Great Seasons You Don't Know About

dallasactuary

I'm going to start with one you do know about, and I'll pick Jim Rice's 1978 season because it's a compulsion to pick on Jim Rice, who sucks.

The figures below are not Rice's actual numbers for 1978, they are his expected numbers if he had played every game at Fenway that year. Since Fenway is an easy hitter's park, the numbers are better than they actually were. For Rice, and for everyone that follows, the stats listed, in order, are HR, RBI, BA and OPS.

Jim Rice - 1978: 48, 148, .324, .998

Now that's a really good season, wherever and whenever it occurs. And Rice won the MVP that season, and that single season, more than anything else, propelled him to the HOF.

So I thought, what if some other non-HOFers from the 1970's had gotten the opportunity to play for the Red Sox in 1978? What might their stats have looked like? Well, baseball-reference has a function that allows you to see the answer to that question. I used Rice's .998 OPS as the baseline and looked for people whose OPS would have been higher than that. And I didn't check the bona fide HOFers; lots of them had seasons higher than that even without adjusting for Fenway. We'll start with the biggest names:

Dave Parker - 1978: 32, 131, .351, 1.024
Fred Lynn - 1979: 40, 125, .336, 1.069
Frank Howard - 1970: 49, 149, .305, 1.031

And one of the greatest seasons of the 1970's, and of modern times:

Dick Allen - 1972: 46, 156, .348, 1.141

But those aren't the shockers; I think lots of people, even if too few, appreciate that those players in those seasons were better than Jim Rice ever was. But how about

Rico Carty - 1979: 25, 100, .365, 1.035

Carty was a hell of a player, and I don't think many people realize that.

One of the best players of the 1970's was buried in pitcher's parks and didn't get nearly the credit he deserved:

Bobby Murcer - 1971: 30, 123, .369, 1.074

And he followed that the very next year with

Bobby Murcer - 1972: 43, 140, .337, 1.029

How do you think Bobby Murcer would be remembered if had had seasons like that (if he had been allowed to play in Fenway in 1978)?

Another player that was way better, for a short time, than people give him credit for:

John Mayberry - 1972: 32, 144, .341, 1.022
John Mayberry - 1975: 37, 121, .308, 1.017

And I'll close with my nominee for the most underappreciated player in MLB history. Kudos to anyone here who even knows who he played for without looking him up:

Mike Epstein - 1972: 36, 113, .326, 1.037
Mike Epstein - 1969: 36, 113, .315, 1.084

I threw in 1969 just to show that Superjew (his actual nickname) was no one-hit wonder. He didn't play long, and this is not a HOF endorsement by any means, but Epstein embodies a principle that can't be overemphasized. If you look at Epstein and see a .244 hitter who never had more than 85 RBI and dismiss him and move on then you missed a really good player, and a player who was actually great for a little while. Epstein's career OPS+ was 130 - the same as Clemente, Yaz and Winfield, a point behind Carew and Boggs and a point ahead of Murray and Cochrane. And only two points behind Gwynn, Morgan and ...... Rico Carty.

This concludes my public service announcement on behalf of forgotten deadball era stars. There will undoubtedly be more.

perkdog

Dallas you can slice it any way you want and crunch the numbers any way you want, but in the end Jim Rice did not suck, probably not deserving of the HOF compaired to most others but he didnt suck. Your personal beef against him with your posts are foolish.

dallasactuary

<< <i>Dallas you can slice it any way you want and crunch the numbers any way you want, but in the end Jim Rice did not suck, probably not deserving of the HOF compaired to most others but he didnt suck. Your personal beef against him with your posts are foolish. >>

If I truly believed that Jim Rice sucked, that would be foolish. Apparently my assumption that everyone "got" my point was incorrect. Jim Rice was nearly as good a baseball player as Gene Tenace, and his best season was nearly as good as Mike Epstein's second-best season; players who truly suck can't make those claims. "Jim Rice sucks" is directed less at Jim Rice, than at people who think Gene Tenace or Mike Epstein weren't really good players, deserving of being in the same conversation as Rice.

perkdog

<< <i>

<< <i>Dallas you can slice it any way you want and crunch the numbers any way you want, but in the end Jim Rice did not suck, probably not deserving of the HOF compaired to most others but he didnt suck. Your personal beef against him with your posts are foolish. >>

If I truly believed that Jim Rice sucked, that would be foolish. Apparently my assumption that everyone "got" my point was incorrect. Jim Rice was nearly as good a baseball player as Gene Tenace, and his best season was nearly as good as Mike Epstein's second-best season; players who truly suck can't make those claims. "Jim Rice sucks" is directed less at Jim Rice, than at people who think Gene Tenace or Mike Epstein weren't really good players, deserving of being in the same conversation as Rice. >>



Fair enough, although you saying Jim Rice's BEST Season was nearly as good as Mike Epstein's SECOND best season is truly mind boggling that you really actually believe that.

coinkat

The Washington Senators- Epstein played first base on the 1969 team. He and Frank Howard had their best season at the time Ted Williams was the Manager

dallasactuary

<< <i>Fair enough, although you saying Jim Rice's BEST Season was nearly as good as Mike Epstein's SECOND best season is truly mind boggling that you really actually believe that. >>


It's true in a sense, but it's a stretch all things considered. But the point, the one that everyone misses, is that Rice's best season is at least 20% a mirage created by hitting conditions that were as easy as they had ever been in baseball, and that the conditions that Epstein hit in were the reverse. If you look - if you REALLY look - at Rice's 1978 season and Epstein's 1969 season, yes, you might conclude that Rice's season was better. But if you conclude that Rice's season was so much better that the seasons aren't even worthy of comparing then you will be much more wrong than the person who says Rice's season wasn't as good. Rice had a great year in 1978, and Epstein had a great year in 1969; I'll give Rice the edge for playing more games, but that's what it comes down to. If you compare Rice's best season to Epstein's second best, then yeah, I exaggerated. But Epstein's 1972 season was very, very, good, and it's still the case that if you dismiss it as not worthy of discussing then you're missing almost everything important. Epstein's second best season was, by the way, about equal to Rice's second best season. At their peaks, Rice and Epstein were about the same. See that, and we can argue the fine points; miss that, and you've missed too much for there to be a discussion.

perkdog

Dallas, I will save you the aggrevation of getting involved in a serious stat discussion regarding baseball players from the pre steroid era because Im not all that intelligent when it comes to "Serious number crunching" regarding stats that I recently became familiar with such as WAR ect..

As our friend Skin would say Im a typical Baseball fan who loves the HR & RBI numbers, and thats OK because outside of the Red Sox I couldnt care less about MLB to be honest. I keep it simple, I check the stats in the newspaper, root for the Red Sox to win and HATE the New York Yankees

dallasactuary

<< <i>The Washington Senators- Epstein played first base on the 1969 team. He and Frank Howard had their best season at the time Ted Williams was the Manager >>


Half-kudos for you! (He was on Oakland in 1972)

dallasactuary

<< <i>Dallas, I will save you the aggrevation of getting involved in a serious stat discussion regarding baseball players from the pre steroid era because Im not all that intelligent when it comes to "Serious number crunching" regarding stats that I recently became familiar with such as WAR ect..

As our friend Skin would say Im a typical Baseball fan who loves the HR & RBI numbers, and thats OK because outside of the Red Sox I couldnt care less about MLB to be honest. I keep it simple, I check the stats in the newspaper, root for the Red Sox to win and HATE the New York Yankees >>


Oh, I know. I'm busting your chops because you're the only one who posted. But somewhere in the dark recesses of your mind, and anyone else who reads this thread, the name Mike Epstein will be planted along with the thought that he was a damn fine baseball player. People will remember Rusty Kuntz (not for his ability) long after SuperJew is forgotten, and that just isn't right. I'm just trying to do my part to see that some really good players aren't completely ignored.

coinkat

I knew he played for teams other than the Senators- I just am unable to name them

Skin2

<< <i>Dallas, I will save you the aggrevation of getting involved in a serious stat discussion regarding baseball players from the pre steroid era because Im not all that intelligent when it comes to "Serious number crunching" regarding stats that I recently became familiar with such as WAR ect..

As our friend Skin would say Im a typical Baseball fan who loves the HR & RBI numbers, and thats OK because outside of the Red Sox I couldnt care less about MLB to be honest. I keep it simple, I check the stats in the newspaper, root for the Red Sox to win and HATE the New York Yankees >>



Perk you are the best of your kind, no doubt!

Epstein did have a great year. On a per at bat basis, he did better than Rice in both HR's and RBI(and that is without the Fenway factor). The dude hit 30 HR in 403 at bats that season. That is pretty impressive, but as stated, he missed 30 games, and was 246 plate appearances short of Rice. Not sure how many of those absences were from sitting out vs a tough LH.

For his career, Epstein had a slash line vs Left Handers of .215/.316/.342....so he does have a little Ken Phelps in him.

John Lowenstein had a similar year in 1982 as Epstein did in '69.

calaban7

I find it VERY enlightening when one sees what their " Superhero " did outside of their home park , when its their home park that makes them to appear great .

One of my favorite players of all time is Chuck Klein . I've looked at his numbers outside of Baker's Bowl and Chuck quickly becomes the Jim Rice or Sandy Koufax and many others like them , of his day . Largely a park effect benefactor .


I still love Chuck Klein anyway .-------- Sonny

larryallen73

Your point is interesting to a point. However, what makes a player "great" is not solely based on their numbers obviously. These kind of statistical analysis, especially when based on what stats "might have looked like" are even more silly. Jim Rice was a great player partly because "we" decided he was. Beyond that though maybe he was great for putting balls in play, protecting others in the lineup, and other things that do not show up in a box score. I don't know because I am not a Jim Rice or Red Sox fan and never watched much of him. To me these kind of comparisons are incredible stretches at a minimum. There will always be players we overvalue and undervalue when looking solely at the numbers. In some cases these conclusions are right and sometimes they are wrong.

dallasactuary

<< <i>There will always be players we overvalue and undervalue when looking solely at the numbers. In some cases these conclusions are right and sometimes they are wrong. >>

At the margins, yes, I agree; players can be a little bit better or a little bit worse than their numbers indicate. But, we will overvalue or undervalue players much more often, and to a much greater degree, if we don't look at the numbers, and more importantly if we don't look at the right numbers.

skin went and rained on my Mike Epstein parade by bringing up his Ken Phelps problem (yeah, he has one, but it spoiled my narrative so I didn't mention it), but Epstein is a good example of what you're describing. If you just look at his numbers - even the right one's like OPS+, BR or WPA - he looks fantastic. If you dig a little deeper than that, as you are getting at, it turns out he's not quite that good. Still very, very good, but not quite as good as his stats say. But, if you looked at Epstein's batting average, and his RBI or other worthless stats like that, you'd conclude not that he was very, very good, but that he was fair to mediocre. And you'd be wrong. I am operating from the assumption that people would rather be right than wrong, and to the degree that that's true, that they would find it valuable to know where to find the right answers. And players like Mike Epstein and Jim Rice are excellent starting points for separating the useful from the useless in arriving at the right answer.

(For the record, the right answer is that Rice was a much better player than Mike Epstein. But that doesn't change the other right answer, which is that Rice's 1978 season wasn't that much better than Epstein's 1969 season. Epstein sat out against a lot of lefties that year, but he actually hit very well against them when he did play, so it's not clear why his manager benched him. Epstein's 1969 season might have been clearly better than Rice's 1978 season if he had faced all the lefties.)

jay0791

I watched jim rices whole career.

hof worthy or not he was a great hitter.

far from sucking