Options
Best Consecutive Five Year Runs of Mattingly's era...Rice, Dawson etc...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
How does Mattingly fare in CONSECUTIVE FIVE YEAR RUNS among all his contemporaries?? I had previously listed Best FIVE NON consecutive years. Here is the best FIVE YEAR CONSECUTIVE RUNS! Listed in Batter Runs(w/ base situation and out situations accounted for)...again, the most comprehensive method of actual hitting value provided to a team. Here are some(not all) players...
_________BEST FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEAR RUN________________
Murray 253 ('81 pro-rated)
Bonds 249 (PRE LIVE BALL ERA....Pre '93)
Boggs 228
Parker 226
Schmidt 217
Singleton 217
Foster 208 ('81 Pro-rated)
Guerrero 199
Brett 198
*****MATTINGLY 196*****
Garvey 193
Winfield 187
Luzinski 185
Murphy 183
Cooper 182
Clark 175
Hernandez 173
Yount 169
Sandberg 164
Gwynn 158 (In Pre-Live Ball era...pre '93)
Molitor 155
Puckett 148
R. Smith 134
G. Carter 137
M. Mcgwire 130 (Pre Live Ball era...Pre '93)
Lynn 131
Rice 128
Daawson 116
Palmeiro 88 (Pre Live Ball era...'Pre '93)
-Boy, ya think McGwire and Palmeiro benefitted a bit from the live ball era
.
-Nobody was as consistently great as Eddie Murray was in that era. I often pont this out to people who classified Murray a 'compiler'. Yes, he was a compiler...a compiler of great years like no other from his time
-Bonds shone quite well before the mayham!
-Parker was a beast!
-Brett had some so-so years in the midst of his prime
-Mattingly has a strong showing, but not near the claim as one of the best runs in history. He has the ninth best run in his era.
CONCLUSIONS. I have shown three lists 1)Career totals, 2)Best Five Years Non consecutive, 3) Best Five consecutive. All of the current Hall of Famers from that era were at the very top of all three lists. Murray, Brett, and Schmidt were the cream of the crop without a doubt(With Murray having the best showing over all lists). If one is looking to add a player to the Hall of Fame from that era, then it should behoove that person to see how the player ranks on all three lists.
________________CAREER LIST....Again, not all players(this is off my head)_________________
SOME HOFers FROM THAT ERA for context.
Schmidt 560
Murray 509
Brett 497
Winfield 452
Boggs 403
Molitor 329
Yount 250
Puckett 240
Sandberg 222
G. Carter 205
O. Smith -57
Gwynn 517 (276 BR in 3,587 live ball era At bats)...(241 BR in 5,706 PRE live ball at bats)
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN...
Jack Clark 414
K. Hernandez 382
Darrell Evans 374
Dave Parker 365
K. Singleton 332
R. Smith 325
P. Guerrero 320
A. Oliver 306
D. Evans 298
S. Garvey 294
Luzinkski 273
Foster 267
Murphy 258
Dawson 251
L. Whitaker 250
Lynn 250
Madlock 237
Cooper 236
Mattingly 215
Rice 189
Trammell 113.5
_________BEST FIVE NON CONSECUTIVE...(again not all players)_________
Brett 270
Murray 260
Schmidt 245 (includes his strike shortened '81 seasons...proratted he is around 260)
Boggs 242
Winfield 236
Yount 214
Molitor 192
Sandberg 187
Puckett 171
Carter 147
O. Smith 75
OUTSIDE HOF LOOKING IN....
Guerrero 246
Parker 232
J. Clark 226
Singleton 225
Hernandez 224
Foster 209
Murphy 208
Luzinski 207
R. Smith 206
***************Mattingly 204**************************
Garvey 205
Dw. Evans 198
Darrell Evans 187
Lynn 184
Gwynn 168 (Pre live ball era...pre '93)
Oliver 165
L. Whitaker 161
Rice 160
Madlock 155
Trammell 154
Cooper 144
The worst HOFer from this era is Molitor. The common names of Rice and Dawson just don't outshine the guys WHO ARE NOT IN THE HALL EITHER. Mattingly trumps both Rice and Dawson, but falls short of two other 1B, Garvey and Hernandez.
-Instead of people touting Jim Rice and Mattingly for the Hall based on dominance, they should rather be touting Pedro Guerrero and Dave Parker for that criteria, as they have the most NON HOF claim to that title. They were the most dominate with very high rankings on both the Best Five consecutive and NOn consecutive prime measurements.
-O. Smith checks in with 75 for his best five years...not bad, considering baserunning made him a better offensive weapon than what his hitting showed. His career total is at a bit below negative, but with baserunning, he is about average.
For some fun? Look at Bonds's 249 best five year consecutive run and notice how it ranks second in that era. To shed some light on the live ball era, his 2000-'04 run checks his old man years in with a whopping 522!!!! And he missed a lot of games in that span!
-Mcgwire's old man years check him in with a whopping 328! And he too missed a lot of games in that span.
Funny how they did with the competition compared to the average player in the normal era, compared to the average player in the crazy era....and they were past prime age in the live ball era! Even guys like Gwynn benefitted as he had 25 more BR in the live ball era, compared to his pre live ball era...AND HE DID IT IN 2,119 LESS AT BATS!
_________BEST FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEAR RUN________________
Murray 253 ('81 pro-rated)
Bonds 249 (PRE LIVE BALL ERA....Pre '93)
Boggs 228
Parker 226
Schmidt 217
Singleton 217
Foster 208 ('81 Pro-rated)
Guerrero 199
Brett 198
*****MATTINGLY 196*****
Garvey 193
Winfield 187
Luzinski 185
Murphy 183
Cooper 182
Clark 175
Hernandez 173
Yount 169
Sandberg 164
Gwynn 158 (In Pre-Live Ball era...pre '93)
Molitor 155
Puckett 148
R. Smith 134
G. Carter 137
M. Mcgwire 130 (Pre Live Ball era...Pre '93)
Lynn 131
Rice 128
Daawson 116
Palmeiro 88 (Pre Live Ball era...'Pre '93)
-Boy, ya think McGwire and Palmeiro benefitted a bit from the live ball era
. -Nobody was as consistently great as Eddie Murray was in that era. I often pont this out to people who classified Murray a 'compiler'. Yes, he was a compiler...a compiler of great years like no other from his time
-Bonds shone quite well before the mayham!
-Parker was a beast!
-Brett had some so-so years in the midst of his prime
-Mattingly has a strong showing, but not near the claim as one of the best runs in history. He has the ninth best run in his era.
CONCLUSIONS. I have shown three lists 1)Career totals, 2)Best Five Years Non consecutive, 3) Best Five consecutive. All of the current Hall of Famers from that era were at the very top of all three lists. Murray, Brett, and Schmidt were the cream of the crop without a doubt(With Murray having the best showing over all lists). If one is looking to add a player to the Hall of Fame from that era, then it should behoove that person to see how the player ranks on all three lists.
________________CAREER LIST....Again, not all players(this is off my head)_________________
SOME HOFers FROM THAT ERA for context.
Schmidt 560
Murray 509
Brett 497
Winfield 452
Boggs 403
Molitor 329
Yount 250
Puckett 240
Sandberg 222
G. Carter 205
O. Smith -57
Gwynn 517 (276 BR in 3,587 live ball era At bats)...(241 BR in 5,706 PRE live ball at bats)
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN...
Jack Clark 414
K. Hernandez 382
Darrell Evans 374
Dave Parker 365
K. Singleton 332
R. Smith 325
P. Guerrero 320
A. Oliver 306
D. Evans 298
S. Garvey 294
Luzinkski 273
Foster 267
Murphy 258
Dawson 251
L. Whitaker 250
Lynn 250
Madlock 237
Cooper 236
Mattingly 215
Rice 189
Trammell 113.5
_________BEST FIVE NON CONSECUTIVE...(again not all players)_________
Brett 270
Murray 260
Schmidt 245 (includes his strike shortened '81 seasons...proratted he is around 260)
Boggs 242
Winfield 236
Yount 214
Molitor 192
Sandberg 187
Puckett 171
Carter 147
O. Smith 75
OUTSIDE HOF LOOKING IN....
Guerrero 246
Parker 232
J. Clark 226
Singleton 225
Hernandez 224
Foster 209
Murphy 208
Luzinski 207
R. Smith 206
***************Mattingly 204**************************
Garvey 205
Dw. Evans 198
Darrell Evans 187
Lynn 184
Gwynn 168 (Pre live ball era...pre '93)
Oliver 165
L. Whitaker 161
Rice 160
Madlock 155
Trammell 154
Cooper 144
The worst HOFer from this era is Molitor. The common names of Rice and Dawson just don't outshine the guys WHO ARE NOT IN THE HALL EITHER. Mattingly trumps both Rice and Dawson, but falls short of two other 1B, Garvey and Hernandez.
-Instead of people touting Jim Rice and Mattingly for the Hall based on dominance, they should rather be touting Pedro Guerrero and Dave Parker for that criteria, as they have the most NON HOF claim to that title. They were the most dominate with very high rankings on both the Best Five consecutive and NOn consecutive prime measurements.
-O. Smith checks in with 75 for his best five years...not bad, considering baserunning made him a better offensive weapon than what his hitting showed. His career total is at a bit below negative, but with baserunning, he is about average.
For some fun? Look at Bonds's 249 best five year consecutive run and notice how it ranks second in that era. To shed some light on the live ball era, his 2000-'04 run checks his old man years in with a whopping 522!!!! And he missed a lot of games in that span!
-Mcgwire's old man years check him in with a whopping 328! And he too missed a lot of games in that span.
Funny how they did with the competition compared to the average player in the normal era, compared to the average player in the crazy era....and they were past prime age in the live ball era! Even guys like Gwynn benefitted as he had 25 more BR in the live ball era, compared to his pre live ball era...AND HE DID IT IN 2,119 LESS AT BATS!
0
Comments
<< <i>I'd be interested to know how Bobby Grich, Cesar Cedeno, Bobby Murcer, Roy White and Gene Tenace stack up on those lists. I don't expect any of them have HOF numbers, but I'll be surprised if most of them don't fare better than Rice. >>
Gene who?
Roy White??
Of course, those players, and the others you mention, were better players than Jim Rice. Right.
Dallas, Career Wise....
Grich 229
Murcer 253
White 229
Cedeno 257
Tenace 304
It is the ballpark effect that makes the biggest difference. For instance, with no ballpark effect taken into account...
Cedeno 214
Rice 283
WITH BALLPARK
Cedeno 257
RIce 190
There are always caveats to individual players, or even ballpark effects themselves. A wide brush cannot always be painted, and it is possible Rice is getting downgraded a bit too much. Simply put, Fenway helped American League batters greatly, and Rice was no different. Check his home/road splits...
HOME BA .320, OB%.374, SLG% .546
ROAD. BA .277, OB%.330, SLG% .459
That is a LARGE disparity, probably the largest of anybody on the list. Some say the monster took some line drive home runs away from Rice. Maybe(though they would still be hits). But how many Fly outs did it turn into HR? How many fly outs into doubles? How many foul ball outs fell into the stands in LF instead of the left fielders glove? The results say the same for the league as a whole, and Rice as an individual...it helped him a lot by hitting in Fenway. An out turned into an extra base hit is a HUGE advantage for a hitter, that most others in the league did not have the benefit to that degree.
There is a small possibility, even after looking at all the info, that Rice is still getting shafted a bit for his home park...but even with no ballpark adjustment, he is WELL BELOW the HOFers of the era...AND MANY OTHERS. But there is no way any sane person can sit there and ignore the evidence on how Rice was helped by Fenway. If one feels a 15% margin for error for his ballpark ratings is possible, then that is possible, but it doesn't change it too much.
I will say this for sure about Rice. This measurement gives credit to the batter for base runners advancing on their hits. For example, if Rice hits a double and the guy from first only makes it to third, and then Cedeno hits a double and his guy from first scores, then Cedeno is getting credit for that. That is a VERY unfair practice...and a few parks penalize players...Memorial Stadium being one that penalizes largely, and Fenway penalizes too. It also matters how good the runners are in front of you. These are tie breaker type things though, and arent nearly prevelant enough to vault a guy way up the list.
<< <i>Gene who?
Roy White??
Of course, those players, and the others you mention, were better players than Jim Rice. Right.
Yes, every single one of them. The only one of them that I thought Rice had a chance of beating was White because White played several years in the deadball sixties, and I'm surprised by how much Tenace beats him considering Rice batted 50% more often, but I already knew they were all better than Rice. Jim Rice = Chili Davis + Fenway Park. And that's no
And "Gene Who?" is hardly befitting a man who was one of the best players in the major leagues in the 1970's. I know people have a fetish about batting averages, but get over it already. Gene Tenace got on base a ton, hit 25 HRs a year, and despite being slow as molasses grounded into about a third of the DPs that Rice did. We can talk about adjustments for how short his career was, but while he was playing Tenace was MUCH better than Rice.
That said, the fact that his numbers are drastically different on the road is a big strike against him. But I don't want to overpenalize him for doing the obvious thing.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
<< <i>It is very funny how everybody just grips Ichiro, and yet Gene Tenace, from a tougher era to hit, and having already experienced his lean years, actually has a higher career on base percentage than Ichiro. .388 to .376. >>
Actually, people seem to think that the A's won all those World Series by magic, since they didn't hit very well. Fact is, they hit very well: in their primes, Joe Rudi, Sal Bando and Gene Tenace were all better than Rice, and Reggie was just light years ahead of them all. Even Mike Epstein (yes, Mike who?) hit better in 1972 than Rice ever did. But because they played in that park, their slightly better than average pitching staff gets most of the credit, and a slot in the HOF.
<< <i>It is very funny how everybody just grips Ichiro, and yet Gene Tenace, from a tougher era to hit, and having already experienced his lean years, actually has a higher career on base percentage than Ichiro. .388 to .376. >>
Tell me, which hitter would *you* rather have on your team? Gene Tenace or Ichiro?
<< <i>I am not a Rice apologist necessarily, but this literally just occurred to me. Are we failing to recognize that Jim Rice, as a baseball player with a brain inside his skull, understood his surroundings, looked to his left and thought, "If I just hit a fly ball that way, it will likely be really good." I think it is absurd to penalize him for making that logical decision. Should he have tried hit line drives to the gap in right center just to impress would be HOF voters?
That said, the fact that his numbers are drastically different on the road is a big strike against him. But I don't want to overpenalize him for doing the obvious thing. >>
gregmo32 -
The thing is, EVERYBODY who hit right-handed thought the same thing, and the ones who could hit long fly balls tried it every time up. Dave Kingman hit a HR every 5.8 at-bats when he played in Fenway. Let him play his whole career there and that projects out to over 750 HRs. That would have put him in the HOF for sure, but he would still have been a lousy player. So the question is, does the ability to hit a long fly ball to left make you a great player? The answer ought not depend on which park you play in, IMO.
<< <i>Tell me, which hitter would *you* rather have on your team? Gene Tenace or Ichiro? >>
Since you said "hitter", I'll take Tenace. He got on base more often than Ichiro AND hit for more power; in short, he was the better hitter. If you'd said "player" then I'd take Ichiro; Tenace was not a good fielder.
The one who has to hit the ball 25 feet further for a home run
or
The one who's long fly ball outs are turned into doubles and home runs?
<< <i>
Since you said "hitter", I'll take Tenace. He got on base more often than Ichiro AND hit for more power; in short, he was the better hitter. If you'd said "player" then I'd take Ichiro; Tenace was not a good fielder. >>
>>
Their OBP are nearly identical, but while Tenace is drawing walks, and not moving runners over, Ichiro has had no season with fewer than 200 hits. A hit is worth more than a walk. Throw in Ichiro's stolen bases (he is averaging more per year than Tenace had in his entire CAREER) and you can't honestly sit there and tell me you'd rather have Tenace over Ichiro on hitting alone.
To sit there and tell me you would shows me how little you actually know about hitting.
The unfair part is like I said above...the guy who has to hit the ball 25 feet further for a home run...and then have to be told he isn't as good as the guy who can hit fly ball 'out' home runs. THAT is the guy who voters etc... have been unfair too.
Like I said before, there is a bit of a margin of error for ballpark factors, but even if one put the most generous margin of error in Rice's favor it still does not change much his true standing among his peers. He still is well below other players from his era that are also not in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>To sit there and tell me you would shows me how little you actually know about hitting. >>
If you truly grasped the depth of my disrespect for you I don't think you'd waste your time sharing your feelings about my intellect.
However, many stats show them very close......
Season bests;
BA Murray .330, Rice .325
HR Rice 46, Murray 33
RBI Rice 139, Murray 124
TB Rice 406 ( Quite a feat OVER 400 Total bases), Murray 322
SLG PCT Rice .600, Murray .538
Stolen Bases each had 10 in their best yesr.
100+ RBI seasons; Rice 8, Murray 6
100+ Runs scored seasons; each did it 3 times.
.300 BA seasons; each did it 7 times
Rice had a career BA of .298, 28 points higher than the league park adjusted average, Murray hit .287 for his career, 25 points higher than the league park adjusted average.
<< <i>
<< <i>To sit there and tell me you would shows me how little you actually know about hitting. >>
If you truly grasped the depth of my disrespect for you I don't think you'd waste your time sharing your feelings about my intellect. >>
Personally, I enjoy your insight
Group 1 (strong cases for the HOF)
Boog Powell
Dick Allen
Minnie Minoso
Tim Raines
Bobby Bonds
Group 2 (closer than you think)
Joe Torre
Jimmy Wynn
Jose Cruz
Group 3 (better than many who are in)
Kent Hrbek
Don Baylor
Ron Cey
Brian Downing
Group 4 (just wondering)
Bob Watson
Ron Fairly
Mike Hargrove
<< <i>Group 2 (closer than you think)
Jimmy Wynn
Jose Cruz >>
Being a biased 'Stros fan, don't understand why they aren't already in the Hall
All of those figures you show are not taking into account the ballpark factor, which is a huge benefit for Rice. Your measurements should read..."Here is what jim Rice and Fenway Park hit..."
All of the RBI and Runs scored you show do not take the ballpark factor into account AND the number of baserunners into account. During their primes, Rice had an advantage in having more baserunners to hit, thus more RBI opps. RBI are useless unless you take the number of baserunners into account, and they still only tell part the story.
And why only 100 RBI seasons? Do you mean 100 RBI is vastly better than 99 RBI? That is a pointless round number.
And why are you just showing season bests?
Also, measuring a career percentage for a guy who played only till 36 and was through, to a guy who played into his 40's?
Murray 509 Batter Runs
Rice......189 Batter Runs
Every single event you posted is accounted for here, though it is accounted for with proper value...including RBI prowess as it accounts for all Men on base hitting ability.
THeir prime seasons are also posted, and it isn't close at all. Murray had three seasons that were better than Rice's best, and two more that were a run or two below. Rice had only one more season anywhere close to that performance, and Murray a bunch More.
Dallas, i will check on those later....though you know my thoughts on Tim Raines, he is a no brainer H
Rice 126 RBI
Murray 111 RBI
Yeah, looks good for Rice, BUT....
Number of runners on either second or third...
RICE 165
MURRAY 129
Murray was knocking in Runners from Scoring positin at appx a 36% rate at that time. So at that rate, given even amount of opportuntites, Murray is looking at 13 more RBI here.
Number of Runners on 1st
RICE 260
MURRAY 207
Murray's RBI rate from 1B gives anothe 5 RBI with equal opprtunity
Total At Bats
Rice 626
Murray 582
That is a couple of more Home Runs for Murray.
So, given equal opportunity with Runners on base the new RBI totals would look like this....
RICE 126
MURRAY 131
Add the ballpark factor into the mix...then the gap widens a bunch.
Allen 459
Minoso...all that data isn't present for him
Raines 363....plus another 93 for stolen bases.
Bobby Bonds 325
Torre 343
Wynn 347
Cruz 347
Hrbek 244
Baylor 150
Cey 285
Downing 278
Watson 323
Fairly 291
Hargrove 215
A few others....
Staub 399
Buckner 48
No surprise about Dick Allen; he was every bit as good as anyone else playing at the time, although he didn't last as long as some. I won't name names because people will jump all over them, but yes, I mean anyone. He was also an incredible jerk and, as far as I know, the only player kept out of the HOF for no other reason. And no surprise at all about Bill Buckner, probably the second most overrated player of my lifetime.
Powell and Watson were even better than I thought, and the whole list does bring home how ridiculous it is that there isn't a single Astro in the HOF (unless you count Ryan or Morgan), or at least talked about more. There have been some awfully great careers obscured by the Astrodome; nearly as many as have been inflated by Fenway. And its nice to see that Fairly has as high a figure as he does; he was the best non-pitcher on a WS winning team, one of the best on two others, played in a major-media market and the baseball world has just forgotten him. He was every bit as good as Andre Dawson, and better than Rice, but somehow I don't think he's got as much support for the HOF.
Baylor was quite a bit worse than I thought, I'll have to knock him off my growing list (goal: 100!) of players more deserving of the HOF than Jim Rice.
In 1972 he had a putrid offensive supporting cast, heck he had 37 HR and the rest of the staring lineup hit 42...with bad SLG and OB percentages to boot. The pitching staff was eigth out of a twelve team league, and they still won 87 games, because Allen was just so damn good.
So tell me, if attitude prevents a team from winning, then that simply wouldn't happen, they would win what his supporting cast would dictate...well below .500. Sure an attitude may prevent impressionable little league players from playing to their potential, but highly doubtful it rubs off on the naturally selfish game of a baseball player. Allen's attitude has absolutely no bearing on how many complete games a Wilbur Wood is going to throw. He will do the same thing if Allen was a jerk or a flower child.
Yet this is the reason why he was left off. Dick allen was every bit of a force as a batter that Koufax was a pitcher.
The hall does have an attitude requirement...they just don't apply to everyone
Bill Buckner is the most overrated because baseball fans have an intense infatuation for players tapping out to second base and increasing double plays, instead of striking out. That, and they don't understand that touching as many balls as possible with the bat(many weakly), avoiding walks, and being an out mahcine is actually a hinderance on scoring runs....unless your vladimir guerrero.
Fans are ignorant to a lot of the facts, and I bet if you polled baseball fans about who was better Jose Cruz or Bill Buckner, I would be surprised if Cruz even got a single vote(at least outside of Houston). Yet Cruz is the superior hitter.
Quite the power hitter, many of his shots were "on-a-rope" so his homerun numbers don't fully show how much power he had. Dick was also a pretty accomplished juggler, with baseballs at least. One of my all-time favorite photos of a player is the one of him juggling 3-4 baseballs, while in full White Sox dress, in the dugout, between innings or before the game I assume, with a Marlboro cigarette hanging from his mouth ! I have a picture so clear you can identify the brand.
While it was kind of interesting to see how Eddie Murray and Jim Rice compared in RBIs during the 1983 season, I wonder why the year 1983 is so vital in any comparison, or RBI opportunities for that matter, as the best stat ??? Several other seasons show Rice the better RBI man. In 1983 Murray came to the plate 680 times, Rice 689, no big difference at all. In 1983 Rice got 344 Total bases, Murray 313.
Many feel that leading the league, is a very good indicator of how well one preformed versus his peers. A comparison using some traditional hitting stats with the number of time being best in the league;
RBIs Murray 1, Rice 2
Hits MurraY 0, Rice 1
OB% Murray 1, Rice 0
HRs Murray 1, Rice 3
Slg% Murray 0, Rice 2
Triples Murray 0, Rice 1
Total Bases Murray 0, Rice 4
It should be noted that Murray's lone HR and RBI crowns came in the strike-shortened season of 1981.
Rice seems to have some numbers which compare very well with Murray, whom I still feel was a bit better player, primarily due to the career longevity and stats compiled.
First, those number of times leading a league are heavily influenced by the BALLPARK, and are only parts of a larger equation.
Second, you still put RBI up there. Did you not see my post about the RBI you are using? That is totally influenced by baserunners. Check out that post above. Rice LED the league in '83, but Murray was a better RBI man despite being fifth int he league in total RBI. Plus RBI only tell part the story, even when baserunners are accounted for.
RBI may have had some use before anybody actually started keeping track of how many opportunties one have, and how well they hit with men on, but taht is NOT a mystery anymore, and we know EXACTLY what the players did, and how important their offensive contribution was.
Third, how many times did Rice lead the league in the important actual offensive value?
Here are the top offensive seasons by each player, WHICH MEASURE EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE EVENT IMAGINABLE! Batter RUns above league average palyer wtih base and out situatins accounted for... Don't ride a bike when you can ride a Mercedes...
Rice
46 *led league
43
28
24
17
15
9
9
7
6
MURRAY
60 *led league
55 *led league
55 *second
46 *second
43 *second
33
29 *1981, which woulbe be well over 40 in a full season *second
28
28
27
26
26
I noted the led league's and second place finsihes. It should be quite obvious how close the guys were the rest of the years that are not noted. That should tell the story right there.
I know OPS+ puts him up high on top, but batter runs does not. That is a head scratcher for me. He was the best in Baseball at one point if one looks at the traditional stats and also OPS+. Once one starts using batter runs, it looks like he is in the top 10. He does not rank as high as I preceive using batter runs for his best 5 years or best 5 consecutive years. Would he fare better with using his best 3 years?
What is truely exceptional with Mattingly is his defense. He dominated before and after the back and wrist injuries. If he is not on the cusp offensively compared to HOFers or ahead of the non-HOFers, then I don't think he belongs in the HOF based on those arguments.
By most statistical analyses, except for batter runs or the longevity magic numbers, Mattingly comes close to the HOF, ahead of many quality non-HOFers. His defensive dominance, I mean he was the best defensive first baseman in a century, arguably, should tip him past that threshold.
Bill James ranked Mattingly as the 12th best first baseman of all time. Well, by that argument, Mattingly would not disgrace the HOF. But if we argue batter runs, then Mattingly becomes just one of the best of his era and not in the HOF.
The main reason why Garvey does not shine using traditional stats is because he played his prime at Dodgers Stadium. That lowers batting averages. Garvey ranks higher than Mattingly using batter runs. I am not so sure about OPS+ though (did not calculate that).
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
First of all my nickname is "jaxxr", not jaxx nor jaxxx, as someone who claims such attention to detail, with such an obvious item as a name that you wish to debate with, we might reasonably expect you to get that simple fact correct. You have gotten my short 5 letter name wrong about 5 out of the last 6 times you refered to it.
You state RBIs are "Totally influneced by baserunners" well gee how many baserunners are there when a fellow hits a solo homerun and drives in a run ? You are totally INCORRECT
You state I am "sticking to trivial type information" I factually noted Rice led the league in tradional hitting stats 13 times, Murray did it 3 times. In one post I mentioned Rice had 406 total bases one year, a fine offensive feat, as total bases do create run scoring chances for the following hitters and of course may move up or drive in runners as well. Jim Rice did have a higher lifetime BA than Murray and did outdistaance his peers via ballpark adjusted league avereage by a greater margin. To call this information "trivial" is only an opinion. ( a poor, misinformed one in my view)
You mention a stat "WHICH MEASURE(sp.) EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE EVENT IMAGINABLE " Wow ! That is impressive and certainly all-inclusive, I suppose MLB will soon recognize this stat and no longer will there be a need to vote on Silver Sluggers, MVPs or any other measure of a hitter's worth.
I do wonder how that stat accounts for the quality of the batters hitting before a particular player, via on base percentage for instance, so you probably drive in more runs. How might it adjust for the hitter batting behind the particular player in question, as a good slugger next in the order will usually give the current hitter some more / better pitches to swing at. Is the wind velocity/direction per each at bat one of the imanginable events used in the calculations ? If there are runners on base or in scoring position, is the baserunner's speed an influnece to the likelyhood of a run being driven in ? How does the opposing pitcher factor in, if you bat against say Jim Palmer or Ron Guidrey it might lower your potential to create an offensive event ?
I would be most interested in the specific complete formula for measuring every single offensive event imaginable.
Added: I do drive a Chevy Impala, not a bike nor a Mercedes, however, I would prefer a Bentley.
Let's see:
In his career he played in over 150 games on 4 occasions and over 130 games six times. In his 14 seasons in the big leagues he played in 75% of his teams games. Does the batter runs method take into account all of the games missed and if yes, does Allen really score at 459. Does that mean if he was healthy and not suspended in his career his number would be more like 625?
In 1969 after performing Babe Ruth type feats he was suspended by his team for the balance of the season.
In 1974 after single handidly carrying the White Sox for 2 seasons he voluntarily retired because he did not want to play for the White Sox anymore.
But wait this Hall of Famer in his career was traded for:
In 1970 the Cardinals traded him to the Dodgers for the legendary secondbaseman Ted Sizemore and the immortal catcher Bob Stinson.
In 1971 the Cardinals traded him to the White Sox for Tommy John and Steve Huntz. John was coming off the worst season of his career.
In 1974 the White Sox having this Hall of Famer on their roster and having him coming off of basically three years in a row with an OPS of 1.000 found everybody wanted to trade for him but they eventually settled for a player to be named later and cash from the Atlanta Braves.
In 1975 the Braves having hoodwinked the league at getting Allen so cheaply discovered he would not play for them and traded him for essentially Barry Bonnell.
He had incredible value. A clear cut Hall of Famer that everybody wanted on their team.
There's the skinpitch we all know and love. Hope you did away with that imposter and we never see him again.
Yes, if Allen had played (healthy) for all those games he missed his career number would have been more like 625. Yes, he was THAT good. On a per 162 games basis, ballpark adjusted, the players to whom Allen compares most closely are Aaron and Mays. From 1964-1971 Dick Allen was the best player in the NL, and from 1972-1974 he was the best player in the AL. Statistically, had Bill James not crucified Allen with his "miscellaneous" factor for being a jerk, Allen would have rated as the second best first baseman of all-time - behind only Gehrig but ahead of Jimmy Foxx. I'll repeat myself - he was THAT good.
I understand that he kept getting traded; those trades had NOTHING to do with how good he was. He was a jerk and nobody wanted to play with him, that's all there was to it. In today's big money game, he'd be making over $20 million a season and whoever was lucky enough to have him would never let him go.
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>Dick Allen was a great hitter to be sure, but career totals of fewer than 2,000 hits and a lifetime BA under .300 will not get you close to the HOF, all stats aside. And even Rice had a better fielding pct. than Allen. >>
Other than Ralph Kiner, you mean? And really, Allen was much better than Duke Snider, who latched on with the Mets to get to 2,000 hits even though he should have quit. If there is a standard that says you can't get in the HOF unless you hang around after you're all washed up just to hit a milestone, then I don't think we want to encourage that standard. Hank Greenberg missed the 2,000 hit mark but did hit .300; of course, Allen's BA was better than Greenberg's compared to averages even though it was less than .300. Again, there may be a standard that looks at a .300 average as meaning something, but if so it's a stupid standard.
There are people with 2,000 hits and .300 averages that aren't fit to shine Allen's shoes; there are people with 3,000 hits and .300 averages who weren't nearly as good as Allen. I think the HOF voters knew that and still know that; they just don't like him.
{No argument on the fielding - Allen stunk; it doesn't make much difference to his total value, though}
Kiner was a borderline HOFer (I believe the vote on him was the closest in history) but he only played 10 years and averaged 37 HRs a year during that span (in a very tough park to hit homers in). He also had almost as many RBIs as allen did in five fewer seasons. My point was that Dick Allen will never get into the HOF with his career numbers and he doesn't deserve to be in, as the voting has shown.
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>Other than Ralph Kiner, you mean?
Kiner was a borderline HOFer (I believe the vote on him was the closest in history) but he only played 10 years and averaged 37 HRs a year during that span (in a very tough park to hit homers in). He also had almost as many RBIs as allen did in five fewer seasons. My point was that Dick Allen will never get into the HOF with his career numbers and he doesn't deserve to be in, as the voting has shown. >>
This doesn't refute your point, but it's interesting nonetheless. Ralph Kiner has been ranked among the 100 greatest players of all-time - putting him solidly in the top half of the HOF - by SABR, the Sporting News and Total Baseball. And, based on peak value, he deserves to be there. And Allen was better than Kiner, both in peak value and career value. Not sure what you mean by "a very tough park to hit homers in", though; Pittsburgh didn't hit many homers because they stunk - it was actually a very hitter-friendly park.
The distinction between peak value and career value may be the issue with Allen, I suppose. If the case is that because he didn't play very long then he doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then I'd be fascinated to hear the case for Sandy Koufax (or Dizzy Dean, or Ed Walsh, etc.). Fact is, Allen was flat out a better player than at least 75% of the members of the HOF for a career that was as long or longer than Ralph Kiner's or Bill Terry's or Mickey Cochrane's or Home Run Baker's or Johnny Mize's or Tony Lazzeri's or Jimmy Collins' or George Kell's or...... you get my point. It may be that some voters are not voting for Allen because of the length of his career; but since they have voted for so many others despite the same length or shorter career, that sounds more like an excuse to avoid voting for someone they don't like.
I can't disagree with you that Allen will never get in - I don't think he will either. And I don't necessarily disagree with you that he doesn't deserve to get in; I think the HOF can do without collossal jerks like Pete Rose, Dick Allen and Barry Bonds just fine. But if you mean that he doesn't deserve to get in because he wasn't good enough, I could not possibly disagree with you more. The analogy to Koufax is spot on in the case of Allen: he was THAT good.
Jaxxr, if you think I am wrong that RBI are not HEAVILY influenced by the number of baserunners, then you are probably following the wrong sport. I noted the fact of hitting oneself in in the 1983 RBI breakdown, did you not read that post??
I have said in my posts that the speed of baserunners are influential as well, and that those indeed are NOT accounted for in the measurement...which is the really only flaw that will make any difference. But that difference is small.
We talked about lineup protection etc...and that is not a factor on how good one is....it is basically a nill effect. As for factoring in if different players somehow face only the best pitchers, and the rest of the league doesn't, well, if you can show that to be fact, then a correction would be in order...but you will come to the realization that ALL of that stuff basically evens out. One can check wind speed if they wish, and if Rice somehow is the only Fenway player that batted with the wind blowing in, and then it switched when others came up, then hey I guess that would matter.
Why doesn't MLB look at that? 1)Who says they don't? 2)The information in completed form is kind of new and was certainly not available in quantitative form in the era we are referring to. 3)People tend to discount what they don't understand, but rather stick to inferior flawed stuff.
As for Rice and Murray...if you still refuse to understand the difference, then feel free to live in bliss
For 1978, if you ignore the park factor, Rice's BR total would be 60, and Murray's best total 56(if you ignored his park factor). Based on your post above, you are interested in accounting for things that artificially influence a players performance...but somehow DISCOUNT THE ONE THING THAT DOES THAT TO THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST DEGREE....THE HOME BALLPARK>
But total bases have a catch. No questin '78 was Rice's best season, and the only season worthy of a Murray year(of which he had many likewise). Any way you slice it, it was a HOF season, his only one, but a HOF season nonetheless.
The problem with just total bases is that Rice had 677 at bats in 1978...thats a lot of at bats. It does not show that Rice made 490 outs on his way to that total. It also does not show the on base factor of how many chances he is creating more runs for the subsequent batters. THEN THE BALLPARK FACTOR AGAIN. This is getting long, and we can delve into these things on another post.
By the way, the vehicle statement was in reference to using measurements akin to a bike, when ones akin to a Mercedes are available. I drive a mini van for pete's sake.
With Men on Base and Out situation hitting, BUT NO BALLPARK FACOTR!!!!, RICE = 284......Murray 463
All inclusive with park factor added in, RICE = 190..............Murray 510
Jaxxr, you can see which factors make the lead larger from the raw totals you like. PArk factor rights the ship, and justifiably!
Remember, this is vs. average player, so Murray's old man years actually brought his totals down, though those years do have value they just aren't expressed as such in this measure....that is a whole 'nother topic. Those old man years bring down all of Murray's percentages, his BA, OB% and SLG%. That is why it is not a valid comparison to use CAREER percentages to compare a guy who retired at 35 compared to one at 42. THe easy way to get past that is to look at their primes...and those lists have already been posted.
<< <i>JAXXR, when people call me Skip or Skinpitch >>
: raises hand :
Alot of the stats you bring to the table are interestingand very informative, but to some they go without saying. For instance RBI, you state that it is dependent upon having men on (unless of course for a solo hr) Everyone knows that, thus it goes without saying.
The highest degree is something that many may not choose to look at. Does not make them wrong, or you right for that matter. Even after taking something to the highest degree (IMO) other factors unknown can still be applied and that is a reason that many just do not buy those arguments. Ballpark factors and runs not allowed etc all can be skewed and or looked at in many different lights.
Sometimes keeping it simple is best. Not saying it is best for all, just best for some.
JMHO
Steve
1)How can Mattingly be the best at any one point, if he is behind 10 guys from his era....and what if we used a three year period?
Deutsher, those two questions you asked are kind of related. You may have missed it, but from '84-'86, he was the best in MLB. But we have to remember that we are assigning arbitrary periods of time. Best three, or best five show different results. The more years the more validity in the measurement...but the more years doesn't capture a person at their best, so that is why three year periods are often used as well. This is all in how you look at it...and where opinion matters. The number of runs produced is NOT a matter of opinion and it rights the misconceptions(as fans have many of these).
I measured five year stretches. Let say Mattingly was the best from the specific time period of '84-'89(I didn't check), but lets say he was. Then why were ten guys higher than him? This is where arbitrary time periods alter things. Not all players' peaks will fall EXACTLY from 1984-1989. Murray's consecutive peak came from '81-'85. All these guys were ahead of Mattingly on the five year peaks, but none of them higher than him from '84-'89. Bu they were all contemporaries of Mattingly, and we are measuring how dominate a player was, compared to the dominance of others from his era. They are all players from his era, but their best years were not in the EXACT time period. There is a lot of overlap, but none of them fall exactly in the same time frame. This is why he ranks tenth, even though he isn't tenth during his specific time frame.
Murray 253 ('81 pro-rated)
Bonds 249 (PRE LIVE BALL ERA....Pre '93)
Boggs 228
Parker 226
Schmidt 217
Singleton 217
Foster 208 ('81 Pro-rated)
Guerrero 199
Brett 198
MATTINGLY 196
All of these players, all contemporaries of Mattingly, all had higher peaks...but the peaks occured during different seasons within that era. So there was a point where Mattingly was actually standing on earth as the best hitter on the planet, and that says something...and how much it says for the HOF is up for debate. I guess we can look at every possible three year stretch combination from Mattingly's era and see how many guys can make that claim.
Best from '80'-82, '81-'83, '82'-84,'83'-85,'84-'86,'85-'87 etc... From those time periods it would be Schmidt, Murray, Murray, Murray, Mattingly, Boggs.
I know these off the top of my head, but I would have to look at the preceeding and following years. That may yield interesting results.
But there is also another catch, who is to say it has to be consecutive? That is why George Brett has trouble making these consecutive lists, because he always seemed to sprinkle in a so-so season near his very best years. From '78 to '81, Brett's seasons were 11, 49, 73, 9. Then he threw up another 60 in 1985. So if we just took his best three seasons, then he is at the top.
That is why it is most wise to look at all three lists...career, consecutive peak, and best peak. Career should be most weighted, and the other two shine a different light to what occured. This is certainly in how 'one looks at things' comes into play. The number of the runs that were created are about 98% telling on a players actual offensive hitting value, and this is not an area where opinion comes into play. It is what actually occured per situation. Kind of tough to beat that measurement.
Over the last 100+ years most sportswriters, fans, baseball experts, and even the unsophisticated man on the street, understands the importance of Batting average and Homeruns. Omit the man on the street type, and RBIs, Total bases, OB%, Slg% and runs scored are highly regarded as well.
Various factors such as men on base, score of the game, the ability of the batter preceeding and following a hitter, the inning number, the ballpark, the opposing pitcher, Etc., all contibute to the complexity of evaluating a hitter's woth with absolute certainty. I myself still feel, as many others do, that leading the league is a very good, though not exact, way to recognize how well a batter compares to his peers.
To purport there is a valid formula "WHICH MEASURE EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE EVENT IMANGINABLE" is foolish, and perhaps best suited for fantasy baseball advocates.
This has nothing to do with fantasy baseball...in fact the batting average, HR, and RBi are the fantasy baseball stats.
Jaxx,
You are right, no stat is perfect in measuring a hitters worth...even the best one(the one I showed),and I stated that from the beginning. The odd thing is that you prefer to use the least valid measurements.
The Batter Runs(with the base situation and out situation) is absolutley the most valid and accurate measurement. And you are right, measuring how many times a guy led the league in this(and was among the very top) is a good way to measure dominance.
When I say every single offensive hitting event imaginable, I am referring to 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, HBP, Ground OUt, Fly OUt, Strikeout, Fielders Choice, and Reached on Error. Then each of these are all measured by runners on base and how many outs they were done in. It measures the effect of the ballpark already(which oddly you seem to consider important, but totally discount it in Rice's analysis). It measures all the key things you want, BUT WITH THE PROPER VALUE OF EACH EVENT.
The things they don't measure, is the speed of the base runners ahead of a hitter...that is a flaw. There is no need to measure the lineup protection theory, because lineup protection doesn't make anybody better(please read that old thread on that one). It does not measure if a guy somehow managed to face only the best pitchers in the league, while everybody else the worst. That stuff evens out. If you can show that Jim Rice somehow only faced the tough pitchers, and the rest of his lineup or teams didn't, then that would need to be accounted for, and it can.
In Conclusion, the BR by situation measures the most relevant stuff with the most valid weight. All the methods of Batting Average, or Hr, or RBI that you like to use have fatal flaws. They neglect a large portion of the relevant information, and flat out give improper weight to the offensive value of a player.
If you were to build a pyramid of the validity of each stat in evaluating a players hiting worth, at the very bottom would be batting average and total RBI. Along the way to the top you would encounter SLG% and OB%, then near the top would be OPS+, and at the very top would be some of James's stuff and the Batter Runs with situation accounted for(the top ones account for ballpark of course). The bad ones measure about 10% of truth while the good ones in the high 90's percent.
If you wish to go by the least valid measurements, go for it. If you want to build a severly flawed picture in your mind, you are welcome to do it. I prefer to eliminate those flaws and get closer to truth.
You finally admit the BR stat is not without flaws, very admirable, and you seem to confess it is in YOUR opinion that it the best stat for evaluating a hitter. I still wonder if you feel it is one " WHICH MEASURE EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE EVENT IMAGINABLE" ??
Skin-itch,
Can you admit Jim Rice could hit the ball farther than Eddie Murray, both on a typical basis as well as their longest shots ?? Who would be the favorite in a Homerun derby event ??
Skin-inch,
You claim the very bottom stat in evaluating a hitter's worth is batting average ( I should note this to my fantasy league commissioner , perhaps yours too, and eliminate this most worhtless stat), how absurd ! I guess you feel it is less important than singles or times reached base via error among many others. While it may not be the very best, nor is it without flaws, it is still quite relavent. It is one of the 3 stats in a hitter's triple crown, it is an average of ability for ALL IMAGINABLE offical at bats, most feel a pitcher's "No-hitter" is more of an accomplishment rather than a no run or shut out game, Among the all-time top seven ( since 1901) career hitters via BA are Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams, and Babe Ruth, this would signify that BA does in fact reflect great hitting ability.
Skin-head,
You used the excuse of Murray's "old-man-years' to disallow the FACT that Jime Rice had a higher raw career BA and hit over the league ballpark adjusted average by a greater margin for their respective careers. In each players last year as a full time hitter Rice was equal to the league adjusted average, while Murray was 3 points below.
Skin-ibex,
I am curious as to how you feel the statistic of total bases rates as an offensive event, and where it fits in the pyramid's hierarchy ?
refer all statistical measurement questions to the statistical thread that is now active...it answers your questions there.
Not to bury my replies above to jaxxr's burning questions, but deutschergeist(boy I am glad you are not as sensitive when I get your name wrong ), lets take a look.
1)How can Mattingly be the best at any one point, if he is behind 10 guys from his era....and what if we used a three year period?
Deutsher, those two questions you asked are kind of related. You may have missed it, but from '84-'86, he was the best in MLB. But we have to remember that we are assigning arbitrary periods of time. Best three, or best five show different results. The more years the more validity in the measurement...but the more years doesn't capture a person at their best, so that is why three year periods are often used as well. This is all in how you look at it...and where opinion matters. The number of runs produced is NOT a matter of opinion and it rights the misconceptions(as fans have many of these).
I measured five year stretches. Let say Mattingly was the best from the specific time period of '84-'89(I didn't check), but lets say he was. Then why were ten guys higher than him? This is where arbitrary time periods alter things. Not all players' peaks will fall EXACTLY from 1984-1989. Murray's consecutive peak came from '81-'85. All these guys were ahead of Mattingly on the five year peaks, but none of them higher than him from '84-'89. Bu they were all contemporaries of Mattingly, and we are measuring how dominate a player was, compared to the dominance of others from his era. They are all players from his era, but their best years were not in the EXACT time period. There is a lot of overlap, but none of them fall exactly in the same time frame. This is why he ranks tenth, even though he isn't tenth during his specific time frame.
Murray 253 ('81 pro-rated)
Bonds 249 (PRE LIVE BALL ERA....Pre '93)
Boggs 228
Parker 226
Schmidt 217
Singleton 217
Foster 208 ('81 Pro-rated)
Guerrero 199
Brett 198
MATTINGLY 196
All of these players, all contemporaries of Mattingly, all had higher peaks...but the peaks occured during different seasons within that era. So there was a point where Mattingly was actually standing on earth as the best hitter on the planet, and that says something...and how much it says for the HOF is up for debate. I guess we can look at every possible three year stretch combination from Mattingly's era and see how many guys can make that claim.
Best from '80'-82, '81-'83, '82'-84,'83'-85,'84-'86,'85-'87 etc... From those time periods it would be Schmidt, Murray, Murray, Murray, Mattingly, Boggs.
I know these off the top of my head, but I would have to look at the preceeding and following years. That may yield interesting results.
But there is also another catch, who is to say it has to be consecutive? That is why George Brett has trouble making these consecutive lists, because he always seemed to sprinkle in a so-so season near his very best years. From '78 to '81, Brett's seasons were 11, 49, 73, 9. Then he threw up another 60 in 1985. So if we just took his best three seasons, then he is at the top.
That is why it is most wise to look at all three lists...career, consecutive peak, and best peak. Career should be most weighted, and the other two shine a different light to what occured. This is certainly in how 'one looks at things' comes into play. The number of the runs that were created are about 98% telling on a players actual offensive hitting value, and this is not an area where opinion comes into play. It is what actually occured per situation. Kind of tough to beat that measurement.
<< <i>You finally admit the BR stat is not without flaws, very admirable, and you seem to confess it is in YOUR opinion that it the best stat for evaluating a hitter. I still wonder if you feel it is one " WHICH MEASURE EVERY SINGLE OFFENSIVE EVENT IMAGINABLE" ?? >>
Perhaps we can find common ground if we can all agree that the BR stat measures every single offensive event imaginable that matters enough to bother counting. Well, agree or not, that's what it measures.
<< <i>Can you admit Jim Rice could hit the ball farther than Eddie Murray, both on a typical basis as well as their longest shots ?? Who would be the favorite in a Homerun derby event ?? >>
And if Dave Kingman was in the contest, too? Sure, we can all agree that Rice probably hit the ball a little farther as long as we don't confuse that fact with the things that matter.
<< <i>You claim the very bottom stat in evaluating a hitter's worth is batting average ( I should note this to my fantasy league commissioner , perhaps yours too, and eliminate this most worhtless stat), how absurd ! I guess you feel it is less important than singles or times reached base via error among many others. While it may not be the very best, nor is it without flaws, it is still quite relavent. It is one of the 3 stats in a hitter's triple crown, it is an average of ability for ALL IMAGINABLE offical at bats, most feel a pitcher's "No-hitter" is more of an accomplishment rather than a no run or shut out game, Among the all-time top seven ( since 1901) career hitters via BA are Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams, and Babe Ruth, this would signify that BA does in fact reflect great hitting ability. >>
But nobody (as far as I know) ever seriously claims that a good way to rank players is by their times reached via errors. But people DO claim that batting average is a good way. Of the ways I've heard people actually claim as a valid way to rank players, batting average is the worst: better than the silly ways like singles, but worse than OBP, SA, OPS, OPS+, Win Shares, BR or several others.
<< <i>You used the excuse of Murray's "old-man-years' to disallow the FACT that Jime Rice had a higher raw career BA and hit over the league ballpark adjusted average by a greater margin for their respective careers. In each players last year as a full time hitter Rice was equal to the league adjusted average, while Murray was 3 points below. >>
But batting average isn't what skinpinch was talking about, he was talking about how good these player's were. His point is that what looks like a merely huge gap between Murray and Rice is actually best measured on a galactic scale; Murray's old-man years dragged him down to where the gap doesn't look as big as it actually was.
<< <i>I am curious as to how you feel the statistic of total bases rates as an offensive event, and where it fits in the pyramid's hierarchy ? >>
It's a better stat than batting average, because it measures more events, but without a ballpark adjustment it can be highly misleading. It ranks near the top of the "traditional" measures, which is to say it ranks near the bottom of the "best" measures.
I understand that he kept getting traded; those trades had NOTHING to do with how good he was. He was a jerk and nobody wanted to play with him, that's all there was to it. In today's big money game, he'd be making over $20 million a season and whoever was lucky enough to have him would never let him go. "~
dallasactuary - No chance Allen is the second best first baseman of all-time even in Strat-O-Matic. While his offensive numbers are prolific between 64 and 71 the idea that he was better than Willie Mays or Hank Aaron is a big stretch. He was a terrible fielder, he missed time due to injuries and worse suspension. His VALUE in that period is evident by what the teams could trade him for. In other words his offensive talents were not great enough to get his team anything of value. You might want to clarify about him being the best player in the AL between 1972 and 1974 to "He was the best player in the AL, when he was not suspended, sulking or quitting on the team. He averaged 116 games for those three seasons. I would rather have Reggie Jackson for 150 games than Dick Allen for 116 games but maybe that is just me.
As for him making $20 million a season today and nobody wanting to let him go, look no further than Boston for the answer to that question. Manny Ramirez, every bit the slugger Allen is, was placed on waivers at the end of the 2003 season. Anybody could have had him for nothing. There were no takers. Even now the Sox are finding it difficult to trade him. Ramirez greatest fault, as I see it, is that he keeps the team on pins and needles. Although he is well liked by his teammates you never know when he is going to walk in the clubhouse and say, "I do not feel like playing today." It happens far too often and at the wrong times. Allen was significantly worse, not only did he say "I do not feel like playing today, but he would add, maybe I can make 3 or 4 other guys feel the same way."
Bill James concludes after writing three pages on Allen's problems with his teammates that, "Allen was a jerk; that's not the issue.... When the White Sox were trying to trade Dick Allen in 1974 somebody asked Joe Burke of the Royals, whether he was interested. Burke replied, `I wouldn't take him if you paid me $10,000.' That's the issue. Did he have value? Did he help his teams win? He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball."