Originally posted by: coinkat Among the worst players there? Really...? Lets show a little more respect for those players that even enter the HOF discussion.
Can we consider using using words other than worst in comparing players at this level?
I agree. Some really silly comments here.
I always liked Vlad! Great SLG should've walked more.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: dallasactuary He has two MVPs but he wasn't the best player in the league in either year (Schmidt was, both times) so they don't really mean that much. He played CF for awhile, but wasn't good enough, so got moved to right.
Man, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
A true 5 tool player! Kind of a short career, but long enough as far as I am concerned.
He may have been the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses for that matter.
This feat is hard to accomplish
Errors Committed as RF (s.1954)
1997 NL 12 (1st)
1998 NL 17 (1st)
1999 NL 19 (1st)
2000 NL 10 (1st)
2001 NL 12 (1st)
2002 NL 10 (1st)
2003 NL 7 (1st)
2004 AL 9 (2nd)
2006 AL 11 (1st)
2007 AL 9 (1st)
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: TabeMan, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
VG was my favorite player, so I'm not exactly impartial. But I'm never one to shy away from a good sports debate, so I'll do my best to keep an open mind on this one.
Mark, I agree with you -- it was often times a circus watching him get to a ball. A part of that, however, can be ascribed to the concrete he played on in Montreal for a number of years. Really f'd up his knees, because he could run like a gazelle in his early days. Never became a proficient thief on the bases, but he did have raw speed. In fact, I'll never forget him missing a 40/40 season by one foot back in '02 on the final day of the reg season.
As for the errors he made in right, you must also take into account the number of times he made throws that the avg RF could not, a la Clemente. I once saw him make a catch on the warning track with his back to home plate, turn in one motion and put a runner to sleep who was napping in between first and second base -- on the fly. Very few, if any, outfielders could do that. So conventional wisdom says that over the course of a 162-game season, he (at least somewhat, if not completely) offset the figures you cited due to the bazooka that was attached to his right arm.
But words are fruitless without a visual example...
First off, defense is the last thing considered here for a potential HOF corner outfielder, he was top 4 in assists 10 times and 6 of the times he led the league in errors he made 12 or less for the entire year. Now look at double plays turned by a RF, ten times in the top 5. His fielding % was .02 under the league average for his career. Range factor/Game as RF top 5 nine times.
So there's a little more to it when looking at his defensive abilities or lack thereof than leading the league in errors. I'll downgrade him to a 4 1/2 tool player and still think he belongs in the HOF
Here's another stat; he averaged 340 total bases in a 162 game season.
He is 24th all time SLG and 30th OPS.
His defense shouldn't keep him out. He was a SUPERIOR hitter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
There's no stat for guys that didn't try to advance/score because of his arm. I wonder how many runs were prevented by guys holding up because of that?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Joe you are the one who said Vlad was a 5 tool player. I just posted evidence to retort that. He had a cannon for an arm. Fine. I didn't mention his way less then stellar fielding should keep him out of the Hall. Did I? I think he will have a difficult time getting in FWIW. He may eventually get in down the road.
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: Justacommeman Joe you are the one who said Vlad was a 5 tool player. I just posted evidence to retort that. He had a cannon for an arm. Fine. I didn't mention his way less then stellar fielding should keep him out of the Hall. Did I? I think he will have a difficult time getting in FWIW. He may eventually get in down the road.
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Correct Mark, subsequently I reduced him to a 4 1/2 tool player, upon further research, my final evaluation is he was a 4 3/4 tool dude!
Correct again, you did not say his defense should keep him out of the Hall, but your post said he was "the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses" this seems to be further from the truth than my 5 tool comment.
We do like to split hairs here don't we?!?!?!?!?
By the way, here's Ted William's errors;
Errors Committed as LF (s.1954) 1940 AL 12 (2nd) 1941 AL 10 (1st) 1946 AL 10 (1st) 1947 AL 9 (2nd) 1948 AL 5 (5th) 1949 AL 6 (1st) 1950 AL 8 (2nd) 1951 AL 4 (5th) 1954 AL 4 (4th) 1956 AL 5 (2nd) 1958 AL 7 (2nd)
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Guerrero was a bad outfielder; Williams was not as bad, but he wasn't good either. But as I said with regard to Al Oliver, it just doesn't matter. Great outfielders, all of them, play center field and there are some center fielders whose HOF cases are helped by their fielding. Once you're relegated to LF or RF, you're fielding isn't going to get you in the HOF, and you'd have to be really, really bad for it to hurt your case, and even then you'd have to be downright putrid for it to hurt your case much.
Guerrero's case is definitely not helped by his fielding, and while he was a bad outfielder he wasn't putrid, so his case isn't really hurt either.
I think Guerrero is borderline as a HOFer; a great hitter, but kind of lower tier HOF-level "great". His OPS+ is great but it captures everything he did well and everything else he did either doesn't help him (SB/CS is a wash, fielding) or hurts him (tons of GIDP and a shortish career for a HOF outfielder).
Tim Raines was better and Darrell Evans was better; no question about it in my mind. Guerrero is pretty comparable to Frank Howard; Howard's peak was much better than Guerrero's but his career was even shorter. I like Howard for the HOF for his epic peak, but I understand why others might think Guerrero was better, and more deserving.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Joe you are the one who said Vlad was a 5 tool player. I just posted evidence to retort that. He had a cannon for an arm. Fine. I didn't mention his way less then stellar fielding should keep him out of the Hall. Did I? I think he will have a difficult time getting in FWIW. He may eventually get in down the road.
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Correct Mark, subsequently I reduced him to a 4 1/2 tool player, upon further research, my final evaluation is he was a 4 3/4 tool dude!
Correct again, you did not say his defense should keep him out of the Hall, but your post said he was "the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses" this seems to be further from the truth than my 5 tool comment.
We do like to split hairs here don't we?!?!?!?!?
By the way, here's Ted William's errors;
Errors Committed as LF (s.1954)
1940 AL 12 (2nd)
1941 AL 10 (1st)
1946 AL 10 (1st)
1947 AL 9 (2nd)
1948 AL 5 (5th)
1949 AL 6 (1st)
1950 AL 8 (2nd)
1951 AL 4 (5th)
1954 AL 4 (4th)
1956 AL 5 (2nd)
1958 AL 7 (2nd)
I wasn't splitting hairs.
Ted wasn't a great fielder either. He was much much better then Vlady. Based on the evidence you provided above he was Clemente compared to Guerrero.
Guerrero finished with the most errors 7 straight seasons in the NL during his prime. He then went to the AL and led the American League in errors in RF 3 out of 4 years. The other year? He slumped and finished second in errors. Those numbers don't lie no matter how they are spun.
One of the five tools for a baseball player is arm strength. He gets full marks there. One of the tools is defense. He gets a big fat zero there. 4 tool guy. That's at best. Pretty darn good.
Edited to add I do think he will be a 50-60% HOF ballot guy who could eventually get in. I'd be ok with it. Slam dunk. Nope.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: TabeMan, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: TabeMan, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
That is an overly simplistic interpretation. What I think dallas means is that you have to take a long, hard look at the statistics behind the players, not the awards they won, because let's face it, many of those awards are bestowed based on popularity and previous performance, whereas statistics are not subjective or colored by fan bias and provide a more accurate and objective analysis.
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.
Originally posted by: TabeMan, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
That is an overly simplistic interpretation. What I think dallas means is that you have to take a long, hard look at the statistics behind the players, not the awards they won, because let's face it, many of those awards are bestowed based on popularity and previous performance, whereas statistics are not subjective or colored by fan bias and provide a more accurate and objective analysis.
Do you have any proof awards are based on previous performance? Because if that's true, you are saying that awards are bogus.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: TabeMan, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Actually, a hof career does need the validation of the sportswriters, or it isn't a hof career.
I think there is a happy medium when it comes to looking at awards and stats. Not all awards were deserved, but a player winning multiple awards does show a trend of greatness or fame. Like Johnson's cy youngs or Schmidt's mvp's. I love stats as much as the next guy, but we do need to keep in mind that it is the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleDo you have any proof awards are based on previous performance? Because if that's true, you are saying that awards are bogus.
The only award that is based on previous performance is the Gold Glove. The proof is there for the seeing if you'll take the time to look. MVP Awards are the other side of the coin. MVP voters hate giving the award to the same player too often so players who have won it before are actually at a disadvantage. Players like Mantle, Musial and Schmidt were the most valuable players in their leagues about 10 times each, but they each only have a small handful of MVPs.
Other awards are better (they go to the player who actually deserved it more often), but enough of them go to the wrong player that they shouldn't just be taken at face value. The point is that relying on awards to determine how good a player was is just lazy. Ignore them, think for yourself, and you'll get a better answer.
I love stats as much as the next guy, but we do need to keep in mind that it is the hall of fame, not the hall of stats.
The problem with this is that players get famous for a lot of bad reasons: winning awards they didn't deserve, playing on great teams surrounded by better teammates, playing in easy hitter's parks, etc. If getting voted into the HOF is supposed to be an honor, then voters ought to be taking these things into account and adjusting their thinking accordingly. Jim Rice, backing out the Fenway factor, was a nearly identical hitter as Chili Davis; Jim Hunter, pitching for average teams in average parks, was about the same pitcher as Jim Perry. The only reasons they are famous have nothing to do with how great they were. A HOF that honors them for being famous, as opposed to being great, is trivial.
And there are few players as famous as Roger Maris. If it's a hall of fame and not a hall of stats then Maris should have gotten in decades ago. It's supposed to be a hall of stats, the problem is that too many people get in because voters are impressed by the wrong stats.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The problem when you start getting into park factors or teammate factors, is that you are moving away from reality and into hypotheticals. Rice played in Fenway. Hunter played with the teammates he had. Maybe chili davis should have adapted his game better for his home park. Is it possible rice adapted his swing toward more fly balls pulled down the line because he played in Fenway park. whose to say he wouldn't have adapted to a different home park by being a line drive hitter. When you start pulling players out of the context of where and when they actually played, you are putting players in a vacuum. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and when some of these factors are used, it is really just an exercise in hypotheticals. Ie this player MAY have done this had he played in this park or if this player had hit behind him in the line up. Fun to do, but all just hypothetical and not based in reality.
Originally posted by: craig44 The problem when you start getting into park factors or teammate factors, is that you are moving away from reality and into hypotheticals. Rice played in Fenway. Hunter played with the teammates he had. Maybe chili davis should have adapted his game better for his home park. Is it possible rice adapted his swing toward more fly balls pulled down the line because he played in Fenway park. whose to say he wouldn't have adapted to a different home park by being a line drive hitter. When you start pulling players out of the context of where and when they actually played, you are putting players in a vacuum. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and when some of these factors are used, it is really just an exercise in hypotheticals. Ie this player MAY have done this had he played in this park or if this player had hit behind him in the line up. Fun to do, but all just hypothetical and not based in reality.
There's nothing hypothetical about it. We know how Rice did in Fenway and how he did everywhere else, and when he wasn't in Fenway he looked exactly like Chili Davis. You are imposing the hypothetical that Rice somehow adapted his swing to Fenway when there's not a shred of evidence that he did. Rice was better at Fenway in the same way that all of his teammates, in fact in the way nearly everyone in the league, was better at Fenway. It's an easy park to hit in not just for Rice but for everyone. Your argument boils down to saying that players who get to play in easy hitter's parks deserve greater HOF consideration because it's hypothetically possible that they adapted to the park, and that player's that play in tough hitter's parks deserve less HOF consideration because they weren't able to do this hypothetical adapting. What I'm doing is leaving the hypotheticals out of it and looking at what they actually did. And what Rice did in Fenway wasn't any more impressive than what he did everywhere else, the numbers were just bigger as they were for everyone.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Fred Lynn figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then there's at least a piece of evidence that he did. But Rice? If he figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then everyone else was able to figure out the same thing, and rewarding Rice for figuring it out is the same thing as rewarding him for playing more games at Fenway than others did.
BTW, he didn't get to play there nearly as often, but Chili Davis' offense improved 14% when he played in Fenway; Candlestick, one of the toughest hitter's parks, reduced his offense by 15%. Chili Davis would be in the HOF today and Rice wouldn't if they had switched teams for their careers. Neither one of them deserves to be.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
In addition to the Gold Glove, All-Star selections are another example of an achievement based on popularity/past performance in many cases.
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.
Originally posted by: grote15 In addition to the Gold Glove, All-Star selections are another example of an achievement based on popularity/past performance in many cases.
What really kills me is when people throw out how many All-Star games a pitcher was in. Fans don't pick the pitchers (maybe they do now, I don't know), they're picked by the manager, who is the manager of the pennant winning team from the previous season. Jim Hunter kept getting picked for the AS game by HIS OWN MANAGER, and somehow that's supposed to be so impressive that it's used as evidence that he belongs in the HOF.
But that rant aside, I agree that AS game appearances have to be the worst and weakest evidence of greatness in common use. But they are consistent with the belief that the HOF is a "hall of fame not a hall of stats", and the more general idea that it's better to let other people do your thinking for you than to form your own opinion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: craig44 The problem when you start getting into park factors or teammate factors, is that you are moving away from reality and into hypotheticals. Rice played in Fenway. Hunter played with the teammates he had. Maybe chili davis should have adapted his game better for his home park. Is it possible rice adapted his swing toward more fly balls pulled down the line because he played in Fenway park. whose to say he wouldn't have adapted to a different home park by being a line drive hitter. When you start pulling players out of the context of where and when they actually played, you are putting players in a vacuum. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and when some of these factors are used, it is really just an exercise in hypotheticals. Ie this player MAY have done this had he played in this park or if this player had hit behind him in the line up. Fun to do, but all just hypothetical and not based in reality.
There's nothing hypothetical about it. We know how Rice did in Fenway and how he did everywhere else, and when he wasn't in Fenway he looked exactly like Chili Davis. You are imposing the hypothetical that Rice somehow adapted his swing to Fenway when there's not a shred of evidence that he did. Rice was better at Fenway in the same way that all of his teammates, in fact in the way nearly everyone in the league, was better at Fenway. It's an easy park to hit in not just for Rice but for everyone. Your argument boils down to saying that players who get to play in easy hitter's parks deserve greater HOF consideration because it's hypothetically possible that they adapted to the park, and that player's that play in tough hitter's parks deserve less HOF consideration because they weren't able to do this hypothetical adapting. What I'm doing is leaving the hypotheticals out of it and looking at what they actually did. And what Rice did in Fenway wasn't any more impressive than what he did everywhere else, the numbers were just bigger as they were for everyone.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Fred Lynn figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then there's at least a piece of evidence that he did. But Rice? If he figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then everyone else was able to figure out the same thing, and rewarding Rice for figuring it out is the same thing as rewarding him for playing more games at Fenway than others did.
BTW, he didn't get to play there nearly as often, but Chili Davis' offense improved 14% when he played in Fenway; Candlestick, one of the toughest hitter's parks, reduced his offense by 15%. Chili Davis would be in the HOF today and Rice wouldn't if they had switched teams for their careers. Neither one of them deserves to be.
So in other words, players should be penalized for hitting better in their own ball parks.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: garnettstyleSo in other words, players should be penalized for hitting better in their own ball parks.
Those are "other words", but they don't mean the same thing so I think you're confused about the meaning of that phrase.
Fenway, in the era in which Rice played, increased offense by something around 15%. That's how much Rice's offense improved there vs. everywhere else, and it's how much everybody else's offense improved there vs. everywhere else (obviously there are exceptions, both higher and lower than 15%). Right now, if you ignore that, Rice is getting an undeserved reward from playing in Fenway. If you back that out, you are not "penalizing him", you are being fair. Likewise, if you don't adjust for park factors, you ARE penalizing Chili Davis who toiled in a park as difficult as Fenway was easy.
So, in other words, no player should be penalized for the park they play in, nor should they be rewarded. Ignoring park factors does both - rewards players like Rice and penalizes players like Davis. I am advocating for treating both players fairly; you are arguing for the opposite.
I'll say again, if Rice and Davis had switched teams/parks/years then Davis would be in the HOF and Rice would not. You haven't disputed that, but if you'd like to try please do.
In 1984, Jim Rice drove in 122 runs and was 13th in the MVP voting. Chili Davis, also in 1984, drove in 81 runs and got no MVP votes. I assume that you would say that Rice had a better year - that it advanced his HOF case relative to Davis - and just move on. But consider:
When Jim Rice batted, over the course of the season, there were 254 runners in scoring position for him to knock in, and he drove in 73 of them (29%). He also drove himself in with a HR 28 times and runners on first 21 times out of 291 (7%).
Davis saw only 164 runners in scoring position to drive in, and he drove in 53 of them (32%). He drove himself in 21 times and he drove in 7 of the 145 runners on first (5%).
If you apply Davis' percentages to Rice's RISP and men on first, plus homers, you get 117 - five fewer than Rice, and roughly the difference in their homers. If you do the same for Rice, he'd have 86 RBI, again slightly more mostly because he hit more HR.
So, does it mean anything important that Rice had 122 RBI and Davis had 81? Was Rice 50% better at driving in runs than Davis? Surely not. Likewise, it would not be fair to say that Davis was a 117 RBI guy and Rice was an 86 RBI guy; that would just move the unfairness from Davis onto Rice. What's fair to say is that they were very similar at driving in runners. Rice had more HR than Davis because he played in an easier park (he hit 11 HR on the road that year while Davis hit 17; it was only in home games that Rice "became" a better HR hitter than Davis). Take out the driving in yourself part of it, and Davis was better at driving in runners than Rice was. Put them in neutral parks, and Davis was better at driving himself in, too. If you stop at 122 RBI vs. 81 RBI you never see that, and you've missed everything worthwhile.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleSo in other words, players should be penalized for hitting better in their own ball parks.
Those are "other words", but they don't mean the same thing so I think you're confused about the meaning of that phrase.
Fenway, in the era in which Rice played, increased offense by something around 15%. That's how much Rice's offense improved there vs. everywhere else, and it's how much everybody else's offense improved there vs. everywhere else (obviously there are exceptions, both higher and lower than 15%). Right now, if you ignore that, Rice is getting an undeserved reward from playing in Fenway. If you back that out, you are not "penalizing him", you are being fair. Likewise, if you don't adjust for park factors, you ARE penalizing Chili Davis who toiled in a park as difficult as Fenway was easy.
So, in other words, no player should be penalized for the park they play in, nor should they be rewarded. Ignoring park factors does both - rewards players like Rice and penalizes players like Davis. I am advocating for treating both players fairly; you are arguing for the opposite.
I'll say again, if Rice and Davis had switched teams/parks/years then Davis would be in the HOF and Rice would not. You haven't disputed that, but if you'd like to try please do.
In 1984, Jim Rice drove in 122 runs and was 13th in the MVP voting. Chili Davis, also in 1984, drove in 81 runs and got no MVP votes. I assume that you would say that Rice had a better year - that it advanced his HOF case relative to Davis - and just move on. But consider:
When Jim Rice batted, over the course of the season, there were 254 runners in scoring position for him to knock in, and he drove in 73 of them (29%). He also drove himself in with a HR 28 times and runners on first 21 times out of 291 (7%).
Davis saw only 164 runners in scoring position to drive in, and he drove in 53 of them (32%). He drove himself in 21 times and he drove in 7 of the 145 runners on first (5%).
If you apply Davis' percentages to Rice's RISP and men on first, plus homers, you get 117 - five fewer than Rice, and roughly the difference in their homers. If you do the same for Rice, he'd have 86 RBI, again slightly more mostly because he hit more HR.
So, does it mean anything important that Rice had 122 RBI and Davis had 81? Was Rice 50% better at driving in runs than Davis? Surely not. Likewise, it would not be fair to say that Davis was a 117 RBI guy and Rice was an 86 RBI guy; that would just move the unfairness from Davis onto Rice. What's fair to say is that they were very similar at driving in runners. Rice had more HR than Davis because he played in an easier park (he hit 11 HR on the road that year while Davis hit 17; it was only in home games that Rice "became" a better HR hitter than Davis). Take out the driving in yourself part of it, and Davis was better at driving in runners than Rice was. Put them in neutral parks, and Davis was better at driving himself in, too. If you stop at 122 RBI vs. 81 RBI you never see that, and you've missed everything worthwhile.
Gotcha. I understand all that but man, it just seems like a lot of speculation and assuming.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Garnett, it is all speculation and hypothetical situations. We are living in pretend world where everyone plays in neutral parks and we can extrapolate data for situations that didn't happen. We can not assume that davis would drive in those extra base runners at the same rate he drove in the 81 runs he actually did drive in. It is a fun exercise, but definitely not based in reality.
Originally posted by: craig44 Garnett, it is all speculation and hypothetical situations. We are living in pretend world where everyone plays in neutral parks and we can extrapolate data for situations that didn't happen. We can not assume that davis would drive in those extra base runners at the same rate he drove in the 81 runs he actually did drive in. It is a fun exercise, but definitely not based in reality.
But this isn't logical, in fact it leads nowhere. The only assumption I'm making is that a player - any player - is who he is, has the skills he has, and will utilize those skills to the best of his ability wherever he plays. Your formulation makes every possible outcome equally likely. We don't know that Davis would have been the same player in Fenway that he was in Candlestick (my assumption), therefore it is equally likely that he would have driven in 81 runs in Fenway, or 181 runs in Fenway, or 11 runs in Fenway (what you're saying).
You're saying players in easy hitters parks are better than players in difficult hitters parks, or at least that it's unfair speculation to assume anything other than that. I've tried to explain why that's nonsense as many ways as I know how. I will move on after repeating this point: what I am doing is making the fewest number of assumptions possible, and utilizing the least amount of speculation possible. The assumption that you are making - that how good a player is depends on where he plays - is a HUGE assumption, and one for which there is zero evidence.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Your assumption is bigger than you think. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, and I understand your numbers. All I am saying is that we can't assume that if we could pull a player and put him on a different team or in a different park or in a different era that he would be the same player. We can't assume his averages and percentages would be the same in a different situation. There are far too many variables in play. We know what davis and rice did, but we cannot project those numbers into a situation neither player existed in. It is fun to do, but it is all assumption and speculation. It is possible davis would have driven in the extra runs, it is just as likely that he wouldnt. There is no such thing in the real world as a neutral park.
I think the whole point of advanced statistics and park adjusted stats is to make reasonable conclusions based on the compilation of data made available to us. Of course, it's speculation to some extent, but it's an exercise in well informed speculation. If player A has X number of opportunities and player B has X number of opportunities and player A had 50% more opportunities than player B, it seems rather academic that player A would amass greater raw numbers than player B. A better, more accurate measure for purposes of comparison would be to assess the percentage of success for each player. That's the fun of statistic interpretation, and why Davis would very likely (if not certainly) had driven in just as many RBIs as Rice, given the same opportunities during the 1984 season.
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.
Originally posted by: craig44It is possible davis would have driven in the extra runs, it is just as likely that he wouldnt. There is no such thing in the real world as a neutral park.
Yes, everything is possible. But what you're saying is that every possible outcome is equally likely, or rather what you're saying doesn't make any sense unless you assume that.
And note that in the example I showed, that Rice had 90 more players in scoring position than Davis did has nothing to do with Rice or Davis. If we imagine that Davis takes Rice's place in his lineups, then it isn't an assumption that Davis would have 90 more players in scoring position to drive in, but it would require a series of bizarre assumptions to reach the conclusion that he wouldn't have drive in ANY of those extra 90 runners. OF COURSE he would have driven in some of those runners. I'm assuming that he drives in the same percentage as he did for SF, but you're right that it could be any percentage. But Davis driving in a percentage NEAR his percentage in SF is MUCH more likely than any percentage significantly different than that percentage.
Put Rice in Davis's spot and, again, it's not an assumption but rather a simple fact he would have had 90 fewer RISP to drive in. And, again, the far more likely outcome is that Rice would have driven in somewhere around the same percentage of them as he did for Boston. YOU are making a series of bizarre assumptions when you conclude that it isn't virtually certain that Davis would have had many more RBI than Rice if they switched teams. I know you don't think of it that way, but it's what you're doing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Nope, I'm assuming nothing. Rice had 122 RsBI and davis had 81. That is no assumption, that happened. You are assuming that if they traded places that they would have produced at a very similar level. But in reality, they didn't trade places. That's all. And if they did, all we have to speculate on is their prior numbers. We can't just assume, however likely, that those prior numbers would hold up under drastically different circumstances. I think we have to pump the brakes a little when we start making definitive statements that player x is better than player y because of what boils down to just speculation. I know we do these mathematical acrobatics to try and compare players, but really, the comparisons are just speculative as to the probability of a players projected stats if put in a different situation. Now, I am really just advocating for the devil here, and it is a fun discussion. I understand park factors and normalizing stats and how it can be enlightening and fun. We can find some diamonds in the rough like blyleven and Evans who were much better players than most give credit to. This is a fun discussion, and no hard feelings
Guerrero finished with the most errors 7 straight seasons in the NL during his prime. He then went to the AL and led the American League in errors in RF 3 out of 4 years. The other year? He slumped and finished second in errors. Those numbers don't lie no matter how they are spun.
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: craig44 Nope, I'm assuming nothing. Rice had 122 RsBI and davis had 81. That is no assumption, that happened.
Rice drove in 29% of runners in scoring position and Davis drove in 32% of runners in scoring position. That is no assumption. That happened. Rice had an OPS of .741 on the road / .840 at home and Davis had an OPS of .922 on the road / .818 at home. That is no assumption. That happened.
For some reason you think the fact of the absolute RBI numbers is more meaningful than the other facts, even though the absolute number is easily explained by the other facts, not the other way around. HOF voters make the same mistake, which is why Rice is in the HOF and Davis, who was better than Rice, not just in 1984, is not.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I think the error in logic you are making is that players can be picked up and moved to other teams/stadiums/eras and all of their previous percentages would remain the same. We are not talking about robots here, people are much less resilient. Sometimes even small changes in environment can make huge differences in performance. Just look at free agency. Look at how many players sign contracts with new teams and never play as well again. There are so many examples (strawberry, Eric Davis, pujols etc) and there are many reasons, injury, drug use, simply being in a new environment. We can not make that error when we definitively make statements that player x is greater than player y because if they switched places they would produce as they had previously. It would be nice if we could just project numbers like that, but we can't. Too many variables in play. I think we can agree that those assumptions are simply speculation.
When Strawberry was traded his OPS+ went from 140 to 140. When Pujols was traded his OPS+ went from 148 to 138, but he was already past his peak and had gone from 192 to 189 to 173 to 148 in the years before that. Both these players, and the thousands of others who you didn't mention, support my "assumption" (it's actually just an observation), not yours. Eric Davis was injured when he was traded, so he isn't an example of anything except that players are better when they're healthy than when they're injured.
And yes, obviously there is a range of performance for every player and one shouldn't expect that his performance will be "the same" in any two circumstances. But one could, and should, expect that it will be similar, and that the more similar outcomes are much more likely than the less similar outcomes.
I have mentioned, and you have avoided acknowledging, the numbers of runners that Rice and Davis had to drive in many times now. I get why you avoid acknowledging it since to do so exposes the massive logical mistake that you're making. Put Rice and Davis to the side and just consider two random players: player 1 has 240 runners in scoring position for his ABs and player 2 has 160 RISP for his ABs. Which player would you guess would drive in more runs? What would your guess be for how much higher player A's RBI total would be than player B's? If your answers aren't "player A" and "50%" then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of either baseball or math. That's not the same thing as saying that 100% of the time that player A will drive in 50% more runners than player B - which is what you keep trying to claim that I'm saying. But it is the expected result. If that result is in fact what happens, then one can say with great confidence that player A and player B were similar batters; if it doesn't happen then one or the other players is very likely to be better than the other.
Which brings us back to Rice and Davis. The difference in their RBIs was predictable, and the actual totals were consistent with what would be predicted. That's not an assumption. That happened. We can avoid what is necessarily speculation about what would have happened if they had switched places, but still acknowledge that if they had switched places, the expected result would have been that Davis would drive in 50% more runs than Rice. The actual result of Rice driving in 50% more runs than Davis is evidence that they were similar hitters, not that Rice was better than Davis. The hypothetical result of Davis driving in 50% more runs than Rice would also be evidence that they were similar hitters, not that Davis was better than Rice.
To conclude that Rice and Davis were similar hitters (with respect to RBI, Davis was obviously much better overall) in 1984 requires no assumptions at all - it is the only logical conclusion and is supported by each and every piece of available evidence. To conclude that Rice was a better RBI guy than Davis in 1984 requires a mountain of speculation and a series of terribly unlikely assumptions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Strawberry, pujols and davis, all three, never produced again at the same levels after their change of scenery. Ok, straw had one decent season and then fell off the cliff. And this happens consistently when players change leagues, teams etc. What you are missing is that you assume when a player "hypothetically" changes place with another that all else stays the same and that assumption is not born out when we look at real life player movement. That is simply an error in judgment on your part. You look at players as chess pieces, that they can be moved around interchangeably and be expected to perform at similar levels. It is just not born out in real life. The changes you propose never actually happened, thus you are predicting or SPECULATING what the results COULD have been. And that is ok, but, you then make definitive statements as to who the better player would be after a speculative situation. You are ONLY SPECULATING, there for you cannot say definitively that player a is better than player b.
I acknowledge that rice had more opportunities to drive in runs than davis. but We KNOW how he performed. We can only SPECULATE that davis would have continued to drive in runs at a 32% clip. So when you make that assumption, you can not definitively state that davis would have driven in as many or more runs. We just don't know. We can project it, but we don't know.
Originally posted by: craig44 The changes you propose never actually happened, thus you are predicting or SPECULATING what the results COULD have been. And that is ok, but, you then make definitive statements as to who the better player would be after a speculative situation. You are ONLY SPECULATING, there for you cannot say definitively that player a is better than player b.
I acknowledge that price had more opportunities to drive in runs than davis. We KNOW how he performed. We can only SPECULATE that davis would have continued to have driven in runs at a 32% clip. So when you make that assumption, you can not definitively state that davis would have driven in as many or more runs. We just don't know. We can project it, but we don't know.
You are going out of your way now to misstate what I said, an indication, I think, that you know I'm right.
You and I are both speculating about what would happen if you switched Rice and Davis - you have yet to acknowledge that you are speculating while you point out that I am speculating. What I emphasized is that what I am speculating is the most likely outcome; what you are speculating is a far less likely outcome. When you say "we KNOW how he performed" you are referring to his absolute number of RBI, but Rice's performance includes his rate of RBI production. We KNOW that with every bit the same certainty that we KNOW his total. And it is the rate of RBI production that is under a hitter's control; the absolute number is up to the rest of his team. So you're saying that if they switched teams the thing that is not under their control would stay the same while the thing that is under their control would change. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not at all.
And on a more general note about what happens when players switch teams, you keep stating without evidence that it is common for players performance to change dramatically. It's not; it's very uncommon. But first, you need to focus on their pattern of performance, not their absolute numbers, and second you need to focus on the change in conditions. A player, like Pujols, who is past his peak and already declining is expected to continue to decline. And that's what he did. I was sorry to see Albert leave the Cardinals but I would have been pissed if the Cardinals had paid him what the Angels did. Because I knew he was never going to be worth that kind of money; he was old and declining. Pujols did not change because of the trade; he was exactly what he was expected to be. Strawberry was still at his peak when he was traded and had almost exactly the same season after he was traded. Then he got injured. Unless your argument is that if you put a player in another park it will injure him then neither Strawberry nor Eric Davis are even relevant to this topic. Which leaves you with zero relevant examples. I'm sure there are some, as there are some where a player's performance improved more than expected after a trade, but the vast majority of players just take their skills to their new team and continue as expected. Now, if a player got traded from Boston to Houston in the 1970's his numbers (HR, RBI, etc.) would surely drop, but absolute numbers aren't a measure of performance. Things like OPS+ and RBI/opportunity are measures of performance, and those would be expected to stay about the same.
This is a statement of fact: if Rice and Davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the expected (most likely) result is that Davis would have driven in about 50% more runs than Rice; as that ratio gets further away from 50% the likelihood of that result is less and less likely. If you do not agree that this is a statement of fact then please say so, and why, and I'll try to figure out where you're wrong. If you do agree that this is a statement of fact, then tell me what it is exactly that you're arguing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
And what on earth am I speculating about. I'm pretty sure I haven't projected any stats or speculated on any situations. I am the one here who is saying davis played in candlestick and rice in Fenway. I'm not the one speculating what MIGHT have happened had they swapped places.
These are your words "this is a statement of fact: if rice and davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the EXPECTED (MOST LIKELY) result..." that friend is not a statement of fact. It is a hypothetical situation. It is a speculative statement. You think or expect you know what will happen, but when you make cut and dried statements like davis is better than rice based on an EXPECTED result, it falls flat and simply is not accurate.
Originally posted by: craig44These are your words "this is a statement of fact: if rice and davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the EXPECTED (MOST LIKELY) result..." that friend is not a statement of fact. It is a hypothetical situation. It is a speculative statement.
And this is where you are wrong.
"If I flip a coin 10 times the expected (most likely) number of flips resulting in heads is 5." "If the world doesn't end today, the expected (most likely) direction in which the sun will rise tomorrow is in the East." "If I hit my hand with a hammer hard enough to break a bone, the expected (most likely) result will be pain."
These are also statements of fact. They are all hypothetical, but hypothetical statements can be factual; there is no contradiction there. If any of them said what "will" happen, they would be speculative; because they simply point out the most likely result, they are not.
If I flip a coin 10 times I might get anywhere from 0 to 10 heads. But 5 IS the expected result, each and every time I flip a coin 10 times. 5 is the most likely result, 4 and 6 are less likely, 3 and 7 less likely still, and so on. No speculation, still all facts. Applying this to Rice and Davis works in exactly the same way. The expected result is that Davis will have 50% more RBI. Fact. He might have 45% or 55% more, but those results are somewhat less likely. Still fact. He might have the same number of RBI or 100% more; unlikely results, but possible. He might have 50% fewer RBI or three times as many; exceedingly unlikely results, but theoretically possible.
If Rice and Davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the expected (most likely) result is that Davis would have driven in about 50% more runs than Rice. That is (still) a statement of fact. We can speculate about exactly what would have happened, even speculate wildly that Rice would have had more RBI than Davis because aliens would have abducted Davis or whatever else it would have taken to achieve that bizarre result, but the underlying expectation would remain unchanged.
I'm pretty sure I can't explain it any better than this.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Your post kind of makes my point you are trying so hard to be convincing that you are dealing in facts. You are not. You are making predictions about what MAY have happened if things in the past had shaken out differently. That is where you are mistaken. To definitively state a who is best argument when you are looking at what MAY have happened, is incorrect methodology. It just doesn't work, as badly as you want it to.
Originally posted by: craig44 Your post kind of makes my point you are trying so hard to be convincing that you are dealing in facts. You are not. You are making predictions about what MAY have happened if things in the past had shaken out differently. That is where you are mistaken. To definitively state a who is best argument when you are looking at what MAY have happened, is incorrect methodology. It just doesn't work, as badly as you want it to.
You're mixing up separate ideas here.
If I said that Davis "would" have had more RBI than Rice if they had switched places - and I don't think I did, but if I did then I misspoke - then that was speculation. When I say that Davis would be "expected" to have more RBI if they switched places, that is a straightforward statement of fact. I am not predicting what would actually happen - which is the misstatement you made that I pointed out - I am merely stating what the expected result would be. If asked to make a prediction, say a bet of some kind, one would be foolish to predict anything other than the expected result, but any prediction made is independent of the known expectation.
Any statement of who is "best" is speculation, of a kind. When I say that Babe Ruth was "better" than Mario Mendoza, that is technically speculation, but to deny that it is informed speculation would be rather silly. You appear to spot "speculation" and treat all of it as if it were nothing more than a guess, uninformed by any evidence. I am as confident that Davis was better than Rice in 1984 as I am confident that Babe Ruth was better than Mario Mendoza. They are both speculation in a literal sense, but they are both supported by so much evidence that any alternative speculation strikes me as absurd. I think Davis was better than Rice for their entire careers, too; I acknowledge that the alternative speculation can be supported, though.
You appear to be operating on a spectrum where there are things that are 100% known, and things that are mere speculation, with nothing in between, so all things that are not 100% known - would Davis have more RBI than Rice, will I get 1,000 consecutive heads if I flip a coin - are all equally likely. I say "appear" because you have yet to address what you think the expected result would be if Rice and Davis switched places in 1984. To say "there's no way to know" is to avoid the question; the question isn't what do you "know" about what will happen, but what do you "expect" will happen. If you think it is equally likely that Chili Davis would drive in 120 run for the Red Sox in 1984 as that Mario Mendoza would hit 714 homers if he played for the Yankees instead of Ruth, then say so. If you don't think they're equally likely then explain why. The process of explaining why will put you on track to an expected RBI tally for Evans, and it's going to lead you to about 120 if you don't make any mistakes.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Ok, I think we r making some headway here. You are guilty of the same thing you accused me of. When it comes to comparing players, you are living in a paradigm where it is very black and white. Player a is clearly better than player b. In your example, u use rice and davis. You are comparing those players using expectations/projections/speculation. When you are speculating, you cannot make definitive statements. But when comparing players as you do, there is no definitive answer, as badly as you want there to be one. If you were actually able to switch the two players, there are just too many variables in play for you to assume that their RsBI % would stay constant. Switching stadiums, coast's, teammates divisions and leagues to name a few. You know what davis did in San Fran, but those statistics don't just slide over to Boston in the real world like you would hope they would. Again, these guys are not robots.
Guerrero finished with the most errors 7 straight seasons in the NL during his prime. He then went to the AL and led the American League in errors in RF 3 out of 4 years. The other year? He slumped and finished second in errors. Those numbers don't lie no matter how they are spun.
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
That's not what I said at all.
True or false.
Vlad led NL right fielders in errors seven straight seasons. He then came over to the American League and led right fielders in errors 3 out of 4 subsequent seasons. The other season he finished second.
Show me one other right or left fielder who can duplicate this feat.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
Can we consider using using words other than worst in comparing players at this level?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Among the worst players there? Really...? Lets show a little more respect for those players that even enter the HOF discussion.
Can we consider using using words other than worst in comparing players at this level?
I agree. Some really silly comments here.
I always liked Vlad! Great SLG should've walked more.
He has two MVPs but he wasn't the best player in the league in either year (Schmidt was, both times) so they don't really mean that much. He played CF for awhile, but wasn't good enough, so got moved to right.
Man, this is about the most negative possible way to spin Murphy's career. The guy played over 1000 games in CF - a lot longer than "awhile". And he won 5 Gold Gloves playing there. No, he wasn't Willie Mays in CF but he was good.
How about Vladimir guerrero. High peak.
Vlad belongs in. OPS+ of 140, 449 HRs.
How about Vladimir guerrero. High peak.
Vlad belongs in. OPS+ of 140, 449 HRs.
A true 5 tool player! Kind of a short career, but long enough as far as I am concerned.
How about Vladimir guerrero. High peak.
Vlad belongs in. OPS+ of 140, 449 HRs.
A true 5 tool player! Kind of a short career, but long enough as far as I am concerned.
He may have been the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses for that matter.
This feat is hard to accomplish
Errors Committed as RF (s.1954)
1997 NL 12 (1st)
1998 NL 17 (1st)
1999 NL 19 (1st)
2000 NL 10 (1st)
2001 NL 12 (1st)
2002 NL 10 (1st)
2003 NL 7 (1st)
2004 AL 9 (2nd)
2006 AL 11 (1st)
2007 AL 9 (1st)
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Mark, I agree with you -- it was often times a circus watching him get to a ball. A part of that, however, can be ascribed to the concrete he played on in Montreal for a number of years. Really f'd up his knees, because he could run like a gazelle in his early days. Never became a proficient thief on the bases, but he did have raw speed. In fact, I'll never forget him missing a 40/40 season by one foot back in '02 on the final day of the reg season.
As for the errors he made in right, you must also take into account the number of times he made throws that the avg RF could not, a la Clemente. I once saw him make a catch on the warning track with his back to home plate, turn in one motion and put a runner to sleep who was napping in between first and second base -- on the fly. Very few, if any, outfielders could do that. So conventional wisdom says that over the course of a 162-game season, he (at least somewhat, if not completely) offset the figures you cited due to the bazooka that was attached to his right arm.
But words are fruitless without a visual example...
Link
ETA: Would love to get Dallas' take on Vlad's HOF prospects
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
How about Vladimir guerrero. High peak.
Vlad belongs in. OPS+ of 140, 449 HRs.
A true 5 tool player! Kind of a short career, but long enough as far as I am concerned.
He may have been the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses for that matter.
This feat is hard to accomplish
Errors Committed as RF (s.1954)
1997 NL 12 (1st)
1998 NL 17 (1st)
1999 NL 19 (1st)
2000 NL 10 (1st)
2001 NL 12 (1st)
2002 NL 10 (1st)
2003 NL 7 (1st)
2004 AL 9 (2nd)
2006 AL 11 (1st)
2007 AL 9 (1st)
mark
First off, defense is the last thing considered here for a potential HOF corner outfielder, he was top 4 in assists 10 times and 6 of the times he led the league in errors he made 12 or less for the entire year. Now look at double plays turned by a RF, ten times in the top 5. His fielding % was .02 under the league average for his career. Range factor/Game as RF top 5 nine times.
So there's a little more to it when looking at his defensive abilities or lack thereof than leading the league in errors. I'll downgrade him to a 4 1/2 tool player and still think he belongs in the HOF
Here's another stat; he averaged 340 total bases in a 162 game season.
He is 24th all time SLG and 30th OPS.
His defense shouldn't keep him out. He was a SUPERIOR hitter.
Link
Yeah he sucked out there! WOW!
There's no stat for guys that didn't try to advance/score because of his arm. I wonder how many runs were prevented by guys holding up because of that?
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Joe you are the one who said Vlad was a 5 tool player. I just posted evidence to retort that. He had a cannon for an arm. Fine. I didn't mention his way less then stellar fielding should keep him out of the Hall. Did I? I think he will have a difficult time getting in FWIW. He may eventually get in down the road.
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Correct Mark, subsequently I reduced him to a 4 1/2 tool player, upon further research, my final evaluation is he was a 4 3/4 tool dude!
Correct again, you did not say his defense should keep him out of the Hall, but your post said he was "the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses" this seems to be further from the truth than my 5 tool comment.
We do like to split hairs here don't we?!?!?!?!?
By the way, here's Ted William's errors;
Errors Committed as LF (s.1954)
1940 AL 12 (2nd)
1941 AL 10 (1st)
1946 AL 10 (1st)
1947 AL 9 (2nd)
1948 AL 5 (5th)
1949 AL 6 (1st)
1950 AL 8 (2nd)
1951 AL 4 (5th)
1954 AL 4 (4th)
1956 AL 5 (2nd)
1958 AL 7 (2nd)
Guerrero's case is definitely not helped by his fielding, and while he was a bad outfielder he wasn't putrid, so his case isn't really hurt either.
I think Guerrero is borderline as a HOFer; a great hitter, but kind of lower tier HOF-level "great". His OPS+ is great but it captures everything he did well and everything else he did either doesn't help him (SB/CS is a wash, fielding) or hurts him (tons of GIDP and a shortish career for a HOF outfielder).
Tim Raines was better and Darrell Evans was better; no question about it in my mind. Guerrero is pretty comparable to Frank Howard; Howard's peak was much better than Guerrero's but his career was even shorter. I like Howard for the HOF for his epic peak, but I understand why others might think Guerrero was better, and more deserving.
Joe you are the one who said Vlad was a 5 tool player. I just posted evidence to retort that. He had a cannon for an arm. Fine. I didn't mention his way less then stellar fielding should keep him out of the Hall. Did I? I think he will have a difficult time getting in FWIW. He may eventually get in down the road.
Galaxy, I can see why he was your favorite player. I loved watching him play as well.
mark
Correct Mark, subsequently I reduced him to a 4 1/2 tool player, upon further research, my final evaluation is he was a 4 3/4 tool dude!
Correct again, you did not say his defense should keep him out of the Hall, but your post said he was "the worst fielding right fielder of his time or anybody elses" this seems to be further from the truth than my 5 tool comment.
We do like to split hairs here don't we?!?!?!?!?
By the way, here's Ted William's errors;
Errors Committed as LF (s.1954)
1940 AL 12 (2nd)
1941 AL 10 (1st)
1946 AL 10 (1st)
1947 AL 9 (2nd)
1948 AL 5 (5th)
1949 AL 6 (1st)
1950 AL 8 (2nd)
1951 AL 4 (5th)
1954 AL 4 (4th)
1956 AL 5 (2nd)
1958 AL 7 (2nd)
I wasn't splitting hairs.
Ted wasn't a great fielder either. He was much much better then Vlady. Based on the evidence you provided above he was Clemente compared to Guerrero.
Guerrero finished with the most errors 7 straight seasons in the NL during his prime. He then went to the AL and led the American League in errors in RF 3 out of 4 years. The other year? He slumped and finished second in errors. Those numbers don't lie no matter how they are spun.
One of the five tools for a baseball player is arm strength. He gets full marks there. One of the tools is defense. He gets a big fat zero there. 4 tool guy. That's at best. Pretty darn good.
Edited to add I do think he will be a 50-60% HOF ballot guy who could eventually get in. I'd be ok with it. Slam dunk. Nope.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
That is an overly simplistic interpretation. What I think dallas means is that you have to take a long, hard look at the statistics behind the players, not the awards they won, because let's face it, many of those awards are bestowed based on popularity and previous performance, whereas statistics are not subjective or colored by fan bias and provide a more accurate and objective analysis.
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'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Well I guess that settles it.
See this folks? From now on disregard most awards a player received in his career because Dallas said so.
That is an overly simplistic interpretation. What I think dallas means is that you have to take a long, hard look at the statistics behind the players, not the awards they won, because let's face it, many of those awards are bestowed based on popularity and previous performance, whereas statistics are not subjective or colored by fan bias and provide a more accurate and objective analysis.
Do you have any proof awards are based on previous performance? Because if that's true, you are saying that awards are bogus.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
I'm not responsible for who gets Gold Glove awards, and I'm not obligated to give them any weight when the wrong player gets them. Murphy was OK in CF for a few years, good for a few more years, but he was awful in 1985 and 1986; he won Gold Gloves in 1985 and 1986 despite being awful, but that's not at all unusual. MOST Gold Glove Awards are determined by momentum - a player wins one or two because they're good, then keeps winning them for no other reason than they won them last year. Brooks Robinson was probably the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, but that doesn't mean he was the best third baseman each and every year. Robinson probably deserved about half of the Gold Gloves he won; Murphy may have deserved one. That's just how Gold Gloves have always worked.
As a general note, if you find yourself basing a HOF argument on awards won and not actual accomplishments, you're making a losing case. HOF players accomplishments speak for themselves, they do not require validation by managers or sportswriters. Leave the awards out of the case for Murphy, though, and there is very little left.
Actually, a hof career does need the validation of the sportswriters, or it isn't a hof career.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The only award that is based on previous performance is the Gold Glove. The proof is there for the seeing if you'll take the time to look. MVP Awards are the other side of the coin. MVP voters hate giving the award to the same player too often so players who have won it before are actually at a disadvantage. Players like Mantle, Musial and Schmidt were the most valuable players in their leagues about 10 times each, but they each only have a small handful of MVPs.
Other awards are better (they go to the player who actually deserved it more often), but enough of them go to the wrong player that they shouldn't just be taken at face value. The point is that relying on awards to determine how good a player was is just lazy. Ignore them, think for yourself, and you'll get a better answer.
And there are few players as famous as Roger Maris. If it's a hall of fame and not a hall of stats then Maris should have gotten in decades ago. It's supposed to be a hall of stats, the problem is that too many people get in because voters are impressed by the wrong stats.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The problem when you start getting into park factors or teammate factors, is that you are moving away from reality and into hypotheticals. Rice played in Fenway. Hunter played with the teammates he had. Maybe chili davis should have adapted his game better for his home park. Is it possible rice adapted his swing toward more fly balls pulled down the line because he played in Fenway park. whose to say he wouldn't have adapted to a different home park by being a line drive hitter. When you start pulling players out of the context of where and when they actually played, you are putting players in a vacuum. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and when some of these factors are used, it is really just an exercise in hypotheticals. Ie this player MAY have done this had he played in this park or if this player had hit behind him in the line up. Fun to do, but all just hypothetical and not based in reality.
There's nothing hypothetical about it. We know how Rice did in Fenway and how he did everywhere else, and when he wasn't in Fenway he looked exactly like Chili Davis. You are imposing the hypothetical that Rice somehow adapted his swing to Fenway when there's not a shred of evidence that he did. Rice was better at Fenway in the same way that all of his teammates, in fact in the way nearly everyone in the league, was better at Fenway. It's an easy park to hit in not just for Rice but for everyone. Your argument boils down to saying that players who get to play in easy hitter's parks deserve greater HOF consideration because it's hypothetically possible that they adapted to the park, and that player's that play in tough hitter's parks deserve less HOF consideration because they weren't able to do this hypothetical adapting. What I'm doing is leaving the hypotheticals out of it and looking at what they actually did. And what Rice did in Fenway wasn't any more impressive than what he did everywhere else, the numbers were just bigger as they were for everyone.
Rice's offense improved 15% at Fenway; Yaz - 15%; Evans - 11%; Hobson - 19%; Doyle - 22%; Fisk - 27%; Lynn - 41%.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Fred Lynn figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then there's at least a piece of evidence that he did. But Rice? If he figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then everyone else was able to figure out the same thing, and rewarding Rice for figuring it out is the same thing as rewarding him for playing more games at Fenway than others did.
BTW, he didn't get to play there nearly as often, but Chili Davis' offense improved 14% when he played in Fenway; Candlestick, one of the toughest hitter's parks, reduced his offense by 15%. Chili Davis would be in the HOF today and Rice wouldn't if they had switched teams for their careers. Neither one of them deserves to be.
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 addition to the Gold Glove, All-Star selections are another example of an achievement based on popularity/past performance in many cases.
What really kills me is when people throw out how many All-Star games a pitcher was in. Fans don't pick the pitchers (maybe they do now, I don't know), they're picked by the manager, who is the manager of the pennant winning team from the previous season. Jim Hunter kept getting picked for the AS game by HIS OWN MANAGER, and somehow that's supposed to be so impressive that it's used as evidence that he belongs in the HOF.
But that rant aside, I agree that AS game appearances have to be the worst and weakest evidence of greatness in common use. But they are consistent with the belief that the HOF is a "hall of fame not a hall of stats", and the more general idea that it's better to let other people do your thinking for you than to form your own opinion.
The problem when you start getting into park factors or teammate factors, is that you are moving away from reality and into hypotheticals. Rice played in Fenway. Hunter played with the teammates he had. Maybe chili davis should have adapted his game better for his home park. Is it possible rice adapted his swing toward more fly balls pulled down the line because he played in Fenway park. whose to say he wouldn't have adapted to a different home park by being a line drive hitter. When you start pulling players out of the context of where and when they actually played, you are putting players in a vacuum. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and when some of these factors are used, it is really just an exercise in hypotheticals. Ie this player MAY have done this had he played in this park or if this player had hit behind him in the line up. Fun to do, but all just hypothetical and not based in reality.
There's nothing hypothetical about it. We know how Rice did in Fenway and how he did everywhere else, and when he wasn't in Fenway he looked exactly like Chili Davis. You are imposing the hypothetical that Rice somehow adapted his swing to Fenway when there's not a shred of evidence that he did. Rice was better at Fenway in the same way that all of his teammates, in fact in the way nearly everyone in the league, was better at Fenway. It's an easy park to hit in not just for Rice but for everyone. Your argument boils down to saying that players who get to play in easy hitter's parks deserve greater HOF consideration because it's hypothetically possible that they adapted to the park, and that player's that play in tough hitter's parks deserve less HOF consideration because they weren't able to do this hypothetical adapting. What I'm doing is leaving the hypotheticals out of it and looking at what they actually did. And what Rice did in Fenway wasn't any more impressive than what he did everywhere else, the numbers were just bigger as they were for everyone.
Rice's offense improved 15% at Fenway; Yaz - 15%; Evans - 11%; Hobson - 19%; Doyle - 22%; Fisk - 27%; Lynn - 41%.
Now, if you want to make the argument that Fred Lynn figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then there's at least a piece of evidence that he did. But Rice? If he figured out how to hit differently at Fenway then everyone else was able to figure out the same thing, and rewarding Rice for figuring it out is the same thing as rewarding him for playing more games at Fenway than others did.
BTW, he didn't get to play there nearly as often, but Chili Davis' offense improved 14% when he played in Fenway; Candlestick, one of the toughest hitter's parks, reduced his offense by 15%. Chili Davis would be in the HOF today and Rice wouldn't if they had switched teams for their careers. Neither one of them deserves to be.
So in other words, players should be penalized for hitting better in their own ball parks.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Those are "other words", but they don't mean the same thing so I think you're confused about the meaning of that phrase.
Fenway, in the era in which Rice played, increased offense by something around 15%. That's how much Rice's offense improved there vs. everywhere else, and it's how much everybody else's offense improved there vs. everywhere else (obviously there are exceptions, both higher and lower than 15%). Right now, if you ignore that, Rice is getting an undeserved reward from playing in Fenway. If you back that out, you are not "penalizing him", you are being fair. Likewise, if you don't adjust for park factors, you ARE penalizing Chili Davis who toiled in a park as difficult as Fenway was easy.
So, in other words, no player should be penalized for the park they play in, nor should they be rewarded. Ignoring park factors does both - rewards players like Rice and penalizes players like Davis. I am advocating for treating both players fairly; you are arguing for the opposite.
I'll say again, if Rice and Davis had switched teams/parks/years then Davis would be in the HOF and Rice would not. You haven't disputed that, but if you'd like to try please do.
In 1984, Jim Rice drove in 122 runs and was 13th in the MVP voting. Chili Davis, also in 1984, drove in 81 runs and got no MVP votes. I assume that you would say that Rice had a better year - that it advanced his HOF case relative to Davis - and just move on. But consider:
When Jim Rice batted, over the course of the season, there were 254 runners in scoring position for him to knock in, and he drove in 73 of them (29%). He also drove himself in with a HR 28 times and runners on first 21 times out of 291 (7%).
Davis saw only 164 runners in scoring position to drive in, and he drove in 53 of them (32%). He drove himself in 21 times and he drove in 7 of the 145 runners on first (5%).
If you apply Davis' percentages to Rice's RISP and men on first, plus homers, you get 117 - five fewer than Rice, and roughly the difference in their homers. If you do the same for Rice, he'd have 86 RBI, again slightly more mostly because he hit more HR.
So, does it mean anything important that Rice had 122 RBI and Davis had 81? Was Rice 50% better at driving in runs than Davis? Surely not. Likewise, it would not be fair to say that Davis was a 117 RBI guy and Rice was an 86 RBI guy; that would just move the unfairness from Davis onto Rice. What's fair to say is that they were very similar at driving in runners. Rice had more HR than Davis because he played in an easier park (he hit 11 HR on the road that year while Davis hit 17; it was only in home games that Rice "became" a better HR hitter than Davis). Take out the driving in yourself part of it, and Davis was better at driving in runners than Rice was. Put them in neutral parks, and Davis was better at driving himself in, too. If you stop at 122 RBI vs. 81 RBI you never see that, and you've missed everything worthwhile.
Those are "other words", but they don't mean the same thing so I think you're confused about the meaning of that phrase.
Fenway, in the era in which Rice played, increased offense by something around 15%. That's how much Rice's offense improved there vs. everywhere else, and it's how much everybody else's offense improved there vs. everywhere else (obviously there are exceptions, both higher and lower than 15%). Right now, if you ignore that, Rice is getting an undeserved reward from playing in Fenway. If you back that out, you are not "penalizing him", you are being fair. Likewise, if you don't adjust for park factors, you ARE penalizing Chili Davis who toiled in a park as difficult as Fenway was easy.
So, in other words, no player should be penalized for the park they play in, nor should they be rewarded. Ignoring park factors does both - rewards players like Rice and penalizes players like Davis. I am advocating for treating both players fairly; you are arguing for the opposite.
I'll say again, if Rice and Davis had switched teams/parks/years then Davis would be in the HOF and Rice would not. You haven't disputed that, but if you'd like to try please do.
In 1984, Jim Rice drove in 122 runs and was 13th in the MVP voting. Chili Davis, also in 1984, drove in 81 runs and got no MVP votes. I assume that you would say that Rice had a better year - that it advanced his HOF case relative to Davis - and just move on. But consider:
When Jim Rice batted, over the course of the season, there were 254 runners in scoring position for him to knock in, and he drove in 73 of them (29%). He also drove himself in with a HR 28 times and runners on first 21 times out of 291 (7%).
Davis saw only 164 runners in scoring position to drive in, and he drove in 53 of them (32%). He drove himself in 21 times and he drove in 7 of the 145 runners on first (5%).
If you apply Davis' percentages to Rice's RISP and men on first, plus homers, you get 117 - five fewer than Rice, and roughly the difference in their homers. If you do the same for Rice, he'd have 86 RBI, again slightly more mostly because he hit more HR.
So, does it mean anything important that Rice had 122 RBI and Davis had 81? Was Rice 50% better at driving in runs than Davis? Surely not. Likewise, it would not be fair to say that Davis was a 117 RBI guy and Rice was an 86 RBI guy; that would just move the unfairness from Davis onto Rice. What's fair to say is that they were very similar at driving in runners. Rice had more HR than Davis because he played in an easier park (he hit 11 HR on the road that year while Davis hit 17; it was only in home games that Rice "became" a better HR hitter than Davis). Take out the driving in yourself part of it, and Davis was better at driving in runners than Rice was. Put them in neutral parks, and Davis was better at driving himself in, too. If you stop at 122 RBI vs. 81 RBI you never see that, and you've missed everything worthwhile.
Gotcha. I understand all that but man, it just seems like a lot of speculation and assuming.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Garnett, it is all speculation and hypothetical situations. We are living in pretend world where everyone plays in neutral parks and we can extrapolate data for situations that didn't happen. We can not assume that davis would drive in those extra base runners at the same rate he drove in the 81 runs he actually did drive in. It is a fun exercise, but definitely not based in reality.
But this isn't logical, in fact it leads nowhere. The only assumption I'm making is that a player - any player - is who he is, has the skills he has, and will utilize those skills to the best of his ability wherever he plays. Your formulation makes every possible outcome equally likely. We don't know that Davis would have been the same player in Fenway that he was in Candlestick (my assumption), therefore it is equally likely that he would have driven in 81 runs in Fenway, or 181 runs in Fenway, or 11 runs in Fenway (what you're saying).
You're saying players in easy hitters parks are better than players in difficult hitters parks, or at least that it's unfair speculation to assume anything other than that. I've tried to explain why that's nonsense as many ways as I know how. I will move on after repeating this point: what I am doing is making the fewest number of assumptions possible, and utilizing the least amount of speculation possible. The assumption that you are making - that how good a player is depends on where he plays - is a HUGE assumption, and one for which there is zero evidence.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
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.
Yes, everything is possible. But what you're saying is that every possible outcome is equally likely, or rather what you're saying doesn't make any sense unless you assume that.
And note that in the example I showed, that Rice had 90 more players in scoring position than Davis did has nothing to do with Rice or Davis. If we imagine that Davis takes Rice's place in his lineups, then it isn't an assumption that Davis would have 90 more players in scoring position to drive in, but it would require a series of bizarre assumptions to reach the conclusion that he wouldn't have drive in ANY of those extra 90 runners. OF COURSE he would have driven in some of those runners. I'm assuming that he drives in the same percentage as he did for SF, but you're right that it could be any percentage. But Davis driving in a percentage NEAR his percentage in SF is MUCH more likely than any percentage significantly different than that percentage.
Put Rice in Davis's spot and, again, it's not an assumption but rather a simple fact he would have had 90 fewer RISP to drive in. And, again, the far more likely outcome is that Rice would have driven in somewhere around the same percentage of them as he did for Boston. YOU are making a series of bizarre assumptions when you conclude that it isn't virtually certain that Davis would have had many more RBI than Rice if they switched teams. I know you don't think of it that way, but it's what you're doing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
Nope, I'm assuming nothing. Rice had 122 RsBI and davis had 81. That is no assumption, that happened.
Rice drove in 29% of runners in scoring position and Davis drove in 32% of runners in scoring position. That is no assumption. That happened.
Rice had an OPS of .741 on the road / .840 at home and Davis had an OPS of .922 on the road / .818 at home. That is no assumption. That happened.
For some reason you think the fact of the absolute RBI numbers is more meaningful than the other facts, even though the absolute number is easily explained by the other facts, not the other way around. HOF voters make the same mistake, which is why Rice is in the HOF and Davis, who was better than Rice, not just in 1984, is not.
Nope, I'm assuming nothing. Rice had 122 RsBI and davis had 81. That is no assumption, that happened.
HOF voters make the same mistake, which is why Rice is in the HOF and Davis, who was better than Rice, not just in 1984, is not.
Or, maybe its because Davis never finished in the top 10 in the MVP voting. No mistake there.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And yes, obviously there is a range of performance for every player and one shouldn't expect that his performance will be "the same" in any two circumstances. But one could, and should, expect that it will be similar, and that the more similar outcomes are much more likely than the less similar outcomes.
I have mentioned, and you have avoided acknowledging, the numbers of runners that Rice and Davis had to drive in many times now. I get why you avoid acknowledging it since to do so exposes the massive logical mistake that you're making. Put Rice and Davis to the side and just consider two random players: player 1 has 240 runners in scoring position for his ABs and player 2 has 160 RISP for his ABs. Which player would you guess would drive in more runs? What would your guess be for how much higher player A's RBI total would be than player B's? If your answers aren't "player A" and "50%" then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of either baseball or math. That's not the same thing as saying that 100% of the time that player A will drive in 50% more runners than player B - which is what you keep trying to claim that I'm saying. But it is the expected result. If that result is in fact what happens, then one can say with great confidence that player A and player B were similar batters; if it doesn't happen then one or the other players is very likely to be better than the other.
Which brings us back to Rice and Davis. The difference in their RBIs was predictable, and the actual totals were consistent with what would be predicted. That's not an assumption. That happened. We can avoid what is necessarily speculation about what would have happened if they had switched places, but still acknowledge that if they had switched places, the expected result would have been that Davis would drive in 50% more runs than Rice. The actual result of Rice driving in 50% more runs than Davis is evidence that they were similar hitters, not that Rice was better than Davis. The hypothetical result of Davis driving in 50% more runs than Rice would also be evidence that they were similar hitters, not that Davis was better than Rice.
To conclude that Rice and Davis were similar hitters (with respect to RBI, Davis was obviously much better overall) in 1984 requires no assumptions at all - it is the only logical conclusion and is supported by each and every piece of available evidence. To conclude that Rice was a better RBI guy than Davis in 1984 requires a mountain of speculation and a series of terribly unlikely assumptions.
I acknowledge that rice had more opportunities to drive in runs than davis. but We KNOW how he performed. We can only SPECULATE that davis would have continued to drive in runs at a 32% clip. So when you make that assumption, you can not definitively state that davis would have driven in as many or more runs. We just don't know. We can project it, but we don't know.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The changes you propose never actually happened, thus you are predicting or SPECULATING what the results COULD have been. And that is ok, but, you then make definitive statements as to who the better player would be after a speculative situation. You are ONLY SPECULATING, there for you cannot say definitively that player a is better than player b.
I acknowledge that price had more opportunities to drive in runs than davis. We KNOW how he performed. We can only SPECULATE that davis would have continued to have driven in runs at a 32% clip. So when you make that assumption, you can not definitively state that davis would have driven in as many or more runs. We just don't know. We can project it, but we don't know.
You are going out of your way now to misstate what I said, an indication, I think, that you know I'm right.
You and I are both speculating about what would happen if you switched Rice and Davis - you have yet to acknowledge that you are speculating while you point out that I am speculating. What I emphasized is that what I am speculating is the most likely outcome; what you are speculating is a far less likely outcome. When you say "we KNOW how he performed" you are referring to his absolute number of RBI, but Rice's performance includes his rate of RBI production. We KNOW that with every bit the same certainty that we KNOW his total. And it is the rate of RBI production that is under a hitter's control; the absolute number is up to the rest of his team. So you're saying that if they switched teams the thing that is not under their control would stay the same while the thing that is under their control would change. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not at all.
And on a more general note about what happens when players switch teams, you keep stating without evidence that it is common for players performance to change dramatically. It's not; it's very uncommon. But first, you need to focus on their pattern of performance, not their absolute numbers, and second you need to focus on the change in conditions. A player, like Pujols, who is past his peak and already declining is expected to continue to decline. And that's what he did. I was sorry to see Albert leave the Cardinals but I would have been pissed if the Cardinals had paid him what the Angels did. Because I knew he was never going to be worth that kind of money; he was old and declining. Pujols did not change because of the trade; he was exactly what he was expected to be. Strawberry was still at his peak when he was traded and had almost exactly the same season after he was traded. Then he got injured. Unless your argument is that if you put a player in another park it will injure him then neither Strawberry nor Eric Davis are even relevant to this topic. Which leaves you with zero relevant examples. I'm sure there are some, as there are some where a player's performance improved more than expected after a trade, but the vast majority of players just take their skills to their new team and continue as expected. Now, if a player got traded from Boston to Houston in the 1970's his numbers (HR, RBI, etc.) would surely drop, but absolute numbers aren't a measure of performance. Things like OPS+ and RBI/opportunity are measures of performance, and those would be expected to stay about the same.
This is a statement of fact: if Rice and Davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the expected (most likely) result is that Davis would have driven in about 50% more runs than Rice; as that ratio gets further away from 50% the likelihood of that result is less and less likely. If you do not agree that this is a statement of fact then please say so, and why, and I'll try to figure out where you're wrong. If you do agree that this is a statement of fact, then tell me what it is exactly that you're arguing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
And this is where you are wrong.
"If I flip a coin 10 times the expected (most likely) number of flips resulting in heads is 5."
"If the world doesn't end today, the expected (most likely) direction in which the sun will rise tomorrow is in the East."
"If I hit my hand with a hammer hard enough to break a bone, the expected (most likely) result will be pain."
These are also statements of fact. They are all hypothetical, but hypothetical statements can be factual; there is no contradiction there. If any of them said what "will" happen, they would be speculative; because they simply point out the most likely result, they are not.
If I flip a coin 10 times I might get anywhere from 0 to 10 heads. But 5 IS the expected result, each and every time I flip a coin 10 times. 5 is the most likely result, 4 and 6 are less likely, 3 and 7 less likely still, and so on. No speculation, still all facts. Applying this to Rice and Davis works in exactly the same way. The expected result is that Davis will have 50% more RBI. Fact. He might have 45% or 55% more, but those results are somewhat less likely. Still fact. He might have the same number of RBI or 100% more; unlikely results, but possible. He might have 50% fewer RBI or three times as many; exceedingly unlikely results, but theoretically possible.
If Rice and Davis had switched teams and spots in the batting order for the 1984 season, the expected (most likely) result is that Davis would have driven in about 50% more runs than Rice. That is (still) a statement of fact. We can speculate about exactly what would have happened, even speculate wildly that Rice would have had more RBI than Davis because aliens would have abducted Davis or whatever else it would have taken to achieve that bizarre result, but the underlying expectation would remain unchanged.
I'm pretty sure I can't explain it any better than this.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Your post kind of makes my point you are trying so hard to be convincing that you are dealing in facts. You are not. You are making predictions about what MAY have happened if things in the past had shaken out differently. That is where you are mistaken. To definitively state a who is best argument when you are looking at what MAY have happened, is incorrect methodology. It just doesn't work, as badly as you want it to.
You're mixing up separate ideas here.
If I said that Davis "would" have had more RBI than Rice if they had switched places - and I don't think I did, but if I did then I misspoke - then that was speculation. When I say that Davis would be "expected" to have more RBI if they switched places, that is a straightforward statement of fact. I am not predicting what would actually happen - which is the misstatement you made that I pointed out - I am merely stating what the expected result would be. If asked to make a prediction, say a bet of some kind, one would be foolish to predict anything other than the expected result, but any prediction made is independent of the known expectation.
Any statement of who is "best" is speculation, of a kind. When I say that Babe Ruth was "better" than Mario Mendoza, that is technically speculation, but to deny that it is informed speculation would be rather silly. You appear to spot "speculation" and treat all of it as if it were nothing more than a guess, uninformed by any evidence. I am as confident that Davis was better than Rice in 1984 as I am confident that Babe Ruth was better than Mario Mendoza. They are both speculation in a literal sense, but they are both supported by so much evidence that any alternative speculation strikes me as absurd. I think Davis was better than Rice for their entire careers, too; I acknowledge that the alternative speculation can be supported, though.
You appear to be operating on a spectrum where there are things that are 100% known, and things that are mere speculation, with nothing in between, so all things that are not 100% known - would Davis have more RBI than Rice, will I get 1,000 consecutive heads if I flip a coin - are all equally likely. I say "appear" because you have yet to address what you think the expected result would be if Rice and Davis switched places in 1984. To say "there's no way to know" is to avoid the question; the question isn't what do you "know" about what will happen, but what do you "expect" will happen. If you think it is equally likely that Chili Davis would drive in 120 run for the Red Sox in 1984 as that Mario Mendoza would hit 714 homers if he played for the Yankees instead of Ruth, then say so. If you don't think they're equally likely then explain why. The process of explaining why will put you on track to an expected RBI tally for Evans, and it's going to lead you to about 120 if you don't make any mistakes.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Using your reasoning Aaron was a better home run hitter than Ruth because he hit more total home runs.
The number of errors is only important if the player has a corresponding low fielding %.
Vlad's fielding % compared to the rest of the leagues RF was horrible in 97,98 and 99. He got better. After that he was slightly below the league average. From 2000-2003 he was .014 worse than the others. In 2005 he was slightly above the league average.
Far from the worst RF of all time. Slightly below average for his time.
That's not what I said at all.
True or false.
Vlad led NL right fielders in errors seven straight seasons. He then came over to the American League and led right fielders in errors 3 out of 4 subsequent seasons. The other season he finished second.
Show me one other right or left fielder who can duplicate this feat.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......