<< <i>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.
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? >>
9 HR per year in their eight year prime would be 72 home runs.
9 more home runs per year....but at the expense of making 49 more outs per year. Making an extra 49 more outs per year is a very large expense, and pretty much leverages out those extra HR's. Then add those extra seven outs per year that Rice created with the GIDP
The 3 more triples, one double, and five more singles, are all eclipsed in value by the extra 28 walks from Guerrero.
If you go more accurately and look at the millions of actual MLB play by play data, and the actual resulting runs from each event, you get the following average run value of each event:
HR 1.40 3B 1.09 2B .78 1B .47 BB .33 Out Made -.25
Those figures may vary slightly based on the run scoring environment of MLB. Those are also average values for each. Obviously, a HR with the bases loaded produces more runs than with nobody on...and we don't have to guess at how many each did what, because the play by play data and Run Expectancy, and Win Probability Added tell all that.
I've been touting Win Probability Added on here for quite some time, because it accounts for the all the things the average fan screams for. Fans that love the measurement of RBI's, if they acquainted themselves more with WPA, would notice it is RBI on steroids a million times over. Kind of an everyday fans stat, only with sabermatrician accuracy.
This from Jerry Crasnick: Rice ranks sixth on the all-time GIDP list. The five guys ahead of him: Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray. I know that Rice had a lot fewer ABS than those players. But grounding into double plays doesn't automatically qualify a guy as a stiff.
<< <i>This from Jerry Crasnick: Rice ranks sixth on the all-time GIDP list. The five guys ahead of him: Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray. I know that Rice had a lot fewer ABS than those players. But grounding into double plays doesn't automatically qualify a guy as a stiff. >>
1. If you already know Rice has a LOT fewer at bats than those guys(and that Rice never played old man years full time age 36-42 where the double plays really rack up), then you should not have even bothered posting this to begin with. You just make yourself look worse by posting irrelevant items...items that aren't even accurate(like your goofy scenario earlier).
2. GIDP does not qualify a guy as a stiff. Don't know who believes Jim Rice is a stiff...so again, your quote makes no sense.
3. GIDP is simply one piece to the puzzle, just like HR, 1B, 2B, 3B, BB, and outs made are. An intelligent observer recognizes that each of those are not of the same value. An even more intelligent observer would recognize that a very precise value of each of those events is right there in the play by play data...in a unique preciseness among all sports measurements.
4. A good evaluator, or someone who wants to obtain an objective conclusion, will account for each offensive event, both the positive and negative ones, to reach a conclusion.
Finally, if those are the types of quotes that Jerry Cransick puts out there, then he is ignorant on the subject...probably not the best person to be learning from.
PS,
PSASAP, looking at the way you evaluate things, I have to ask you....Are you one of the gamblers who goes around bragging on the four games you won $200 each on, only to neglect to inform people that you also lost eight other games at $50 each, but feel since they are 'only' $50 bets that it isn't worth mentioning?
<< <i>No way Reggie Smith is on the same level as Jim Rice....what's the argument on that one? >>
I woul direct you to read every post in detail in this thread, substitute Reggie Smith's name for Pedro Guerrero, and apart from a slight change in some of the numbers, everything else pretty much applies.
Any of your 'rebuttals' to the contrary, simply substitute your name for PSASAP's, and those are pretty much answered already too.
Specifically, if there were an index for this, I would direct you to the posts regarding Base on Balls, the negative impact of making more outs, ballpark factor, and where it details the value for each offensive event(Out made, BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR), and the value of each, based on the millions of actual play by play data in MLB.
The main difference you will find is that it may be an even easier case in Reggie Smith's case. Edit to add; maybe not easier than Pete...but still laid out clearly.
Skin, you're just regurgitating the ideas of what others have written, none of what you've written is original. If there are flaws or miscalculations in the formulas used to derive the numbers, you wouldn't know the first place to look, because you had no hand in any of the work. You're simply parroting the assertions of the authors without having done any of the heavy lifting. Even the phrase "dead heat" wasn't yours, it was used in an article comparing the careers of Rice and Gene Tenace. Did you plagiarize the works of others when writing high school term papers? In the future, give credit where credit is due, and don't pass off this work as your own. By the way, were you watching the Tigers Orioles playoff game today? The Orioles intentionally walked a batter with a runner at second, putting the winning run on first base. They did that to keep the double play intact, and also to get to the lower part of the order. What happened? I leave that to you to figure out.
"Dead Heat" is a common phrase, and the only writings I have ever seen regarding Tenace and Rice are what Dallasactuary wrote on here...sorry to burst your bubble.
Who is plagiarizing work? The run value formulas are not my original work, and never claimed they were. My job is the hard job....getting ignorant and biased fools who use archaic and invalid methods on evaluating players, to see that there is a much better way. You know, guys that use stuff like Total Bases as their only basis of evaluation. By the way, did you invent Total Bases? Based on your thoughts, you were plagarizing it??
I don't read Bill James, and I don't read articles written by people very often. You don't know the extent of which I have debated people in the sabermetric community...often times going against what they say.
As for the run values of each event...you can research the methodology. It is solid. Or, you can just use a little logic and figure out that a BB is about 2/3 the value of a single just by thinking through that.
Regardless, your sour grapes you are showing is understandable, since every point you attempted has been destroyed, and you have shown a very low level of baseball smarts, and extremely poor level of logic overrall.
As for watching any games today? Didn't watch a thing...my day was spent doing some work around the house, sleeping to recover from my night out last night, and watching my kids' athletic events.
All my posts are here are done in a quick fashion, and the logic is original. Baseball reference and retrosheet host most of stats used. Sometimes my notes/stats from the old Elias information is used.
As it stands, the play by play and run value of each of those offensive events are accurate, Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in his prime....and you are still learning, so hang in there.
Look on the bright side, you actually discovered some of the value of players who take walks, in that they make the pitchers throw more pitches.
Granted, your discovery was made during an attempt at an idiotic point, but you still learned something anyway. Just be consistent with that new information you learned, so that the next time Mickey Mantle is brought up, you won't say some thing stupid like he is "overrated" because you don't understand the value of OB%.
You still have yet to prove that Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their primes. How many times did Guerrero finish in the top five in the MVP voting? How many homers did Rice lose playing at Fenway, where balls that were hit midway up the Green Monster that would have gone out of any other park instead became loud singles. If you ever saw Rice play, which I highly doubt, you would know that he was a pull hitter whose swing was not tailored to the Green Monster. A right handed batter who hits long lazy fly balls, like Felix Mantilla, is better suited for the park. Rice estimates that he lost 10 or more homers at Fenway, which would have added around 100 homers to his career totals. Critics who constantly argue the benefits of hitting at Fenway never consider the drawbacks.
It seems to me that if sabermetric analysis is so superior to conventional forms of statistical measurement, then it should have value as a predictor of future outcomes. Taking the opening day rosters and using the analytical tools should have yielded a pool of potential World Series opponents, and a revised list at mid season to more accurately reflect the current rosters. Is there a list floating out there that has been published?
<< <i>You still have yet to prove that Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their primes. How many times did Guerrero finish in the top five in the MVP voting? How many homers did Rice lose playing at Fenway, where balls that were hit midway up the Green Monster that would have gone out of any other park instead became loud singles. If you ever saw Rice play, which I highly doubt, you would know that he was a pull hitter whose swing was not tailored to the Green Monster. A right handed batter who hits long lazy fly balls, like Felix Mantilla, is better suited for the park. Rice estimates that he lost 10 or more homers at Fenway, which would have added around 100 homers to his career totals. Critics who constantly argue the benefits of hitting at Fenway never consider the drawbacks. >>
That was all looked at by me(and others) in other threads, and is now a matter of 'record'. We looked at the possibility Rice claimed,via play by play data, and it wasn't even feasible. You can look it up, I'm not rehashing it...but everything you said here in regard to Fenway and Rice was already debunked. Sorry to burst your bubble again. The few line drive home runs he lost, were made up with the high fly home runs he gained, and more importantly the would be Fly ball outs that were turned into doubles and singles were the true difference makers in helping his hitting at Fenway..
MVP voting has no bearing on who a better hitter was. Move on.
Saw Rice play plenty of times...but even if Stevie Wonder were the one doing the analysis, it would still lead to the same conclusion, that is that Rice benefited plenty from Fenway, and that he wasn't as good a hitter as Guerrero in his prime.
I didn't have to prove Guerrero was better than Rice, the results did. Not that hard...add up all their offensive events, and their appropriate values, and the answer is fairly easy. Baseball hitting lends itself perfectly to this highly valid analysis. Sorry buddy...it isn't a matter of opinion, a single has its value, BB does, a 2B, 3B, HR, and out made too.
You just have to do it objectively. Those 9 extra homers per year by Rice are basically cancelled out by the extra 49 outs he made in getting them, and the extra 7 GIDP. Also, the greater walk totals in Guerror's favor canceled out the negligible lead in the other categories by Rice.
Add the ballpark factor, and it is an easy victory for Pete.
It's remarkable that with all the data available, peope still pick and choose what numbers to believe to fit their misguided notions. Sports, like politics, is a topic people have great difficulty changing their beliefs about. Unlike politics, however, in baseball, you have all the data to arrive at an informed conclusion.
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 his career, Jim Rice had 208 home runs at home in 4,507 Plate appearances. In his career, Jim Rice had 174 home runs on the road, in 4,551 plate appearances.
You, and Jim Rice, claimed he 'lost' 10+ home runs a year because of Fenway. Hmmm, so in a 15 year career, that means he 'lost' 150 home runs, which would have given him a home/road split of:
368 at home 174 on the road.
Anyone with half a brain would automatically see the error in Rice's estimate.
The reality is, he had 4,551 plate appearances OUTSIDE of Fenway to show what kind of hitter he was without its aide, and he hit .270 with a .330 OB%, and .459 SLG%.
As mentioned above with the play by play analysis, he didn't lose that many home runs...he actually gained some at home.
Still waiting for that list of World Series teams that was made up prior to the season. Otherwise, it's just putting a particular spin on past events, which is opinion.
How many homers did Rice lose playing at Fenway, where balls that were hit midway up the Green Monster that would have gone out of any other park instead became loud singles.
Even if we take this claim at face value, and Rice's "homers" were turned into "loud singles," (which is really a ridiculous notion, because for every HR it "prevented," it also turned many singles into doubles and fly ball outs into singles and doubles due to its short porch, but I digress), how do you explain the great disparity in Rice's batting average at home vs on the road? A base hit is a base hit, whether it's a HR or a single, so if the Green Monster was deterimental, why would his at home batting average be 43 points higher than his on the road average?
If anything, Fenway greatly ENHANCED Rice's production as a hitter as his career splits clearly indicate.
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.
Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox.
<< <i>Still waiting for that list of World Series teams that was made up prior to the season. Otherwise, it's just putting a particular spin on past events, which is opinion. >>
The Yankees had great sabermetric players....during the Jeter years, Mantle years, and Ruth years. They won the most World Series. A simple response for you, as simple seems to be your threshold.
Your question was borderline moronic, hence not much service given to it. In fact, you are quickly earning the dumbest poster ever on these boards.
No such thing as spin in an objective hitting evaluation, because an out, BB, 1B, etc...all have values that fall outside of an opinion.
The only spinning going on is you in your downward spiral
Furthermore, the names Loeb and Leopold first came to mind when I thought of a pair of extremely arrogant individuals. Loeb and Leopold both thought they possessed a superior intellect, and to prove it, they attempted to commit the perfect crime. The kidnapping and murder was an unfortunate byproduct of that arrogance. I have apologized to Grote for making such a comparison, and you gratuitously included yourself in that apology. Yet you continue to display the arrogance that originally caused me to make the connection.
Joe Morgan, the Reds best offensive player, led them to two WS wins. Traditional fans view Morgan poorly. He won two WS.
Reggie and Gene Tenace are viewed far more favorably in the sabermetric world, as compared to traditional fans...they won three in a row together...and Reggie two more with the Yankees.
One more for your simpleton point of view:
Jim Rice won zero WS.
Pedro Guerroro won one.
Luzinski won one.
Reggie Smith won one. Edit for misstep.
Also to add, I don't need an apology from you...don't really care.
Also, why did you rate, in his top three prime years, Todd Helton as a better hitter in his prime than Hank Aaron?? Still waiting for that one!
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
So, you go from Fenway Park having a negative effect on Rice's production, to the notion that "Well, maybe it was much easier to hit at Fenway (also known as the ballpark effect) because he was "more familiar" with playing there. LOL, nice backpedal..
Compare Rice huge splits between home and away (OPS+ 115 vs 85, Slugging % .546 vs .459, OBP % .374 vs .330, and that age old stat Batting Average .320 vs .277) with Pedro Guerrero and you will see how clearly the difference is in playing home games in a hitter's park vs playing in a pitcher's park, regardless of how "familiar" the player is with his confines. Guerrero's numbers are actually BETTER on the road vs at home (OPS+ 94 vs 106, Slugging % .455 vs .506, OBP % .367 vs .373, and Batting Average .298 vs .302). Imagine if Guerrero had been signed by the Red Sox instead of the Dodgers? He'd be in the HOF and you'd be saying it's crazy to compare Rice to a HOFer like Guerrero, 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.
Carl Yastzemski had 225 fewer hits, 282 fewer RBI and batted .264 on the road compared to .306 at Fenway for his career, a career in which he had exactly the same number of plate appearances at home and on the road. How do you feel about him getting into the Hall?
I think one of the biggest factors comparing Yaz to Rice is that while Rice was essentially washed up and no longer able to play at the ML level at age 36, Yaz was still a fairly productive player all the way up to age 43, a feat in itself, though obviously his peak was prior to those later years.
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.
Yaz was far more dominant than Rice, even accounting for Fenway.
For example, here are Yaz's best league rankings in OPS+; 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th, 9th. Rice's best league rankings in OPS+ were: 1st, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th. No other top tens.
Then as Grote pointed out, Yaz was a viable MLB player much longer than Rice, as Rice was washed up by age 35, while Yaz still managed to be an above league average hitter every season up to age 43(except for one season at age 41).
For their career, their Win Probability Added were:
Yaz 60.6 Rice 25.8
Basically, Yaz was the best hitter in his league in his prime, and he had a very long career, being productive even up to age 43....in what I would call a 'textbook' HOF career.
That is a far different resume than the overrated Rice.
So, as you see, there is no anti-Fenway, or anti-Red Sox bias going on here. It is simply just reality.
...and Ted Williams was either the first or second best hitter in the history of baseball, and he played at Fenway too.
How come you're not whining about how egregiously unbalanced Yaz's numbers are in his home/road splits? Yaz had HOF numbers at Fenway, but he was just average on the road.
I don't have time to read the whole thread (but glad to see Pete G and Reggie S getting some love) but slightly off topic. Anybody remember the Jim Rome show when some drug addict chick was OJ Simpson's girlfriend and she was allegedly (according to OJ) hanging out doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero down in Miami. He was like, "that has to be a proud father... your daughter is dating a murderer and found doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero...." Romie made it funny. Classic take. I can't find the exact one but this one is pretty funny even if you don't like Romie:
<< <i>How come you're not whining about how egregiously unbalanced Yaz's numbers are in his home/road splits? Yaz had HOF numbers at Fenway, but he was just average on the road. >>
Fenway factor is already accounted for in Yaz's numbers.
Not sure what you mean by average either. Keep in mind that Yaz played till age 43, so his old man years brought his percentages down(compared to guys like Rice that weren't good enough to play past age 36).
Also, if you are using Rice as your barometer, Yaz played some years in the years where offense was more difficult to achieve.
Either way, Fenway is accounted for in Yaz's numbers, and he was elite still.
<< <i>I don't have time to read the whole thread (but glad to see Pete G and Reggie S getting some love) but slightly off topic. Anybody remember the Jim Rome show when some drug addict chick was OJ Simpson's girlfriend and she was allegedly (according to OJ) hanging out doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero down in Miami. He was like, "that has to be a proud father... your daughter is dating a murderer and found doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero...." Romie made it funny. Classic take. I can't find the exact one but this one is pretty funny even if you don't like Romie:
To illustrate how the longevity factor can mislead people when looking at career percentages, take Yaz and Rice:
THrough age 36 Yaz's OPS+ was 137 THrough age 36 RIce's OPS+ was 129
From age 37+(which was over 4,200 plate appearances) Yaz's OPS+ was 113 From age 37+ RIce was already fired as a MLB player because he was no longer good enough to play.
Which brought Yaz's career OPS plus down to 130...making it look similar to Rice's 128, but there was nothing similar at all about their career hitting.
OPS+ has the Fenway factor already.
That is what happened to Yaz's career road percentages to make the total look misleading to the average eye. That, and the fact that he played more years where offense around the league was held down.
This stuff has all been explained on here already in the other Rice threads...so no need to reinvent the wheel. But there is the quick version.
<< <i> By the way, were you watching the Tigers Orioles playoff game today? The Orioles intentionally walked a batter with a runner at second, putting the winning run on first base. >>
Jim Rice was on deck?
The debate was good entertainment...PSASAP you were a good sport...but back to the weekday grind for me.
That was fun, skin. And the best part is that the argument is really a moot point. Jim Rice is in the Hall, where he belongs, and no amount of crying and whining will change that fact. After all, there is no crying in baseball.
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
Very interesting stat that illustrates how much better hitters have had it at Fenway over the years..
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.
Wow, Yaz had two years with an OPS over .800 from 1975-1983. One very good year 1977 the rest barely above average. When discussing "number accumulators" he has to be at the top of the list.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Wow, Yaz had two years with an OPS over .800 from 1975-1983. One very good year 1977 the rest barely above average. When discussing "number accumulators" he has to be at the top of the list. >>
To be fair for the Fenway factor, part of the reason it was at the top of the list in OPS from 1975-1989 is because the Red Sox had one of the best offenses in the league during those years, and it was an AL park, so it is going to be ahead of most NL parks due to the DH...in addition to it being a hitter friendly park.
As for Yaz, he 'accumulated' 11.6 Wins above average from age 35-43. To put that into perspective, Howard Johnson had a career 11.5 Wins above average.
Previous to that Yaz accumulated 48.9 wins above average via WPA....which is basically what Duke Snider had for his FULL career(50.2).
So in essence, Yaz produced Duke Snider's offensive career, then went on as an old man and 'accumulated' Howard Johnson's hitting career on top of it. Not too shabby...and it is amazing how some people see that as a negative, when it is an impressive feat.
<< <i>To be fair for the Fenway factor, part of the reason it was at the top of the list in OPS from 1975-1989 is because the Red Sox had one of the best offenses in the league during those years, and it was an AL park, so it is going to be ahead of most NL parks due to the DH...in addition to it being a hitter friendly park.
<< <i>
That's an unusual comment coming from you, I thought your position was that the park factor made the players better hitters, not the other way around. Not just a "hitter friendly park" the MOST hitter freindly park!I guess you change your viewpoint when it supports your position. Good for you!
<< <i>As for Yaz, he 'accumulated' 11.6 Wins above average from age 35-43. To put that into perspective, Howard Johnson had a career 11.5 Wins above average.
<< <i>
We are not discussing wins above average (or non HOF players), we are discussing the HOF qualifications of Yaz. WAR compares a player to a replacement player not another GREAT player. Howard Johnson doesn't belong in this comparison , but I will your man to prove MY point;
For 11 seasons Yaz was at or below .800 OPS in the MOST hitter friendly park in MLB. In 14 years (missed a lot of time, actually about 11 years) Howard Johnson averaged .786 OPS. Johnson, while being a good player is nowhere close, and never will be, to being discussed as a Hall-of-Fame ballplayer. So going with your argument, half of Yaz's career he was comparable to someone with ZERO chance of being labeled HOF material. I agree.
<< <i>Previous to that Yaz accumulated 48.9 wins above average via WPA....which is basically what Duke Snider had for his FULL career(50.2).
<< <i>
Again, not discussing WPA here, simply batting numbers.
<< <i>So in essence, Yaz produced Duke Snider's offensive career, >>
Simply ridiculous statement! Snider had a HUGE lifetime OPS of .919! Yaz surpassed Duke's AVERAGE year only four times in 23 years, so again I agree, that in about 17% of his 23 years, Yaz was comparable to Duke.
Carl was one of the finest defensive players of all time and deserves MUCH more credit than he gets for his fielding. However excluding his four or five monster years at the plate he was an above average hitter and nothing else, yes it's a great accomplishment to make a major league roster until your 43, but that's not the point in question either. He is certainly deserving of being a solid HOFer!
Remove his hits and home runs from his last 5 years and he ends up with 2869 hits and 383 home runs not nearly as impressive as 3419 and 452.
Not going to continue this, my point is made and you will simply bring other players and statistics into the debate to cloud the issue..................and I just don't have the time.
Nice to see Pedro G and Reggie S get some love both had 137 OPS+. How about Jack Clark and Carlos Delgado, both of them were right there as well.
P.S. not sure how to change from quotes to standard lettering, sorry if it's hard to follow.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If you just want to use OPS+, then Yaz's was 137 through age 34, in 9,100 plate appearances. Then you claimed he 'accumulated' his numbers...whatever that truly means anyway. From age 35-43 his OPS+ was 113.
So from your point of view, Yaz would have been a better player had he just retired at age 34, and ended his career with a 137 OPS+. That is stupid.
Instead, Yaz was actually good enough to be a viable MLB player through age 43...so he did, and he contributed positively to a MLB team.
Duke Snider's career OPS+ was 140 in 8,237 plate appearances. Yaz's career OPS+ was 137 through 9,100 plate appearances. So account for a similar OPS and it being done over more plate apperances by Yaz, those two are equal there.
Then Snider retired, not good enough to continue, and Yaz went on to add another 4,000 plate appearances all the way up to age 43...and somehow you think that makes him worse?
So you are right, Yaz accumulated many years extra as a viable MLB player, on top of his dominant prime years that were as good as Duke Snider's.
You like to use WAR.
FOr their career Yaz's WAR was 96 Snider's war was 66.
I'm sure a lot of people wish Snider 'accumulated' another 30 WAR's...or do you think it is better that he just stood at 66? lol.
So yes, YAZ produced a HOF career as good as Duke Sniders, THEN he produced a 'second career' as good as Howard Johnson's...and I think there are millions of American baseball players that would have been proud to have a MLB career like Howard Johnson. How you think that is a negative, is beyond me...but then again, you have a history of failing to grasp simple points.
You missed the Fenway point, and I'm not surprised. One of the reasons why Fenway was at the top in MLB OPS is because the Red Sox had excellent hitting teams those years(even when you account for the Fenway factor), so it is only natural that it will be higher, since they play half their games there. Add the fact that it was an AL park and it used a DH, it is going to be higher than most NL parks too. Then add the fact that it was a good hitters park...you should get the idea. In other words, more steps have to be done than just going by the home park total.
I'm objective, and that is why I pointed that out about those numbers for Fenway...not to suit any point.
YAZ had the better prime four years...and it was a mixed bag the other years, except Snider had many partial years. So if you just went head to head each of their best years, it was 8-8-2...although three of those 'wins' for Snider were partial seasons, and one of the ties was a partial season for Snider. So really, Yaz wins most of those too.
So really, Yaz was better in their top four full time seasons, and Snider was better in the next five full-time seasons. Then Snider was either bad or retired...and Yaz still playing above average baseball.
I noticed how you just discounted Yaz's top four years in your post...which is stupid. You can't just discount those because his next four weren't as good as those. Those are a big part of his record.
When you look near the bottom, you see where Snider was either bad and playing part time(or simply not good enough to play when he retired)....while Yaz was still playing full-time and contributing above average performances. That doesn't make Yaz worse, or an accumulator, because he was capable of doing that.
So, like I said, Yaz was elite dominant in his prime, just like Snider...they both had some good/very good years...but then Snider was either bad/retired/part time, while Yaz played Full-time above average ball for 4,100+ plate appearances MORE.
How that makes people who view those extra years and claim Yaz an accumulator(or something negative), is moronic.
PS Snider had big home/road splits too. .959 OPS Home. .880 Road. 224 HR at home. 183 HR on the road.
Banzi, according to YOUR rationale, you have Todd Helton being a better hitter than Hank Aaron, since Helton has a career OPS of .953, and Aaron .928.
Your method also has Jeff Bagwell as a better hitter than Willie Mays, as he leads him in career OPS .948 to .941
Your method also has Carlos Delgado better than Frank Robinson as he leads him in OPS .929 to .925
Your method also has Brian Giles better than Willie McCovey as he leads him .902 to 889...which is also better than Stargell, Eddie Matthews, Killebrew, Boggs, Brett, Wagner, Billy Williams,and Gwynn.
Now unless you truly believe that Brian Giles is a better hitter than all those HOFer(and more), then you need to re-evaluate how you take into account career length, park adjustments, and era adjustments. You should have learned this by now.
You don't bother to read. If you do, you have a serious problem with comprehension. Perhaps it's because you can't understand that others have valid arguments and there is a possibility (however small) that you might even be wrong.
I do NOT like WAR and have rarely ever used it when discussing comparisons about ballplayers. My favorite stat is OPS. Must be because I am, like any one else who DARES contradict you, STUPID.
You are either making things up to support your position, or you simply don't bother to consider other peoples side of the issue. THAT'S why I won't debate you. You are VERY rude and not worthy of my time. You are not stupid though, just very disrespectful.
Other than that............have a great day.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
My favorite stat is OPS. Must be because I am, like any one else who DARES contradict you, STUPID.
You are either making things up to support your position, or you simply don't bother to consider other peoples side of the issue. THAT'S why I won't debate you. You are VERY rude and not worthy of my time. You are not stupid though, just very disrespectful. >>
Considering that your methodology has:
Todd Helton being a better hitter than Hank Aaron, since Helton has a career OPS of .953, and Aaron .928.
Has Jeff Bagwell as a better hitter than Willie Mays, as he leads him in career OPS .948 to .941
Has Carlos Delgado better than Frank Robinson as he leads him in OPS .929 to .925
Has Brian Giles better than Willie McCovey as he leads him .902 to 889...which is also better than Stargell, Eddie Matthews, Killebrew, Boggs, Brett, Wagner, Billy Williams, Gwynn, etc...
....I wouldn't want to engage in a debate either. You should probably re-evaluate how you take into account career length, parks, and the era a player played in, because unless you objectively do that, you will continue have those outlandish results you have above. You had promise...and I'll miss you, but I still like you.
Comments
<< <i>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.
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? >>
9 HR per year in their eight year prime would be 72 home runs.
9 more home runs per year....but at the expense of making 49 more outs per year. Making an extra 49 more outs per year is a very large expense, and pretty much leverages out those extra HR's. Then add those extra seven outs per year that Rice created with the GIDP
The 3 more triples, one double, and five more singles, are all eclipsed in value by the extra 28 walks from Guerrero.
If you go more accurately and look at the millions of actual MLB play by play data, and the actual resulting runs from each event, you get the following average run value of each event:
HR 1.40
3B 1.09
2B .78
1B .47
BB .33
Out Made -.25
Those figures may vary slightly based on the run scoring environment of MLB. Those are also average values for each. Obviously, a HR with the bases loaded produces more runs than with nobody on...and we don't have to guess at how many each did what, because the play by play data and Run Expectancy, and Win Probability Added tell all that.
I've been touting Win Probability Added on here for quite some time, because it accounts for the all the things the average fan screams for. Fans that love the measurement of RBI's, if they acquainted themselves more with WPA, would notice it is RBI on steroids a million times over. Kind of an everyday fans stat, only with sabermatrician accuracy.
Rice ranks sixth on the all-time GIDP list. The five guys ahead of him: Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray. I know that Rice had a lot fewer ABS than those players. But grounding into double plays doesn't automatically qualify a guy as a stiff.
<< <i>This from Jerry Crasnick:
Rice ranks sixth on the all-time GIDP list. The five guys ahead of him: Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Carl Yastrzemski, Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray. I know that Rice had a lot fewer ABS than those players. But grounding into double plays doesn't automatically qualify a guy as a stiff. >>
1. If you already know Rice has a LOT fewer at bats than those guys(and that Rice never played old man years full time age 36-42 where the double plays really rack up), then you should not have even bothered posting this to begin with. You just make yourself look worse by posting irrelevant items...items that aren't even accurate(like your goofy scenario earlier).
2. GIDP does not qualify a guy as a stiff. Don't know who believes Jim Rice is a stiff...so again, your quote makes no sense.
3. GIDP is simply one piece to the puzzle, just like HR, 1B, 2B, 3B, BB, and outs made are. An intelligent observer recognizes that each of those are not of the same value. An even more intelligent observer would recognize that a very precise value of each of those events is right there in the play by play data...in a unique preciseness among all sports measurements.
4. A good evaluator, or someone who wants to obtain an objective conclusion, will account for each offensive event, both the positive and negative ones, to reach a conclusion.
Finally, if those are the types of quotes that Jerry Cransick puts out there, then he is ignorant on the subject...probably not the best person to be learning from.
PS,
PSASAP, looking at the way you evaluate things, I have to ask you....Are you one of the gamblers who goes around bragging on the four games you won $200 each on, only to neglect to inform people that you also lost eight other games at $50 each, but feel since they are 'only' $50 bets that it isn't worth mentioning?
Erik
<< <i>No way Reggie Smith is on the same level as Jim Rice....what's the argument on that one? >>
I woul direct you to read every post in detail in this thread, substitute Reggie Smith's name for Pedro Guerrero, and apart from a slight change in some of the numbers, everything else pretty much applies.
Any of your 'rebuttals' to the contrary, simply substitute your name for PSASAP's, and those are pretty much answered already too.
Specifically, if there were an index for this, I would direct you to the posts regarding Base on Balls, the negative impact of making more outs,
ballpark factor, and where it details the value for each offensive event(Out made, BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR), and the value of each, based on the millions of actual play by play data in MLB.
The main difference you will find is that it may be an even easier case in Reggie Smith's case. Edit to add; maybe not easier than Pete...but still laid out clearly.
Who is plagiarizing work? The run value formulas are not my original work, and never claimed they were. My job is the hard job....getting ignorant and biased fools who use archaic and invalid methods on evaluating players, to see that there is a much better way. You know, guys that use stuff like Total Bases as their only basis of evaluation. By the way, did you invent Total Bases? Based on your thoughts, you were plagarizing it??
I don't read Bill James, and I don't read articles written by people very often. You don't know the extent of which I have debated people in the sabermetric community...often times going against what they say.
As for the run values of each event...you can research the methodology. It is solid. Or, you can just use a little logic and figure out that a BB is about 2/3 the value of a single just by thinking through that.
Regardless, your sour grapes you are showing is understandable, since every point you attempted has been destroyed, and you have shown a very low level of baseball smarts, and extremely poor level of logic overrall.
As for watching any games today? Didn't watch a thing...my day was spent doing some work around the house, sleeping to recover from my night out last night, and watching my kids' athletic events.
All my posts are here are done in a quick fashion, and the logic is original. Baseball reference and retrosheet host most of stats used. Sometimes my notes/stats from the old Elias information is used.
As it stands, the play by play and run value of each of those offensive events are accurate, Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in his prime....and you are still learning, so hang in there.
Look on the bright side, you actually discovered some of the value of players who take walks, in that they make the pitchers throw more pitches.
Granted, your discovery was made during an attempt at an idiotic point, but you still learned something anyway. Just be consistent with that new information you learned, so that the next time Mickey Mantle is brought up, you won't say some thing stupid like he is "overrated" because you don't understand the value of OB%.
<< <i>No way Reggie Smith is on the same level as Jim Rice....what's the argument on that one? >>
Reggie Smith - .028 oWAR per game
Pedro Guerrero - .027 oWAR per game
Jim Rice - .022 oWAR per game
Or, if you go by WAR per game, Smith jumps even *further* ahead.
Baseball-reference users (Elo Rater) have Smith ranked 104th. Jim Rice is 186th.
<< <i>You still have yet to prove that Guerrero was a better hitter than Rice in their primes. How many times did Guerrero finish in the top five in the MVP voting? How many homers did Rice lose playing at Fenway, where balls that were hit midway up the Green Monster that would have gone out of any other park instead became loud singles. If you ever saw Rice play, which I highly doubt, you would know that he was a pull hitter whose swing was not tailored to the Green Monster. A right handed batter who hits long lazy fly balls, like Felix Mantilla, is better suited for the park. Rice estimates that he lost 10 or more homers at Fenway, which would have added around 100 homers to his career totals. Critics who constantly argue the benefits of hitting at Fenway never consider the drawbacks. >>
That was all looked at by me(and others) in other threads, and is now a matter of 'record'. We looked at the possibility Rice claimed,via play by play data, and it wasn't even feasible. You can look it up, I'm not rehashing it...but everything you said here in regard to Fenway and Rice was already debunked. Sorry to burst your bubble again. The few line drive home runs he lost, were made up with the high fly home runs he gained, and more importantly the would be Fly ball outs that were turned into doubles and singles were the true difference makers in helping his hitting at Fenway..
MVP voting has no bearing on who a better hitter was. Move on.
Saw Rice play plenty of times...but even if Stevie Wonder were the one doing the analysis, it would still lead to the same conclusion, that is that Rice benefited plenty from Fenway, and that he wasn't as good a hitter as Guerrero in his prime.
I didn't have to prove Guerrero was better than Rice, the results did. Not that hard...add up all their offensive events, and their appropriate values, and the answer is fairly easy. Baseball hitting lends itself perfectly to this highly valid analysis. Sorry buddy...it isn't a matter of opinion, a single has its value, BB does, a 2B, 3B, HR, and out made too.
You just have to do it objectively. Those 9 extra homers per year by Rice are basically cancelled out by the extra 49 outs he made in getting them, and the extra 7 GIDP. Also, the greater walk totals in Guerror's favor canceled out the negligible lead in the other categories by Rice.
Add the ballpark factor, and it is an easy victory for Pete.
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 his career, Jim Rice had 208 home runs at home in 4,507 Plate appearances.
In his career, Jim Rice had 174 home runs on the road, in 4,551 plate appearances.
You, and Jim Rice, claimed he 'lost' 10+ home runs a year because of Fenway. Hmmm, so in a 15 year career, that means he 'lost' 150 home runs, which would have given him a home/road split of:
368 at home
174 on the road.
Anyone with half a brain would automatically see the error in Rice's estimate.
The reality is, he had 4,551 plate appearances OUTSIDE of Fenway to show what kind of hitter he was without its aide, and he hit .270 with a .330 OB%, and .459 SLG%.
As mentioned above with the play by play analysis, he didn't lose that many home runs...he actually gained some at home.
Even if we take this claim at face value, and Rice's "homers" were turned into "loud singles," (which is really a ridiculous notion, because for every HR it "prevented," it also turned many singles into doubles and fly ball outs into singles and doubles due to its short porch, but I digress), how do you explain the great disparity in Rice's batting average at home vs on the road? A base hit is a base hit, whether it's a HR or a single, so if the Green Monster was deterimental, why would his at home batting average be 43 points higher than his on the road average?
If anything, Fenway greatly ENHANCED Rice's production as a hitter as his career splits clearly indicate.
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>Still waiting for that list of World Series teams that was made up prior to the season. Otherwise, it's just putting a particular spin on past events, which is opinion. >>
The Yankees had great sabermetric players....during the Jeter years, Mantle years, and Ruth years. They won the most World Series. A simple response for you, as simple seems to be your threshold.
Your question was borderline moronic, hence not much service given to it. In fact, you are quickly earning the dumbest poster ever on these boards.
No such thing as spin in an objective hitting evaluation, because an out, BB, 1B, etc...all have values that fall outside of an opinion.
The only spinning going on is you in your downward spiral
Joe Morgan, the Reds best offensive player, led them to two WS wins. Traditional fans view Morgan poorly. He won two WS.
Reggie and Gene Tenace are viewed far more favorably in the sabermetric world, as compared to traditional fans...they won three in a row together...and Reggie two more with the Yankees.
One more for your simpleton point of view:
Jim Rice won zero WS.
Pedro Guerroro won one.
Luzinski won one.
Reggie Smith won one. Edit for misstep.
Also to add, I don't need an apology from you...don't really care.
Also, why did you rate, in his top three prime years, Todd Helton as a better hitter in his prime than Hank Aaron?? Still waiting for that one!
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
So, you go from Fenway Park having a negative effect on Rice's production, to the notion that "Well, maybe it was much easier to hit at Fenway (also known as the ballpark effect) because he was "more familiar" with playing there. LOL, nice backpedal..
Compare Rice huge splits between home and away (OPS+ 115 vs 85, Slugging % .546 vs .459, OBP % .374 vs .330, and that age old stat Batting Average .320 vs .277) with Pedro Guerrero and you will see how clearly the difference is in playing home games in a hitter's park vs playing in a pitcher's park, regardless of how "familiar" the player is with his confines. Guerrero's numbers are actually BETTER on the road vs at home (OPS+ 94 vs 106, Slugging % .455 vs .506, OBP % .367 vs .373, and Batting Average .298 vs .302). Imagine if Guerrero had been signed by the Red Sox instead of the Dodgers? He'd be in the HOF and you'd be saying it's crazy to compare Rice to a HOFer like Guerrero, 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.
<< <i>Big deal, those games were already played Biff. Are you going to bet on who won the 1975 World Series? >>
Seems odd you feel that way, considering the amount of time you spent discussing it! lol
But baseball was more enjoyable then, compared to now.
I don't be on World Series, too much random chance involved.
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.
YouTube video
<< <i>Off-topic, but Rice also saved a kid's life once:
YouTube video >>
You're really grasping now, 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.
For example, here are Yaz's best league rankings in OPS+; 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 9th, 9th.
Rice's best league rankings in OPS+ were: 1st, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th. No other top tens.
Then as Grote pointed out, Yaz was a viable MLB player much longer than Rice, as Rice was washed up by age 35, while Yaz still managed to be an above league average hitter every season up to age 43(except for one season at age 41).
For their career, their Win Probability Added were:
Yaz 60.6
Rice 25.8
Basically, Yaz was the best hitter in his league in his prime, and he had a very long career, being productive even up to age 43....in what I would call a 'textbook' HOF career.
That is a far different resume than the overrated Rice.
So, as you see, there is no anti-Fenway, or anti-Red Sox bias going on here. It is simply just reality.
...and Ted Williams was either the first or second best hitter in the history of baseball, and he played at Fenway too.
ROMIE Call - OJ and Pedro
<< <i>How come you're not whining about how egregiously unbalanced Yaz's numbers are in his home/road splits? Yaz had HOF numbers at Fenway, but he was just average on the road. >>
Fenway factor is already accounted for in Yaz's numbers.
Not sure what you mean by average either. Keep in mind that Yaz played till age 43, so his old man years brought his percentages down(compared to guys like Rice that weren't good enough to play past age 36).
Also, if you are using Rice as your barometer, Yaz played some years in the years where offense was more difficult to achieve.
Either way, Fenway is accounted for in Yaz's numbers, and he was elite still.
Rice? No.
<< <i>I don't have time to read the whole thread (but glad to see Pete G and Reggie S getting some love) but slightly off topic. Anybody remember the Jim Rome show when some drug addict chick was OJ Simpson's girlfriend and she was allegedly (according to OJ) hanging out doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero down in Miami. He was like, "that has to be a proud father... your daughter is dating a murderer and found doing drugs with Pedro Guerrero...." Romie made it funny. Classic take. I can't find the exact one but this one is pretty funny even if you don't like Romie:
ROMIE Call - OJ and Pedro >>
Here is my favorite rome clip chris everett
THrough age 36 Yaz's OPS+ was 137
THrough age 36 RIce's OPS+ was 129
From age 37+(which was over 4,200 plate appearances) Yaz's OPS+ was 113
From age 37+ RIce was already fired as a MLB player because he was no longer good enough to play.
Which brought Yaz's career OPS plus down to 130...making it look similar to Rice's 128, but there was nothing similar at all about their career hitting.
OPS+ has the Fenway factor already.
That is what happened to Yaz's career road percentages to make the total look misleading to the average eye. That, and the fact that he played more years where offense around the league was held down.
This stuff has all been explained on here already in the other Rice threads...so no need to reinvent the wheel. But there is the quick version.
<< <i> By the way, were you watching the Tigers Orioles playoff game today? The Orioles intentionally walked a batter with a runner at second, putting the winning run on first base. >>
Jim Rice was on deck?
The debate was good entertainment...PSASAP you were a good sport...but back to the weekday grind for me.
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
By stadium, highest overall OPS in MLB:
1974: Fenway
1975: Fenway
1976: Fenway
1977: Fenway
1978: Fenway
1979: Fenway
1980: Fenway
1981: Fenway
1982: Fenway
1983: Exhibition Stadium (Fenway #3)
1984: Fenway
1985: Wrigley (Fenway #2)
1986: Metrodome (Fenway #7)
1987: Fulton (Fenway #2)
1988: Fenway
1989: Yankee (Fenway #2)
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps Rice just performed better in his home park, because he was more familiar with it, and he liked hearing cheers more than he did boos, or indifference. His home park just happened to be Fenway, and just as randomly could have been Fulton County Stadium had he signed with the Braves, or Comiskey Park if he played for the White Sox. >>
By stadium, highest overall OPS in MLB:
1974: Fenway
1975: Fenway
1976: Fenway
1977: Fenway
1978: Fenway
1979: Fenway
1980: Fenway
1981: Fenway
1982: Fenway
1983: Exhibition Stadium (Fenway #3)
1984: Fenway
1985: Wrigley (Fenway #2)
1986: Metrodome (Fenway #7)
1987: Fulton (Fenway #2)
1988: Fenway
1989: Yankee (Fenway #2) >>
Very interesting stat that illustrates how much better hitters have had it at Fenway over the years..
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>By stadium, highest overall OPS in MLB:
1974: Fenway
1975: Fenway
1976: Fenway
1977: Fenway
1978: Fenway
1979: Fenway
1980: Fenway
1981: Fenway
1982: Fenway
1983: Exhibition Stadium (Fenway #3) >>
Wow, Yaz had two years with an OPS over .800 from 1975-1983. One very good year 1977 the rest barely above average. When discussing "number accumulators" he has to be at the top of the list.
<< <i>
<< <i>By stadium, highest overall OPS in MLB:
1974: Fenway
1975: Fenway
1976: Fenway
1977: Fenway
1978: Fenway
1979: Fenway
1980: Fenway
1981: Fenway
1982: Fenway
1983: Exhibition Stadium (Fenway #3) >>
Wow, Yaz had two years with an OPS over .800 from 1975-1983. One very good year 1977 the rest barely above average. When discussing "number accumulators" he has to be at the top of the list. >>
To be fair for the Fenway factor, part of the reason it was at the top of the list in OPS from 1975-1989 is because the Red Sox had one of the best offenses in the league during those years, and it was an AL park, so it is going to be ahead of most NL parks due to the DH...in addition to it being a hitter friendly park.
As for Yaz, he 'accumulated' 11.6 Wins above average from age 35-43. To put that into perspective, Howard Johnson had a career 11.5 Wins above average.
Previous to that Yaz accumulated 48.9 wins above average via WPA....which is basically what Duke Snider had for his FULL career(50.2).
So in essence, Yaz produced Duke Snider's offensive career, then went on as an old man and 'accumulated' Howard Johnson's hitting career on top of it. Not too shabby...and it is amazing how some people see that as a negative, when it is an impressive feat.
<< <i>To be fair for the Fenway factor, part of the reason it was at the top of the list in OPS from 1975-1989 is because the Red Sox had one of the best offenses in the league during those years, and it was an AL park, so it is going to be ahead of most NL parks due to the DH...in addition to it being a hitter friendly park.
<< <i>
That's an unusual comment coming from you, I thought your position was that the park factor made the players better hitters, not the other way around. Not just a "hitter friendly park" the MOST hitter freindly park!I guess you change your viewpoint when it supports your position. Good for you!
<< <i>As for Yaz, he 'accumulated' 11.6 Wins above average from age 35-43. To put that into perspective, Howard Johnson had a career 11.5 Wins above average.
<< <i>
We are not discussing wins above average (or non HOF players), we are discussing the HOF qualifications of Yaz. WAR compares a player to a replacement player not another GREAT player. Howard Johnson doesn't belong in this comparison , but I will your man to prove MY point;
For 11 seasons Yaz was at or below .800 OPS in the MOST hitter friendly park in MLB. In 14 years (missed a lot of time, actually about 11 years) Howard Johnson averaged .786 OPS. Johnson, while being a good player is nowhere close, and never will be, to being discussed as a Hall-of-Fame ballplayer. So going with your argument, half of Yaz's career he was comparable to someone with ZERO chance of being labeled HOF material. I agree.
<< <i>Previous to that Yaz accumulated 48.9 wins above average via WPA....which is basically what Duke Snider had for his FULL career(50.2).
<< <i>
Again, not discussing WPA here, simply batting numbers.
<< <i>So in essence, Yaz produced Duke Snider's offensive career, >>
Simply ridiculous statement! Snider had a HUGE lifetime OPS of .919! Yaz surpassed Duke's AVERAGE year only four times in 23 years, so again I agree, that in about 17% of his 23 years, Yaz was comparable to Duke.
Carl was one of the finest defensive players of all time and deserves MUCH more credit than he gets for his fielding. However excluding his four or five monster years at the plate he was an above average hitter and nothing else, yes it's a great accomplishment to make a major league roster until your 43, but that's not the point in question either. He is certainly deserving of being a solid HOFer!
Remove his hits and home runs from his last 5 years and he ends up with 2869 hits and 383 home runs not nearly as impressive as 3419 and 452.
Not going to continue this, my point is made and you will simply bring other players and statistics into the debate to cloud the issue..................and I just don't have the time.
Nice to see Pedro G and Reggie S get some love both had 137 OPS+. How about Jack Clark and Carlos Delgado, both of them were right there as well.
P.S. not sure how to change from quotes to standard lettering, sorry if it's hard to follow.
If you just want to use OPS+, then Yaz's was 137 through age 34, in 9,100 plate appearances. Then you claimed he 'accumulated' his numbers...whatever that truly means anyway. From age 35-43 his OPS+ was 113.
So from your point of view, Yaz would have been a better player had he just retired at age 34, and ended his career with a 137 OPS+. That is stupid.
Instead, Yaz was actually good enough to be a viable MLB player through age 43...so he did, and he contributed positively to a MLB team.
Duke Snider's career OPS+ was 140 in 8,237 plate appearances.
Yaz's career OPS+ was 137 through 9,100 plate appearances. So account for a similar OPS and it being done over more plate apperances by Yaz, those two are equal there.
Then Snider retired, not good enough to continue, and Yaz went on to add another 4,000 plate appearances all the way up to age 43...and somehow you think that makes him worse?
So you are right, Yaz accumulated many years extra as a viable MLB player, on top of his dominant prime years that were as good as Duke Snider's.
You like to use WAR.
FOr their career Yaz's WAR was 96
Snider's war was 66.
I'm sure a lot of people wish Snider 'accumulated' another 30 WAR's...or do you think it is better that he just stood at 66? lol.
So yes, YAZ produced a HOF career as good as Duke Sniders, THEN he produced a 'second career' as good as Howard Johnson's...and I think there are millions of American baseball players that would have been proud to have a MLB career like Howard Johnson. How you think that is a negative, is beyond me...but then again, you have a history of failing to grasp simple points.
You missed the Fenway point, and I'm not surprised. One of the reasons why Fenway was at the top in MLB OPS is because the Red Sox had excellent hitting teams those years(even when you account for the Fenway factor), so it is only natural that it will be higher, since they play half their games there. Add the fact that it was an AL park and it used a DH, it is going to be higher than most NL parks too. Then add the fact that it was a good hitters park...you should get the idea. In other words, more steps have to be done than just going by the home park total.
I'm objective, and that is why I pointed that out about those numbers for Fenway...not to suit any point.
Edit for harshness.
Yaz....Snider
193....171
177....169
171....165
156....155
148....148*
140....143
139....140*
136....139
125....138*
124....135
120....134*
120....126
119....123
118....118
116....115*
113.....96*
112.....75*
112.....51*
111.....ZERO
108.....ZERO
106.....ZERO
96*.....ZERO
91......ZERO
* denotes partial season
YAZ had the better prime four years...and it was a mixed bag the other years, except Snider had many partial years. So if you just went head to head each of their best years, it was 8-8-2...although three of those 'wins' for Snider were partial seasons, and one of the ties was a partial season for Snider. So really, Yaz wins most of those too.
So really, Yaz was better in their top four full time seasons, and Snider was better in the next five full-time seasons. Then Snider was either bad or retired...and Yaz still playing above average baseball.
I noticed how you just discounted Yaz's top four years in your post...which is stupid. You can't just discount those because his next four weren't as good as those. Those are a big part of his record.
When you look near the bottom, you see where Snider was either bad and playing part time(or simply not good enough to play when he retired)....while Yaz was still playing full-time and contributing above average performances. That doesn't make Yaz worse, or an accumulator, because he was capable of doing that.
So, like I said, Yaz was elite dominant in his prime, just like Snider...they both had some good/very good years...but then Snider was either bad/retired/part time, while Yaz played Full-time above average ball for 4,100+ plate appearances MORE.
How that makes people who view those extra years and claim Yaz an accumulator(or something negative), is moronic.
PS Snider had big home/road splits too. .959 OPS Home. .880 Road. 224 HR at home. 183 HR on the road.
Banzi, according to YOUR rationale, you have Todd Helton being a better hitter than Hank Aaron, since Helton has a career OPS of .953, and Aaron .928.
Your method also has Jeff Bagwell as a better hitter than Willie Mays, as he leads him in career OPS .948 to .941
Your method also has Carlos Delgado better than Frank Robinson as he leads him in OPS .929 to .925
Your method also has Brian Giles better than Willie McCovey as he leads him .902 to 889...which is also better than Stargell, Eddie Matthews, Killebrew, Boggs, Brett, Wagner, Billy Williams,and Gwynn.
Now unless you truly believe that Brian Giles is a better hitter than all those HOFer(and more), then you need to re-evaluate how you take into account career length, park adjustments, and era adjustments.
<< <i>You like to use WAR. >>
Not continuing the debate.
You don't bother to read. If you do, you have a serious problem with comprehension. Perhaps it's because you can't understand that others have valid arguments and there is a possibility (however small) that you might even be wrong.
I do NOT like WAR and have rarely ever used it when discussing comparisons about ballplayers. My favorite stat is OPS. Must be because I am, like any one else who DARES contradict you, STUPID.
You are either making things up to support your position, or you simply don't bother to consider other peoples side of the issue. THAT'S why I won't debate you. You are VERY rude and not worthy of my time. You are not stupid though, just very disrespectful.
Other than that............have a great day.
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>You like to use WAR. >>
My favorite stat is OPS. Must be because I am, like any one else who DARES contradict you, STUPID.
You are either making things up to support your position, or you simply don't bother to consider other peoples side of the issue. THAT'S why I won't debate you. You are VERY rude and not worthy of my time. You are not stupid though, just very disrespectful.
>>
Considering that your methodology has:
Todd Helton being a better hitter than Hank Aaron, since Helton has a career OPS of .953, and Aaron .928.
Has Jeff Bagwell as a better hitter than Willie Mays, as he leads him in career OPS .948 to .941
Has Carlos Delgado better than Frank Robinson as he leads him in OPS .929 to .925
Has Brian Giles better than Willie McCovey as he leads him .902 to 889...which is also better than Stargell, Eddie Matthews, Killebrew, Boggs, Brett, Wagner, Billy Williams, Gwynn, etc...
....I wouldn't want to engage in a debate either. You should probably re-evaluate how you take into account career length, parks, and the era a player played in, because unless you objectively do that, you will continue have those outlandish results you have above. You had promise...and I'll miss you, but I still like you.