of the most successful players today, but does success trump statistical performance?
. >>
1) The world series rings measure the team, not the player. When you evaluate the player, evaluate him, not his teammates.
2) Cy Young awards are nice...however, that is also a measurement of the voters, because most of them don't know what constitutes 'best'. And it is also measure of the team, because wins so heavily influence that vote.
3) Same for WS MVP, he doesn't win that without the team. So that is also a team measurement.
4) Rookie of the year doesn't mean a whole lot.
5) Gold gloves for pitcher is basically meaningless, and his defense is already measured in his pitching performances.
6) All Star is nice, but it depends. Fans vote stupid all the time, and he may have simply just been an all star because his team needed a representative.
Tell me what that guys lifetime IP are, his lifetime ERA+, his lifetime So/BB ratio, K/9, BB/9, FIP,then you can start measure HIS player record, ability, and contributions to the team, instead of measuring everyone else's contriubtions to his 'achievements' like you are when you use WS rings, CY young votes, ALL star votes, RBI, Wins...etc
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.
Arguing that a player does not deserve to be elected to the HOF is unrelated to your original argument that Boggs is the reason Rice got elected. First of all, the numbers Rice put up in the 1970's were remarkable for the time, because it was a notoriously difficult era for hitters. Some decades are defined by the dominance of either the hitters or pitchers, the 80's were much more productive for hitters, while the 60's and 70's were primarily known as being friendly to pitchers. Three of the five years that Rice played in the 70's were HOF caliber, and there would be a strong argument made for a 4th, his rookie season, because it was such a strong debut, and his rookie season came to a crashing halt with a broken wrist that knocked him out of the post season.
Getting back to the original point about the effect of Wade Boggs on Rice's career, Rice had 4 above average seasons while he and Boggs were teammates, and of those four seasons, only two would rank among his best 5 years in the bigs. That is hardly enough evidence to suggest that Rice piggybacked his way into the hall off the accomplishments of old Wade.
In terms of being a "fan favorite", Rice was anything but that. As a player, he was brooding and sullen, bordering on arrogant. He certainly was no darling of the writers, having nothing to offer in the way of generous interviews or quotable remarks. In short, Jim Ed Rice earned his way into the hall through his accomplishments, without the boost of having an engaging manner or a teammate who, through the sheer force of his talent, carried him into the hall on his back.
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.
From 1936-42, Mize was a beast! He put up the kind of numbers that are what HOFers are all about. His LOWEST OPS+ in those years was 156. At one point or another, The Big Cat led the league in almost every major category in those seven years. He missed 1943-45 while serving during World War II, then came back and three more HOF calibre seasons, before age started taking its toll. He went to the Yankees and played five seasons as a part-time player and won five World Series. So, bottom line: Mize had TEN outstanding seasons. He missed three years for WWII (can't fault a guy for that), then had five years in which he was a part-time player on a juggernaut that won the World Series every season he was there (including 1952, in which he was a one man wrecking machine). How can a guy like this not even get close to election?
Defense are stats too...albeit not as accurate as offensive.
Positional factors are stats too...that is why Larkin was indeed a more worthy candidate than Joe Carter, Albert Belle. Though those adjustments aren't as accurate either.
Not aware of any poll like you said about managers picking Larkin to build a team around in the 1990's. Doesn't mean much,as managers can be biased too, and Larkin won the MVP in 1995, so that may be a heavy influence on them...plus they do realize that a great hitting great defensive shortstop is a great commodity, so there is some credence to elevating him to such a high stature.
Larkin is/was a great player, like Jeter. So that really isn't a good example of picking a player who had value above/beyond his offensive and defensive measurements.
Find a guy who was voted in with medicore defensive/offensive stats AND was a great leader etc.. then use him as the example.
Rice wasn't great. He was very good, however, Fenway made him look better than he really was...and Wade Boggs plumped up his RBI totals. Rice also was not good enough to be a viable MLB starter by age 34. He was a great double play machine though.
Heck, Rice was only the third best outfielder on his own team. The people that make the absurd claim of him being the most feared/dominant hitter for ten years are the people who get fooled by Fenway's impact, Rice's plumped up RBI opportunities, and don't understand the best stats like Win Probability Added, etc...
Rice owes the designers of Fenway and Wade Boggs a hearty thank you for getting him into the Halll....oh, and the ignorance of the sports writers on how to evaluable the value of baseball player.
The borderline/mistake players that get put in, are put in because writers do not understand the value of the statistical measurements, not because they are great leaders or have great character.
Rice is very borderline to low. He got put in because people didn't understand the Fenway impact, the plumped up RBI opportunities, and the proper way to evaluate a hitter.
Dale Murphy is every bit the player as Rice, and probably a hair higher, and is more decorated with two MVP's. He is also considered among the very top in history in ALL the character measurements...so if all that rah rah stuff about character was really looked at, then Murphy should have been in ten times more than Rice. Yet Murphy was never even close.
If there is case for any player that deserves to be in the Hall, by using the Hall of Fame's criteria to the letter, then it is Murphy. But nobody uses that character criteria for good...only for bad.
Catfish Hunter is another example of writers not knowing how to evaluate the player...they instead evaluated Hunter's teammates and his pitcher's parks when they drooled over Hunter's win totals and low ERA. Had they evaluated Hunter himself, then he doesn't belong either. So Reggie Jackson is another guy who got put into the Hall of Fame twice when Hunter was put in.
If Jack Morris ever gets put into the Hall, then it really is Whitaker and Trammell getting put it
Boggs only scored 51 times in his rookie season. Can you really make an argument that Rice had 97 RBI that year primarily because Boggs got on base?
From 1983 to 1986, Rice accumulated 461 RBI. If you took Boggs out of the mix and replaced him with a league average player, how many RBI do you suppose Rice would have through those years and would the decrease really be that significant?
I would consider playing ability and contributions solely a statistical measure and I consider player's record to be similar to a player's resume, mostly statistical, but with some awards and titles thrown in.
Integrity, sportsmanship and character are not statistical measures. So, if less than 50% of hall of fame criteria is stat based, why are we emphasizing 100% of our HOF consideration on it? That is my argument.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Has anyone ever figured out how many times Rice drove Boggs in or is this just an anecdote that someone is throwing out and others are believing because it sounds plausible?
Boggs only scored 51 times in his rookie season. Can you really make an argument that Rice had 97 RBI that year primarily because Boggs got on base?
From 1983 to 1986, Rice accumulated 461 RBI. If you took Boggs out of the mix and replaced him with a league average player, how many RBI do you suppose Rice would have through those years and would the decrease really be that significant? >>
Yes, it has been figured out. Not with Boggs exclusively, but with all the hitters in front. Retrosheet did all the play by play research, counted all the number of RBI opportunities for each player, and came up with an "Expected RBI total" based on how many opportunities a player had to drive in. They then counted how many actual RBI's the player got, and you come up with the figure of how many RBI's they achieved over the expected RBI's for their situation.
Rice had 461 RBI in that span.
Murray had 429 RBI in that span.
The novice observer(including sportswriters) assume that Rice is the better RBI man. However, when you account for each players environment, especially how many runners they had on base to drive in, you get a more accurate story.
Here are the numbers of RBI produced OVER the expected RBI for each player in those four years:
Murray....Rice
38.4......34.4.....1983
35.9......23.4.....1984
50.4......12.1.....1985
18.8......7.5.......1986
Notice in 1986, Boston's World Series year, Rice was barely producing RBI over the rate of average...yet people look at his 110 RBI and get all excited. Heck, even the writers voted him THIRD in the MVP race. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Boggs was 7th in MVP voting, yet Boggs was much better than Rice. Ridiculous ignorance on the part of writers and fans! They were fooled by the RBI total, which was only high because Rice had so many opportunities...and they failed to understand OB%.
So Murray really was the better RBI man, despite having total fewer RBI. Also note, that looking only at this is ignoring the OB% portion of a hitter, so this can't be used exclusively.
Also, there are more accurate measures such as Win Probability Added that detail it for more, and more accurately. So now even this study is obsolete, but it does get straight to the RBI point.
All those inflated RBI totals helped create the most feared hitter myth in Rice....which we already know he wasn't remotely the most feared hitter, or Best hitter(except for a one year span). It is with faulty measurements that got Rice into the Hall of Fame. RBI being the main culprit, and Fenway the other.
PS:
In 1986 Rice's Win Probability Added was 2.2 wins over league average.
In 1986 BOgg's Win Probability Added was 6.4 wins over league average, which led the league!!
Yet somehow Rice is third in MVP voting, and Boggs 7th? Why? People not understanding how to evaluate a hitter, and instead using the knee jerk RBI total reaction. There is where the mistake is!
<< <i>Nice analysis, Skin. You certainly provide a substantial argument against Rice being elected to the hall. But have you analyzed the impact that Rice had on the success that Boggs enjoyed? How many fastballs did Wade see because the opposing pitcher didn't want to give him a free pass so that Rice would have an RBI opportunity? That's not a knock on Boggs, because he had the talent to be able to take advantage of mistakes, and he did master the art of fouling off pitches until he found one he liked. Just wondering if he would have seen more junk had he been hitting in front of a less formidable cleanup hitter. >>
I would say about a zero effect on Boggs.
Rice WAS a less formidable cleanup hitter(or number 3) compared to anywhere from 6-35 of his league mates as it was(depending on the year in the mid 80's)....and the pitchers felt the same way as they didn't give Jim Rice a lot of intentional Walks.
In 1986 Bill Buckner was Intentionally Walked EIGHT times with Rice in the on deck circle. So I hardly think people were giving Boggs pitches to hit two or three spots ahead of Rice
For comparison sake, from 1982 to 1986 Cal Ripken batted third and Eddie Murray batted fourth nearly every game...except for the few times Murray was out of the lineup(and on DL one sint in 1986 where Ripken did get a few IBB).
Cal Ripken was intentionally walked ZERO times from 1982-1986 with Murray batting behind him. Ripken was an MVP, yet zero intentional walks in those years!
So if there was ever a case where a player received pitches due to the fear of the man behind you, it was in Ripken's case because Murray was the most feared hitter in the league(and best from 1982-1985).
...and that theory about the hitter behind you(or in this case sometimes two or three spots behind you), making you better, really isn't provenanyway. People have tried to find some consistency in it, but haven't been able to.
I wouldn't have a problem with Rice being in the HOF, except there are too many guys from his own era that were better than him, that are not in.
His two outfield mates from his same team were BOTH better than him, and they aren't in. Lynn and Evans were the equal(or better) offensively than Rice...and were both clearly better defenders. Makes zero sense why Rice is in. Why? Because writers got fooled by the inflated RBI totals and the Fenway effect.
<< <i>Okay Skin, you've got a list of between 6-35 hitters in the AL who were more feared cleanup hitters than Rice in the 80's. Care to name them? By the way, stating that Fred Lynn and Dewey Evans were better offensive players than Rice over the course of their respective careers is an absurd notion. >>
Depending on the year...yes there were(some may not have been cleanup hitters, but hitters somewhere in the middle nonetheless). Do a search on baseball-reference, they are there...but if you are using RBI as your barometer(or ignoring the Fenway factor), then there is no point even bothering, because then you are making the same mistake as the writers and other fans.
Rice was sooo feared, that Bill Buckner was walked intentionally eight times in front of him in 1986...a year Rice finsihed 3rd in MVP voting. A feared hitter is the Ripken/Murray example, not Rice.
What YOU need to show is the absurd thinking that Wade Boggs was made a better hitter because Rice batted two or three spots behind him in the order. Most ridiculous thing ever said on these boards!
Bottom line, as pointed out above, Rice should have been driving in a ton of runs in his situation...in 1986 he should have fallen out of bed and driven in 100...yet he gets improper credit due to lineup and park, a top 3 MVP finish(which also helped falsely his HOF candidacy).
Evans had a career 127 OPS+
Lynn had a career 129 OPS+
Rice had a career 128 OPS+
Lynn had about a thousand less plate apperances, Evans about a thousand more.
Lynn and Evans were both easily superior defensive players than Rice, and both better baserunners(more so Lynn).
Win Probability Added figures state the same. If you like RBI, then Win Probability tells all that and much more.
Yes, they were better.
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.
In 1983 there were 11 full-time guys in MLB with a higher OPS+ than Rice, and 29 guys with more IBB than Rice
In 1984 there were 54 full-time guys in MLB with a higher OPS+ than Rice, and 41 guys with more IBB than Rice
In 1985 there were 35 full-time guys in MLB with a higher OPS+ than Rice, and 79 guys with more IBB than Rice
In 1986 there were 10 full-time guys in MLB with a higher OPS+ than Rice, and 69 guys with more IBB than Rice
Those are very good, but hardly dominant...and certainly not feared!
For comparison, these three were the best in that time. This is just OPS+, as the other more advanced measurement say same thing(and boost them even more over Rice).
1983 Murray......2nd in MLB OPS+, 13th in IBB
1983 Brett .......1st in MLB OPS+, 13th tied in IBB
1983 Schmidt...2nd in MLB OPS+, 4th in IBB
1984 Murray...1st in MLB OPS+, 1st in IBB
1984 Brett.....not full season.65th OPS+
1984 Schmidt.3rd in MLB OPS+, 9th in IBB
1985 Murray...9th in MLB OPS+, 16th in IBB
1985 Brett.....2nd in MLB OPS, 1st in IBB
1985 Schmidt..11th in MLB OPS+, 42 in IBB
1986 Murray..13th in MLB OPS+, 50th IBB
1986 Brett....9th in MLB OPS+, 5th in IBB
1986 Schmidt 2nd in MLB OPS+, 1st in IBB
I said it before, if Rice was most feared, then who exactly was fearing him? It certainly wasn't the pitchers or managers. They had no problem pitching to him, and like in the example with Buckner getting walked in FRONT of Rice, they had no problem walking guys to GET TO HIM.
If you are going to say that Rice didn't get walked because he had a good lineup, then you have painted yourself into a corner, because above, you said that guys see better pitches when better hitters are around them. So that would mean Rice was the beneficiary of the good pitches he saw due to being in great lineups all his years, thus rendering his stats even more artificially inflated!
I love painting guys into a corner.
I have plenty experience and forgotten more than you will ever know in both playing the game personally and evaluating it.
PS Are you that bad at reading when I showed you WHY Rice had a lot of RBI? If you do not understand the importance of opportunities, lets you and I have a contest:
We will see who can make the most free throws. I get 25 attempts, and you get 8. Lets see how fast you understand it then!
Finally, your Wade BOggs pitch selection argument is plain dumb. Also, they do NOT have a 67% chance of getting him out!
If they were so afraid of getting to Rice with men on base, then why on earth do they IBB Bill Buckner eight times to do exactly that!? LMAO LOL!
Bogg's OB% was consistently near .450 in his prime, which gives the team a 55% chance of getting him out.
Yeah, they were so afraid to walk Wade BOggs because Jim Rice was looming three spots down....yet they had no problem Intentionally walking Bill Buckner IN FRONT OF RICE to put even more runners on base for Rice!
Moron.
How about you and I have a contest, and we can see who played the game?
Also, if you believe that better hitters give hitters in front better pitches, then Rice benefited from that as well, as in his lineup the guys behind him were better than most other middle of the order hitters had the benefit of.
And they were so afraid to walk Wade Boggs that those years he ranked 3rd, 5th, 5ht, and 1st in the league in walks. Yeah...sure must have been getting all fastballs down the middle because Jim Rice(who was not feared by pitchers or managers) was three spots down. LMAO
How writers use stats incorrectly, specifically RBI in the case of Rice:
1986 is a great example, because Rice finished third in the MVP voting, which was ridiculous. Rice had 110 RBI. Looks good on the surface.
However, it is primarily because he simply had so many opportunities.
If someone loves RBI so much, then must equally HATE it when a player FAILS to drive in a runner that is presented to him!
In 1986 Rice failed 174 runners, making outs, and FAILING to drive them in. That must drive RBI fans nuts!
That 174 led the American League!
Next worst were Canseco 154, Baylor 152, Bell 141.
Two of the best hitters that year; Mattingly 127, Schmidt 125.
As you see, he choked more than anybody. If people call his RBI that he delivered as clutch, then this must be a choke since he didn't deliver...which makes him the player who choked most often in 1986!
You can't just look at the success and ignore the failures, and when you look at an RBI total, that is exactly what you are doing!
Stats such as Win Probability Added take it further and more accurately by looking at the successes and failures in every single men on base and out situation to come up with a proper game impact that a player had. Every choke, every clutch, every 'neutral, big choke, little choke, big clutch, little clutch...ALL OF IT.
With play by play stats such as these, it makes zero sense to even use RBI as a measurement tool now.
<< <i>
Here are the numbers of RBI produced OVER the expected RBI for each player in those four years:
Murray....Rice
38.4......34.4.....1983
35.9......23.4.....1984
50.4......12.1.....1985
18.8......7.5.......1986
Notice in 1986, Boston's World Series year, Rice was barely producing RBI over the rate of average...yet people look at his 110 RBI and get all excited. Heck, even the writers voted him THIRD in the MVP race. ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Boggs was 7th in MVP voting, yet Boggs was much better than Rice. Ridiculous ignorance on the part of writers and fans! They were fooled by the RBI total, which was only high because Rice had so many opportunities...and they failed to understand OB%.
>>
I don't want to get sidetracked by arguing if Murray was better than Rice at driving in runs. I'll concede that Murray was. But I looked up the Retrosheet study you talked about (or at least I found one on Retrosheet) and I think it's important to note that in 1986 Jim Rice's expected RBI (eRBI) was the 10th highest expected total between 1960 and 2004. So that does mean he had a lot of guys on in front of him in situations where it should be likely that he drives those runners in.
What I fail to understand is why this becomes a criticism of Rice? He came up to the plate with a lot of RBI chances. And not only did he live up to "expected" outcomes but he he surpassed them by 7.9 RBI in this case. Retrosheet Why criticism Rice or hold it against him that he delivered when expected? Why not instead criticize guys like Nellie Fox who twice led the American League in negative RBI compared to expected RBI (1961: -25.2 and 1963: -24.9) or Luis Aparicio who was worst in the league in 1962 with -26.8?
Also, I noticed on this sheet linked above that the numbers produced over eRBI are different from what you quoted. Perhaps you could post a link to the specific retrosheet study you used for your stats so we can account for the differences (park factors perhaps?).
Rice-
1983: 126 RBI, 85.6 eRBI, difference of 40.4 RBI (not 34.4). BTW, this report also said that Rice led the AL in RBI production value and not Murray (RBI - eRBI).
1986: 110 RBI, 102.1 eRBI, difference of 7.9 RBI (not 7.4).
In addition to wanting education on this topic, I'm still curious how Boggs' presence, or lack thereof, would have changed Rice's eRBI during those years. If Boggs was replaced by a league average leadoff hitter would Rice have finished his career with 25 fewer RBI? 100 fewer? How could I go about determining that?
If Rice failed to drive in 174 runners in 1986 why was his expected RBI only 102.1? I can only surmise that many of those 174 base runners were on base in a situation that nobody would likely be driving them in such as a runner on 1st base with 2 outs.
How many RBI do you think Rice should have had that year?
<< <i>Skin,
If Rice failed to drive in 174 runners in 1986 why was his expected RBI only 102.1? I can only surmise that many of those 174 base runners were on base in a situation that nobody would likely be driving them in such as a runner on 1st base with 2 outs.
How many RBI do you think Rice should have had that year? >>
Sorry I didn't clarify above...those are Runners in scoring position only.
They are also two different measurements, and deliver the answers in different ways.
The scenario you painted though is a perfect example of how Win Probability works. Making an out with a man on 1st and two outs isn't as harmful as with making an out with bases loaded and two outs.
If one loves RBI, then they have to be madly eternally in love with Win Probability, because it has those answers we looked for all those times years ago. We know exactly how often players failed/delivered in every situation...man on 3rd, less than two outs, etc...
We also know the positive and negative impact those events have on scoring runs and winning games.
The play by play data is the best thing ever.
That same player could sport a 4.12 ERA and only have 150 wins, but I would argue that his success (both individual and team) should make him an eligible candidate. >>
It's hard to imagine a ten time all star with ony 150 wins-unles he spent a lot of his career as a reliever. Anyway, you just look at the entire body of work and decide.
I think you are taking my Boggs comment too seriously...that is in as much in jest as anything else. The point is the amount of baserunners.
Those figures did have park factors.
Rice is excellent player. He is only being 'knocked' down compared to other excellent or superior players who had less chances to drive runners in. Compared to hitters like Nellie Fox and stuff...those guys are not really good hitters, and certainly not at the level of Rice.
<< <i>The probable explanation for Buckner's 8 intentional walks (which is a minuscule number by the way) is not that they feared Buckner over Rice, but that first base was open, and they walked Buckner to keep the double play in order. That is something that anyone who has played the game would know. >>
Which means they did NOT fear Rice as much as you think. What they knew was that Rice was a GIDP machine....and not remotely fear enough to think Wade BOggs got a diet of fastball three spots ahead in the order. No chance.
Because if they didn't want baserunners in front of Rice, then they wouldn't be walking Buckner to add even more.
Cal Ripken was better and more dangerous than Buckner, yet in four years with Murray batting behind him, he never received an intentional walk...that is fear.
However, even in that case, it would still be very hard to proved that Ripken was only that good because of Murray batting behind him.
Also, like I mentioned, Rice had the benefit of a lot of good hitters batting 5th and 6th in his tenure...so if you do believe in guys seeing better pitches, then Rice benefited from that as much as anyone.
<< <i>Skin, with all due respect, your knowledge of baseball is severely hampered by your lack of experience. Every baseball nerd relies on the same metrics in an attempt to show how all the "old" statistics are useless, but they fail to understand how the game is/was played. It is entirely plausible that Boggs saw more fastballs because Rice was hitting behind him. Imagine this scenario: Boggs walks, and being the slow runner that he was, he needs the second hitter to sacrifice him to second. That gives the 3rd and/or cleanup hitter an opportunity to drive in a run from second. You, as the opposing pitcher, don't want to give Boggs a free pass when you have a 67% or better chance of getting him out, so you throw him fastballs. And this is especially true because Wade was not, except for the one year aberration, a long ball threat. So that is why the threat of pitching to Rice would have an effect on pitch selection to Boggs, even though they did not hit back to back. >>
I did not think any serious baseball fan still believed in lineup protection. I thought that theory went the way of the dinosaurs.
Even the expected RBI measurement is not that great of a measurement, because it completely ignores half of a hitters job...the On Base portion.
So guys who may be low in the expected RBI portion, may also have a high OB%, and their 'run value' may be in that portion of a hitters value.
The expected RBI simply looks primarily at RBI and RBI opportunity....and is completely obsolete with Win Probability Added.
<< <i>I am a serious baseball fan, and lineup protection is real. But then again, I also believe in climate change. :-) >>
It is real in a sense.
For example, Barry Bonds during his juiced years run.
Had he had Frank Thomas in his prime batting behind him, it may have changed some of his stats, but ultimately the final stat performance would be about the same.
He may have hit more HR's because they didn't intentionally walk him as much...but which means his OB% would have gone down. In the end, he ends up with more HR, more outs made, less walks, less OB%...and the same OPS+.
It is possible there is no way to ever truly tell if the batter behind someone had a big effect or not. Everything points to marginal to nothing.
But in Rice's case, if you do believe in lineup protection, then he was protected better than any cleanup hitter in the league. When you have guys like Dwight Evans batting sixth(and when he was just as good a hitter as Rice), that is some pretty darn good lineup protection that no other team had in their sixth spot in the order.
Evans did have excellent years form age 35-39. OPS+ 133
Age 30-34 OPS+ 133
Age 25-29 OPS+ 126
Age 20-24 OPS+ 110
Not too much of a change, except for when he was very young.
He had his second best year at age 35.
If you look at age 36-39 his OPS+ 126...so not quite the jump compared to his previous ten.
Career wise, Evans OPS+ was 127, Rice 128...but Evans did it in 1,500 MORE plate appearances.