Most feared/dominant hitter? Underrated?
Skin2
Posts: 1,259 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Dominance and peak years can be measured in different ways, and below are three players showing their best eight years(full seasons) in MLB via OPS+. Eight years show a good representation of a player at his best:
OPS+
Pedro...Rice...Bull...Smith
182.....157....156....168
156.....154....154....162
154.....147....153....150
150.....141....145....143
145.....137....137....142
138.....131....130....137
131.....128....129....129
127.....123....126....127
Enough has been said here on the myth of Jim Rice, but look how well these two contemporary Sluggers compare to the guy who was supposedly the 'most feared' hitter in baseball in his prime. Obviously, Schmidt, Brett, Murray etc...were all more feared and better than Rice in their primes...and isn't really close.
However, I think many baseball fans would be surprised to see that Pedro Guerrero was actually better in his prime than Rice, and that Greg Luzinski just as good.
Oh, that guy "Smith" on the end is Reggie Smith...talk about a guy who flew under the radar, and is lost to baseball fans born after 1980. His prime was better than Rice's.
I've bashed Jim Rice enough, so I want to make sure that other players who were just as good, get their due. So the next beer is to Pedro, Bull, and Reggie...and all of whom would be mistaken for other players if I just listed them by Pedro, Bull, and Reggie.
OPS+
Pedro...Rice...Bull...Smith
182.....157....156....168
156.....154....154....162
154.....147....153....150
150.....141....145....143
145.....137....137....142
138.....131....130....137
131.....128....129....129
127.....123....126....127
Enough has been said here on the myth of Jim Rice, but look how well these two contemporary Sluggers compare to the guy who was supposedly the 'most feared' hitter in baseball in his prime. Obviously, Schmidt, Brett, Murray etc...were all more feared and better than Rice in their primes...and isn't really close.
However, I think many baseball fans would be surprised to see that Pedro Guerrero was actually better in his prime than Rice, and that Greg Luzinski just as good.
Oh, that guy "Smith" on the end is Reggie Smith...talk about a guy who flew under the radar, and is lost to baseball fans born after 1980. His prime was better than Rice's.
I've bashed Jim Rice enough, so I want to make sure that other players who were just as good, get their due. So the next beer is to Pedro, Bull, and Reggie...and all of whom would be mistaken for other players if I just listed them by Pedro, Bull, and Reggie.
0
Comments
And he played most of his best years in a park that was much tougher to hit in, too.
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.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Too bad the voters don't use OPS when electing players to the Hall. Guerrero better in his prime than Rice, that's a good one. >>
PSASAP,
Ignorant voters do not use good measurements, you are 100% correct.
Baseball hitting measurements(the good ones) are accurate to about 98% validity, and Guerrero was as good as Rice in his prime. However, some people who are ignorant on the subject may look at RBI totals, and get fooled into thinking Rice was better...and I guess ignorance is bliss, more power to you.
In other words, opinion doesn't really come into play when measuring baseball hitters...it's measurement validity is unique, compared to any other sport/measurement. If you are high on opinion, it isn't of any use in this topic....maybe figure skating would be better for you PSASAP.
Some may also not understand the Fenway factor...but if they don't understand the RBI aspect above, no bother even going there on that one, lol. Those people are simply 'too far gone'.
The most accurate offensive measurement is Win Probability Added, which is taken directly from the actual play by play data, of which the values are derived from the millions of actual MLB play by play data from the 1940's to now....far more valuable than the opinion of PSASAP, lol.
Here is how Guerrero and Rice stack up...and keep in mind, Guerrero missed more games due to injury in some of those seasons, limiting him a little more.
Win Probability Added...expressed in Wins produced above average:
Guerrero....Rice
5.9..........6.7
5.2..........3.8
4.3..........3.7
4.2..........2.4
3.5..........2.2
3.4..........2.2
2.8..........2.0
1.5..........1.3
Win Probability is RBI x one million...so if you love RBI, then you are head over heals in love with Win Probability. PSASAP, Guerrero is better hitter than Rice in their primes.
People are welcome to continue to live with ignorant and biased opinions formulated out of a lack of knowledge and understanding...and those that scoff at the reality that Guerrero WAS a better hitter than Rice, are pretty good examples of those people
im just now getting use to WAR and old metrics like that lol
<< <i>what does WinProbability measure? What does it mean?
im just now getting use to WAR and old metrics like that lol >>
It comes from the play by play data, and gives context to each at bat(number of outs, runners on base, score, inning)...so if anyone is looking to see who impacted creating runs/wins, then Win Probability Added does everything we always wanted to know back in the 70's/80's when we were guessing on who was the best at that.
A double with nobody on has X amount of run value...based on the play by play data in MLB on when a double occurs.
A double with a man on 1B has even more run value...
A double with a man on 1B, 2B, 3B has even more run value
A double with a man on 1B, 2B, 3B, while down by two runs in the bottom of the 9th, has even MORE run/win value.
After each event, it either increases or decreases a team's chance to score and win. Every single event is taken measured, and a run/win value is given.
So every time someone looks at RBI(which only paints a miniscule picture), they can just look at Win Probability Added, because it tells a million times more.
Other measures such as Base Runs only look at the men on base situations, and does not take into account of number of outs or what inning it occured. Base Runs is extremely accurate because it is based on play by play data...but without the other factors.
OPS+ correlates very well with those measurements and is very easy and suitable(which is why it is good to use on message boards). OPS+ does not take into account the men on base hitting value, so you get some difference between hitters who did better with men on base. The difference is never really that big though, as you can see can see with the Guerrero/Rice in the OPS+ and WPA charts.
Guerrero beat him in both...so it really isnt even a question on which of the two is better in their prime. That is more of a slam dunk. Even with the greatest margin of error given, it could only lead to them being 'equal'.
Offensive WAR has a position adjustment to it...so if you are simply judging a hitter, then don't bother using that, because the position adjustment gives it a different 'value'.
Plus, WAR in total, with its heavy reliance on defensive value and position adjustment value, can sometimes skew things...because neither of those are as valid as offensive hitting measurements above.
PS, anyone that is used to using BA or RBI as their reference to judging hitters, you should be happy, because those elements are all in the good measurements...but the other key stuff is there too, like BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR...outs made, hitting in DP, Ground out advancing a runner, Strikeout...and as pointed out, WPA has all those with the context of the baserunners, outs, innings, and score...many should be in heaven with that info!
I think every baseball fan could understand/agree on the following 'chain of command' for a batter:
Making an out is bad.
Drawing a BB is better
Hitting a single is even better
Hitting a double is even better
Hitting a triple is even better
Hitting a HR is even better
If there is a person in the baseball world that would disagree with that hierarchy, then they are either a moron or being disingenuous.
The problem people have always fallen into is the value of each of those. How much is each better than the other? OB% and SLG% each make a good attempt at telling that...though both have their own individual flaw in them.
However, when added together, those flaws sort of even out, and when added together, they make one pretty strong and accurate measurement to the value of a hitter.
Next comes the play by play data, and stats like BaseRuns. It takes OPS+ to the next step:
An out with a man on 1B is worse than an out with nobody on.
A single with a man on 1B is better than an out, and also better than a single with nobody on.
A double with a man on 1B is better than a single, and also better than a 2B with nobody on.
A triple with a man on 1B is better than a double, and also better than a triple with nobody on.
A HR with a man on 1B is better than a triple, and also better than a HR with nobody on.
Then Win Probability Added takes it even further when adding the score and inning:
A HR with a man on 1B is better than a double, and is better when it happens down one run in the ninth, as opposed to down 10 runs in the ninth.
So the good measurements aren't really as confusing or strange as many think. All they are doing is adding the value of an Out, BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR...and those are pretty familiar to every fan
But when it comes to crunch time you have to pick who you would like at the plate in certain situations.
IF my team was down several runs late and needed a HR.....I would take Reggie Jackson in his prime. Micky Mantle would also be good because of power from both sides.
If I needed a base hit.....there are a bunch of good ones.....but I would take Pete Rose in his prime.
You probably disagree with all of my picks, but that's OK.
There are sooooooo many great players in BB.
I'm not saying that total bases is not a significant metric, but that there are other, more advanced metrics to better illustrate what those obvious numbers mean in relation to a player's ability and aptitude as a hitter. It takes some effort and a willingness to look behind the curtain and challenge your preconceived notions, but it's worth the effort in the long run, and imo will add to your enjoyment and understanding of the game in its true context. The tools are there, but if you want to look at only the most obvious stats in a vacuum, and instead make comparisons like a double is equal to two singles, with no context at all, well, then, go right ahead, lol..
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.
An out with a man on 1B is worse than an out with nobody on.
A single with a man on 1B is better than an out, and also better than a single with nobody on.
A double with a man on 1B is better than a single, and also better than a 2B with nobody on.
A triple with a man on 1B is better than a double, and also better than a triple with nobody on.
A HR with a man on 1B is better than a triple, and also better than a HR with nobody on. <<<
One could argue that the above stats don't really measure the hitter.......but rather the ability of the players before him to get on base.....so it can be added to that 3 letter thingy you tount so much.
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.
A TD when you are ahead would not count as much as a TD when you are behind!
<< <i>You mean like:
A TD when you are ahead would not count as much as a TD when you are behind!
LOL...
I'm starting to hear the words "Super Bowl" and Dallas in same sentence this week...if Romo wins a ring, you'll have to say he is an elite QB!
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.
Isn't that crazy! What's with this defense.......losing Ware and play better. I have always thought that defense is more than about individual talent. I think the Def. Coach and plan is more of a determining factor.
They still need better Def. backs!
If Tony plays out the year this way and wins the NFC East and takes Dallas to the SB and wins it.......I will forgive him of the previous 6 years!
<< <i>Guerrero's best season for total bases was 310. Rice had an average of 375 total bases in his best four seasons, and he had a fifth season in which he had 307 total bases. He had over 200 hits in four seasons, Guerrero never had a 200 hit season. Rice was the last player, prior to the steroid era, to have amassed 400 total bases in a season, 96 more than Pedro's best, which is the equivalent of 24 home runs, or 32 triples, or 48 doubles, or 96 base hits. Any way you slice it, that is a wide margin. So stop spouting nonsense about Guerrero's prime being better than Rice's. And Olga, the Ukrainian judge gives you a 3.0 for falling on your butt while attempting the triple axel. >>
Total bases and hits tell a portion of the story, but they leave things out...so drawing any sort of conclusion from them would be foolish. However, that is to be expected from ignorance.
The advanced measurements already include total bases and hits, as well as other offensive events, thus leading to a more accurate conclusion.
The MLB play by play data backs it all up, and its validity is about 98% valid...
Again,
Making an out is bad.
Drawing a BB is better
Hitting a single is even better
Hitting a double is even better
Hitting a triple is even better
Hitting a HR is even better
That is the foundation of advance measurements. If you disagree with that hierarchy of events, let me know. THen I will at least know if I have a true fool on my hands.
<< <i>All of these stats are just stats....and are probably as good as any in comparing to players careers.
But when it comes to crunch time you have to pick who you would like at the plate in certain situations.
IF my team was down several runs late and needed a HR.....I would take Reggie Jackson in his prime. Micky Mantle would also be good because of power from both sides.
If I needed a base hit.....there are a bunch of good ones.....but I would take Pete Rose in his prime.
You probably disagree with all of my picks, but that's OK.
There are sooooooo many great players in BB. >>
That is what Win Probability Added would tell you...and I wouldn't argue that just needing a hit in a certain situation would make Rose the better choice, for that exact moment in time.
However, one can't just use a player for certain situations, because there is an entire game to play, and within a game comes many situations that lead to runs/wins, and the player that does that best, creates the most runs/wins for his team and is better.
<< <i>>>>Next comes the play by play data, and stats like BaseRuns. It takes OPS+ to the next step:
An out with a man on 1B is worse than an out with nobody on.
A single with a man on 1B is better than an out, and also better than a single with nobody on.
A double with a man on 1B is better than a single, and also better than a 2B with nobody on.
A triple with a man on 1B is better than a double, and also better than a triple with nobody on.
A HR with a man on 1B is better than a triple, and also better than a HR with nobody on. <<<
One could argue that the above stats don't really measure the hitter.......but rather the ability of the players before him to get on base.....so it can be added to that 3 letter thingy you tount so much.
One could argue that those are measuring things other than the ability of a hitter, and that some of those things are out of his control. I agree. In that case, simply using the foundation of:
Making an out is bad.
Drawing a BB is better
Hitting a single is even better
Hitting a double is even better
Hitting a triple is even better
Hitting a HR is even better
...and giving its proper context neutral run value based on MLB play by play data, will then be measuring only the hitter and leaving the other stuff out.
In the end, they come close enough to each other where the difference is negligible in most cases.
However, in the case of the average fan where they are saying things that you like to say, "does he do it when it counts? He only hits HR's when it is a blowout." "this player contributed more runs/wins." Win Probability added tells you all of that.
When it comes to HOF time, and a "players record, and contribution to his team" are looked at, then Win Probability Added tells that to an exact science.
In any case, Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their primes.
Rice's lineup, home park, and people's ignorance on the value of each offensive event, have fooled many into believing the opposite. Some of those people will be stuck forever, and thats ok. For the people who don't understand the home park factor, I have an offer on the table that will never go away:
I will challenge you to a HR hitting contest, only I get to pick the fields each of us get to hit in
GIDP is really bad.....................Ahem, calling Jim Rice, lol.
Making an out is bad.
Drawing a BB is better
Hitting a single is even better
Hitting a double is even better
Hitting a triple is even better
Hitting a HR is even better
That is the foundation of advance measurements. If you disagree with that hierarchy of events, let me know. Then I will at least know if I have a true fool on my hands.
...and before you say, "depends on the situation," that info is all there too via the play by play data(which Win Probability Added already shows). So that is the next step....and home ballpark factor.
IF you agree with the above hierachy, then you already believe in OPS, and BaseRuns.
If you are one that needs 'situation' information, then you have Win Probability there for you arleady, because every single event for a hitter is known and accounted for.
As far as greatest BB player ever....I dont't think it is possible to pick "one" player. If I had to pick an all around best.....like I have said before I would go with Willie Mays.
As far as Jeter being the greatest.....NO.....but I would classify him as a great player who played 20 years on a great team and he should make the HOF on first ballot. AND it should be unanamious(SP).
As far as PG and Rice......I remember the both as being great players, but will not pick one as the better of the two.
And yes, the ballpark makes a difference......especially on HR hits. Yankee Stadium was built just for Ruth.
<< <i>Stats are stats and are what you want them to be. If you just go by certain stats.....Tony Romo would look great! He is NOT great and if he continues the rest of his career like the first 6 years......he should NOT make the HOF!
As far as greatest BB player ever....I dont't think it is possible to pick "one" player. If I had to pick an all around best.....like I have said before I would go with Willie Mays.
As far as Jeter being the greatest.....NO.....but I would classify him as a great player who played 20 years on a great team and he should make the HOF on first ballot. AND it should be unanamious(SP).
As far as PG and Rice......I remember the both as being great players, but will not pick one as the better of the two.
And yes, the ballpark makes a difference......especially on HR hits. Yankee Stadium was built just for Ruth. >>
Football stats are nowhere near as valid as baseball hitting stats. Those are a completely different animal.
These are NOT adjusted to their home parks(but they will be). These are their stats per 162 games during their best eight year stretch.
Rice..................Guerrero
20......GIDP ..........13
451...Outs Made....402
46........BB.............74
123......1B.............118
31........2B.............30
7..........3B.............4
36.........HR............27
Intuitively, any baseball fan should be able to look at those numbers and see it is pretty much a dead heat. Rice averaged 9 more HR, 3 more triples, one more double, and five more singles. But, Rice averaged making 49 more outs, and 28 less Base on Balls. In total, their unadjusted OPS was, Rice .896 and Guerrero .895. Add the GIDP where Rice averaged 7 more(which isn't counted in OPS), then it actually pushes Guerrero ahead by a hair.
Yes, I hear all the time..."it is their job to get hits, not walks, etc..." First, that isn't true, it is their job to create runs, and the play by play data shows how much each creates, and BB create runs too.
Also, if it is "his job to get a single with a man on 2B," and you get excited when does....then shouldn't you also get equally angry and upset when he makes an out with a man on 2B?? Yes, you should...and Rice was continuously among the league leaders in making outs with men on base, and this reflects in those extra 49 outs he made per year that Guerrero did not.
If you believe making outs doesn't matter...words like moron, fool, bias come to mind. But I believe 95% of people understand that making an out is not a good thing.
However, those numbers do not include the fact that it was easier to produce offensive numbers in Fenway, and harder in Dodger stadium. In fact, during that time, Fenway was one of the best hitters parks in MLB...and Rice no doubt benefitted, as when you look at his home/road splits, he was far more ineffective when he didn't have the luxury of batting in Fenway.
So what happens when you factor in the ballpark factor AND use more advanced stats from the play by play?
OPS+ are the numbers listed above, except it includes the ballpark factor:
Rice 138
Guerrero 150
Run Expectancy is the number of runs this batter produced above average, based on the play by play data, including what they did with men on base, and number of outs:
Rice 231 runs above average produced.
Guerrero 288 runs above average produced.
Win Probability Added is the number of wins this batter produced above averaged, based on the play by play data, which includes all the men on base hitting, plus the context of the score and inning at the time of each even.
Rice 19.8 wins produced above average.
Guerrero 27.7 wins produced above average.
IF anyone can walk away from this and still think it is a stretch to believe that Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their primes, then I better prepare for Santa and the Easter Bunny, because those would be about as valid as those person's beliefs.
I'm going out for some beers tonight, and my first one will be a tip of the glass to Pedro Guerrero, one of the most unrecognized outstanding hitters in MLB, whom while in his prime...was a better hitter than Jim Rice. Cheers to Pedro.
<< <i>As far as Jeter being the greatest.....NO.....but I would classify him as a great player who played 20 years on a great team and he should make the HOF on first ballot. AND it should be unanamious(SP). >>
1st all-time in OPS+ (Babe Ruth) and a very good pitcher - not unanimous
497th all-time in OPS+ (Derek Jeter) and below average on defense - unanimous?
<< <i>Don't worry skin, you'll always have grote to support you. I'm trying to figure out if you're Loeb, and he's Leopold, or if it's the other way around.
What does that make dallasactuary? Talk about a guy who effectively eviscerated the myth of Jim Rice..
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.
You plod around with ignorant, simplistic, and naive views more in line with how a six year old brain would view baseball and Jim Rice...perhaps you are Lennie Small to Jaxxr's George Milton.
In any case...your 'case' has been blown to bits.
Sorry to damage your self-esteem by shedding the truth on your hero. Don't worry, at least Pedro Guerrero fans can feel a bit better now.
There are instances in which striking out is more beneficial to the team than a walk. Do you know when that is the case?
<< <i>Making an out is bad.
There are instances in which striking out is more beneficial to the team than a walk. Do you know when that is the case? >>
I can't wait to hear the answer to this.
<< <i>Guerrero's best season for total bases was 310. Rice had an average of 375 total bases in his best four seasons, and he had a fifth season in which he had 307 total bases. He had over 200 hits in four seasons, Guerrero never had a 200 hit season. Rice was the last player, prior to the steroid era, to have amassed 400 total bases in a season, 96 more than Pedro's best, which is the equivalent of 24 home runs, or 32 triples, or 48 doubles, or 96 base hits. Any way you slice it, that is a wide margin. So stop spouting nonsense about Guerrero's prime being better than Rice's. And Olga, the Ukrainian judge gives you a 3.0 for falling on your butt while attempting the triple axel. >>
The year Rice got those 406 total bases, he put up 231 of them at home on the backs of a .361 average and .690 slugging % at home. On the road, he hit .269 while slugging .512. It's not unfair to say he added 50-75 bases to his total just on the basis of playing at Fenway that year.
THAT SAID...
The 175 total bases he put up on the road that year is an outstanding number, no question about it. If he duplicated that at home, he'd have 350, which is an excellent number. But .269/36/128, which would be his numbers if his road #s were doubled looks a lot different than .315/46/139 (his actual numbers for 1978), doesn't it? Still excellent, no question about it, but not quite the same.
<< <i>Making an out is bad.
There are instances in which striking out is more beneficial to the team than a walk. Do you know when that is the case? >>
Yeah, a drop third strike to the backstop with a man on third. But that is an error on the defense, not a credit to the batter. So fail again. Also, if you think that is a viable strategy to somehow negate the information that is reality, then you should go coach a team and instruct them to strike out with a man on third and hope for drop third strikes. You really are a fool.
You state that as plural, meaning more than one. Please tell me when the other instances are.
Then please show me where that also affects the case of Jim Rice and Pedro Guerrero. Did Jim Rice produce more runs in his stats because he had 20 dropped third strikes per year with a man on third that led to runs? Man, you really are grasping.
Pedro isn't going to the HOF, and shouldn't. He petered out too quickly. Rice was the same...but he just fooled the ignorant of the baseball world...as pointed out a million times already.
According to PSASAP's own criteria on judging players, then Todd Helton would be better than Hank Aaron at their peaks. You mentioned above how Rice had more 400 TB seasons than Guerrero, and thus was better. You completely disregarded pertinent factors such as the ballpark...not to mention all the other offensive events.
Well, according to your own theory Todd Helton would be better than Hank Aaron in their peaks, because Todd Helton had TWO 400 TB seasons in his career...and Aaron only one! Furthermore, Todd Helton had TWO seasons of Total Bases that were better than Aaron's best season. Helton's top three Total Base seasons averaged out to 391, while Aaron's top three only averaged out to 379.
Helton's top three RBI seasons averaged out to 137 per year, while Aarons were 130.
Helton's top three hit total seasons averaged out to 207, Aaron's 208...ok so Aaron squeaked that one out, lol.
So according to PSASAP's theories and evaluation methods, Todd Helton was a better hitter than Hank Aaron in their peaks.
Your theories are about as good as Jaxxr's when defending Rice, where his evaluation methods had Dave Kingman being as good as Honus Wagner.
You two really are Lenny and George...now maybe you should go tend those rabbits, because you are failing miserably here.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>An instance in which a strikeout is more beneficial to a team than a walk is this: if a batter runs the count to 3-2, then fouls off five pitches before ultimately striking out, he has helped his team by making the pitcher throw 11 pitches, a significant amount in this era of pitch counts. If a batter is walked intentionally with a runner on second and with first base open, which is done often to keep a double play possibility intact, then the pitcher really threw four free pitches, with zero stress. That, my friends, is why a strikeout is sometimes better than a walk. >>
LMAO, Grote, you are correct, we may have witnessed the dumbest poster in regard to the sport of baseball...ever.
PSASAP, if you believe in increasing the pitch counts of a pitcher, that is fine...and then that would mean you absolutely LOVE players who take more walks, because those are the guys who force pitchers to throw more pitches(look it up in the play by play info
I hear Home Depot is running a sale on shovels...you might want to grab a few, because the hole you are digging yourself in is getting pretty big!
PS, in your case above...the guy who runs the count to 3-2, then fouls off five pitches, then strikes out...would be smarter if after the ten pitches, he drew a walk or got a hit...instead of striking out
Also, if you are truly interested in pitch counts, and which batters are better at it than others, then that info is all available for you too, and can easily be incorporated in the evaluation.
Sorry, Rice isn't one of the high pitch count batters...so you just put one more nail in his coffin with your idiotic attempt.
<< <i>I also don't have to resort to petty name-calling to make my point, a tactic that doesn't strengthen your argument, but just makes you look insecure and childish. >>
Says the guy who makes the tasteless joke calling other posters kidnappers, murderers and a minor murdered victim...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Grote, you're right and I apologize for that. >>
No harm, no foul...discourse sometimes gets a bit heated in the course of a sports debate..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>I also don't have to resort to petty name-calling to make my point, a tactic that doesn't strengthen your argument, but just makes you look insecure and childish. >>
Says the guy who makes the tasteless joke calling other posters kidnappers, murderers and a minor murdered victim... >>
Exactly.
I see you apologized for equating us to kidnappers and murderers, as you should.
I however, stand by my assertion that your points are among the most idiotic I have ever seen on these boards. That doesn't make you an idiot. You are simply out of your league.
<< <i>Skin, you obviously didn't read my answer carefully. I gave an example of how a strikeout would be more beneficial to a team than drawing a walk. It was the way one batter struck out versus how another drew a walk that made it beneficial to the team. A walk will always raise a batter's OBP, just as a strikeout will always lower it, that statement is true. But what helps a team isn't always what benefits the batter individually, it is an exception to the norm. I was refuting your statement that a walk is always better than a strikeout, and that was independent of any case being made for or against Jim Rice. I also don't have to resort to petty name-calling to make my point, a tactic that doesn't strengthen your argument, but just makes you look insecure and childish. >>
1. Even in the remote chance that your ridiculous comparison were true, that scenario would be a one in 500,000 event, and would do absolutely nothing to refute the play by play info, nor the 'chain of command' I posted above. I can add something ridiculous like, "what if the pitcher threw a wild pitch during the intentional walk?" But it isn't worth it.
You are trying to negate the value of a walk by coming up with a situation that 'attempts' to do that, and in the process you discover that making a pitcher throw more pitchers is a good thing for the offense...the exact thing that players who walk, do. Do you even realize that your theory actually endorses players who walk?
I'm glad to see at least you understand some of the value of a batter who makes a pitcher work deep into the count...things that overrated hitters such as Ichiro don't do.
2. In your situation, if player A doesn't walk, and makes an out instead, then player B may not even get a chance to bat. That is one of the benefits of drawing walks....getting more players to bat, thus making pitchers throw even more pitches. So an out is not better.
3. When player B came up to the plate, he was either going to make an out or get on base. He made an out, and a walk would have been better, regardless of how many pitches were thrown.
4. Finally, you asserted that player B made a pitcher throw 11 pitches resulting in an out, and that was of greater value than a player reaching base safely. So where is your evidence that a pitcher throwing six more pitches than normal in an at bat, is of greater importance than a guy who actually reaches base safely?? Are you accounting for the fact that since the batter reached base, that the pitcher has to face a whole new batter and throw more pitches, and with more runners on base?????
Yeah, I've watched and played thousands of games myself, so you don't have to bother using THAT as your evidence.
In Summation, your attempt was extremely feeble, coming up with that ridiculous scenario as if it actually meant something, and nothing you have posted disputes the fact that Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their prime...and I think it is crazy that you believe Helton was a better hitter than Aaron in their top three prime seasons. After all, that is what YOUR evaluative method shows.
9 more home runs a year x 15 years is 135 more home runs, how do you draw the conclusion that it's almost a dead heat?