Options
The "boutique" stat. RBI? What is it really? Lets see...
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
Seems some posters and fans are relegating outstanding valid measures of a players hitting value to simple 'boutique' stats, meaning they are really not worthy of much. Yet, they themselves trumpet a stat like RBI which was also a new or 'boutique' stat in MLB at one time as well! Funny.
It kind of reminds me of the joke where two immigrants are in line to get off the ship...the first guy gets off the ship, turns to the next guy and says, "get off my land!"
RBI tells you how many runs a player brings across home plate with his bat. Many people look at this and make gross and inaccurate assumptions on that players value. Sometimes a player with a high RBI total is in line with how good he really was, but often times it is not! Only when you know exactly how many RBI opportunities a man had, does it begin to have some sort of meaning.
The funny thing is that these people value RBI so much, they totall neglect how many RBI opportunities the said player is creating for the next couple guys in the lineup!!! Surely if one views RBI as a mighty measurement...wouldn't they also thirst to know how many times he is creating juicy RBI for the next guy? I sure would want to know. Yet that aspect is often neglected.
Then you also have to see how many RBI he leaves out there. If you are going to credit him for his RBI total, then you have to see how many he failed to drive in as well. It is only fair if looking at raw totals like such. If one likes RBI so much, aren't they just as worried how many RBI they FAIL to drive in? After all, if driving one in is such a big deal, then shouldn't be failing to drive one in be just as big.
Take for example the 1984 RBI race. Jim Rice had 122, Eddie Murray 110. On the surface, one gets excited about Rice's 'victory'. Well, one should get excited, that is until they dig deeper and find out the reasons for those totals...
Batting with how many men on 2B:
Rice.....had 155 men on second and drove in 23% of them
Murray had 117 men on second and drove in 27 % of them
Rice...... had 76 men on third an drove in 59% of them.
Murray had 62 men on third and drove in 58% of them.
Rice.....had 49 on third w/ less than two out drove in76%
Murray had 37 on third w/ less than two out drove in 78%
Rice......had 281 men on first and drove in 7.5%
Murray had 228 men on first and drove in 8%
Total count:
Rice ....had 231 men on in scoring position, drove in 35%
Murray had 179 men on in scoring postiong, drove in 38%
Yet Rice had 12 more RBI, and in the minds of many fans they look at that, and think WOW, the best RBI man, most feared! It really isn't the case though. Rice had 52 more RBI opportunities, 12 of which in the easy RBI spot of man on third/less than two out! He also had 53 more men on 1B to drive in. Yet he only had 12 more RBI.
TIMES ON BASE. How many RBI opportunties did they leave their teammates??
Murray was on base 260 times. That is actually standing on base(meaning not double counting HR)
Rice.... was on base 200 times. So he gave his team 60 less chances to score runs than Murray.
Then please understand where Rice played in a park that in fact increased extra base hits, AND batting average, thus making it easier for him to drive in runs because of this advantage(making his % of runners drive in easier to attain).
Seems some guys are calling the best stats "boutique" stats. What the 'boutique' stats really are is an understanding off all this concrete factual data. You can go through every single play by play, and know EXACTLY how many times player A did this, how many outs there were...etc. But instead of going through all of that, all one had to do was look at the stat below and it would have told you the same thing...the thing that the misleading RBI total was COMPLETELY LYING ABOUT!
OPS+ Murray 156
OPS+ RIce 112
Actually, the OPS+ doesn't account for the men on hitting...just what the typical hitting event would bring. So it needs to go furhter, and that is adjusted batter runs. This is based on every event, and every base and out situation.
Murray had 60 runs created above what a league average player would...the best in MLB that season.
Rice..... had 6 runs created above what a league average player would. No, the "6" is NOT a misprint. It is "11" w/ no ballpark factor!
Rice's low total corrects the mistake that the RBI total is making...the fact that he had soo many more opportunites to drive runners in, and HE DID IT AT A LOWER PERCENTAGE. It also takes into account the dearth of RBI opportunites he gave his teammates. In essence, if he HAD NOT driven in 100 runs that season, I would be questioning if he had both arms working.
Then there is 1986 where Rice had the fourth most RBI opportunites in one season, 4th most of any in all the years from 1975 to 1992. Tony Perez had the most in 1975...go figure. In fact, Rice holds THREE of the top twenty five spots on that chart. George Foster is the only other player with more than one(he has two).
One can scour the play by play data that is available from 1958 to 2007...in fact it has been scoured by many smart men...and this type of examination can be done for every player and every season. Welll, actually it has been done, and the result is some very good measurments that capture what a player really did, how often, and how many runs he makes or fails to make.
If that is a boutique stat, then i guess Webster's should be adding a new definition to 'boutique'....MORE ACCURATE.
It kind of reminds me of the joke where two immigrants are in line to get off the ship...the first guy gets off the ship, turns to the next guy and says, "get off my land!"
RBI tells you how many runs a player brings across home plate with his bat. Many people look at this and make gross and inaccurate assumptions on that players value. Sometimes a player with a high RBI total is in line with how good he really was, but often times it is not! Only when you know exactly how many RBI opportunities a man had, does it begin to have some sort of meaning.
The funny thing is that these people value RBI so much, they totall neglect how many RBI opportunities the said player is creating for the next couple guys in the lineup!!! Surely if one views RBI as a mighty measurement...wouldn't they also thirst to know how many times he is creating juicy RBI for the next guy? I sure would want to know. Yet that aspect is often neglected.
Then you also have to see how many RBI he leaves out there. If you are going to credit him for his RBI total, then you have to see how many he failed to drive in as well. It is only fair if looking at raw totals like such. If one likes RBI so much, aren't they just as worried how many RBI they FAIL to drive in? After all, if driving one in is such a big deal, then shouldn't be failing to drive one in be just as big.
Take for example the 1984 RBI race. Jim Rice had 122, Eddie Murray 110. On the surface, one gets excited about Rice's 'victory'. Well, one should get excited, that is until they dig deeper and find out the reasons for those totals...
Batting with how many men on 2B:
Rice.....had 155 men on second and drove in 23% of them
Murray had 117 men on second and drove in 27 % of them
Rice...... had 76 men on third an drove in 59% of them.
Murray had 62 men on third and drove in 58% of them.
Rice.....had 49 on third w/ less than two out drove in76%
Murray had 37 on third w/ less than two out drove in 78%
Rice......had 281 men on first and drove in 7.5%
Murray had 228 men on first and drove in 8%
Total count:
Rice ....had 231 men on in scoring position, drove in 35%
Murray had 179 men on in scoring postiong, drove in 38%
Yet Rice had 12 more RBI, and in the minds of many fans they look at that, and think WOW, the best RBI man, most feared! It really isn't the case though. Rice had 52 more RBI opportunities, 12 of which in the easy RBI spot of man on third/less than two out! He also had 53 more men on 1B to drive in. Yet he only had 12 more RBI.
TIMES ON BASE. How many RBI opportunties did they leave their teammates??
Murray was on base 260 times. That is actually standing on base(meaning not double counting HR)
Rice.... was on base 200 times. So he gave his team 60 less chances to score runs than Murray.
Then please understand where Rice played in a park that in fact increased extra base hits, AND batting average, thus making it easier for him to drive in runs because of this advantage(making his % of runners drive in easier to attain).
Seems some guys are calling the best stats "boutique" stats. What the 'boutique' stats really are is an understanding off all this concrete factual data. You can go through every single play by play, and know EXACTLY how many times player A did this, how many outs there were...etc. But instead of going through all of that, all one had to do was look at the stat below and it would have told you the same thing...the thing that the misleading RBI total was COMPLETELY LYING ABOUT!
OPS+ Murray 156
OPS+ RIce 112
Actually, the OPS+ doesn't account for the men on hitting...just what the typical hitting event would bring. So it needs to go furhter, and that is adjusted batter runs. This is based on every event, and every base and out situation.
Murray had 60 runs created above what a league average player would...the best in MLB that season.
Rice..... had 6 runs created above what a league average player would. No, the "6" is NOT a misprint. It is "11" w/ no ballpark factor!
Rice's low total corrects the mistake that the RBI total is making...the fact that he had soo many more opportunites to drive runners in, and HE DID IT AT A LOWER PERCENTAGE. It also takes into account the dearth of RBI opportunites he gave his teammates. In essence, if he HAD NOT driven in 100 runs that season, I would be questioning if he had both arms working.
Then there is 1986 where Rice had the fourth most RBI opportunites in one season, 4th most of any in all the years from 1975 to 1992. Tony Perez had the most in 1975...go figure. In fact, Rice holds THREE of the top twenty five spots on that chart. George Foster is the only other player with more than one(he has two).
One can scour the play by play data that is available from 1958 to 2007...in fact it has been scoured by many smart men...and this type of examination can be done for every player and every season. Welll, actually it has been done, and the result is some very good measurments that capture what a player really did, how often, and how many runs he makes or fails to make.
If that is a boutique stat, then i guess Webster's should be adding a new definition to 'boutique'....MORE ACCURATE.
0
Comments
Murray had 60 runs created above what a league average player would...the best in MLB that season.
Rice..... had 6 runs created above what a league average player would. No, the "6" is NOT a misprint. It is "11" w/ no ballpark factor!
Skip that really only tells me how Rice fared against Murray. For that to mean anything to me I would need to know how many players were between the two. or was Rice second on that list and then we had 400 average guys and then 400 below average? it is for that reason and reasons like that alone that i call these type of stats 'boutique'
Steve
How dare you imply what I think or what I feel is boutique. You are way off.
I never said that they were not worthy. They usually though, do not tell me the whole story. They are nothing more IMO then the basic stats that I see on the back of a BB card. Only they have been extended into areas I do not need to see when forming my opinion of a ball player.
all this talk of how many men he had on base to drive in IMO is not needed, I do not have to go over every pitch to see what I need to see. You may and that is fine, but please do not assume that i feel that stats I consider 'boutique' do not have any value. All stats have value, even those stats that are described in such a way to further ones opinion.
Steve
yes, but only when we are talking about Arod.
Steve
(kidding)
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
I will answer. Murray was at 60 above average. 0 represents the average player, and as one would guess, there would be many players near zero. I believe Mattingly was second with 58. Winfield had 44, rounding out the famous 1985 Donruss card. Hrbek had 42. Those are a few of the studs that year.
Guys like Andre Thornton had 22. A good supply of guys in this range. Spike Owen had -16. Rick Demspey had -23 in half a season worth of at bats. That should give a good representation.
To put his high RBI total of 122 into more perspective, I talked about failing to drive in a run...a stat we see often in games Men Left On Base.
In 1984 American league, among middle of the order type hitters, batting 500 odd times, Lance Parrish failed to drive in 177 men from scoring position(making an out in the process as well). That was the league 'leader' of the dubious honor.
Jim Rice was SECOND in the league at 151!.
Armas 141
Bruno 139
Ripken 129
Thornton 128
Parrish 128
Gibby 126
Yount 123
Cooper 121
Baylor 118
Kingman 116
ward 115
Winfield 115
Mattingly 114
Dewey 114
Downing 112
Murray 111
Reggie 105
Hrbek 105
These are all guys in the middle, and it gives an idea of what it COST Rice to drive in that many runs.
By using Rice's 122 RBI in 1984 as a significant element of his value, It is like the gambler winning 100K and telling everybody he knows about...only hiding the fact that he lost 125K in other bets that he doesn't tell people.
That is the danger of using RBI, without knowing the surrounding data. That is the danger of guessing the value of each event too! You dont have to guess, it is all there in the play by play data...an amazing source of info that was at one time a mystery!
Lots of fans will say, well it is his job to drive in the runners. They must be then asked...is it also his job to fail to drive them in?
Even if you looked at Rice and Murray's triple crown stats that year you would see....
.306.. 29.. 110
.280.. 28.. 122
Based on what you are saying, they would look VERY close. But when you dig deeper, and really look at the value of each BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, out made, DP made...you get the situational batter runs of Murray leading the league at 60, and Rice very near league average at 6. RIce at 11 not park adjusted. That is a SUBSTANTIALLY different story than the cursory triple crown stats.
It is a question I have always wondered about: Do RBIs offer any insight at all?
Rice had a lot of RBIs simply because he was a .300 hitter with 30 homeruns playing in a very good lineup. So in this case having a high RBI total represents nothing that can't be seen from his average and homeruns (or the obp of Boggs and Evans). He had no ability to drive in runners beyond his ability to swing the bat as measured in other stats
I can think of one example where the RBI stat gives some meaning. Red Sox fans may remember Julio Lugo having one of the worst slumps possible last year, dropping his average from something like .230 to .180 in one month. But just before that happened somehow he was a .230 leadoff hitter with two or three homeruns, and 30 RBI over two months. Didn't mean Lugo was doing much, but it did point out two other interesting things:
For a couple months Pedroia was the Red Sox MVP and Coco Crisp really is an outstanding baserunner, perhaps the best in the league
Any other examples anyone can think of?
Even if you looked at Rice and Murray's triple crown stats that year you would see....
.306.. 29.. 110
.280.. 28.. 122
Look at my post just above yours, as I kind of touched on somethings, and failed chances. But most fans AND VOTERS of HALL and MVP would look at those triple crown stats and base their decision on that. I know you would dig deeper, but most wouldn't.
Edited to add: TomG, I have studied the RBI a bunch. This stuff even the most non sabermetric person could understand(at least I hope so). This is stuff the regular fan can relate to. The problem comes with the next step...the end result so to speak. The non understanding, or reluctantcy to understand becomes an obstacle...thus relegating it to 'boutique' status.
Maybe I won't use the good stuff any more, and just break it down in terms that people could relate to. What they may soon realize is that you don't have to spend all that time breaking it down...it already is done!
<< <i>
Look at my post just above yours, as I kind of touched on somethings, and failed chances. But most fans AND VOTERS of HALL and MVP would look at those triple crown stats and base their decision on that. I know you would dig deeper, but most wouldn't. >>
What's truly amazing is you don't really have to dig all that deep. Really, you have to be wearing blinders to miss it. And yet people still do. .306 average to .280 is a difference of .026 in success rate. Murray's .410 obp to Rice's .323 is a difference of .087 in failure rate. Or nearly exactly the same as what those extremely detailed situational stats tell us. And both sets tell us that RBIs are worthless
You are correct, a simple look at OB% and SLG% tells a whole lot. Amazing that those stats are neglected by a big part of fandom. In fact, many years ago, I didn't look at them as seriou either...until I actually studied what was going on(my old hobby).
But it isn't until you look at the situational batter runs that tells the story. If the situational info isn't available(like before 1958), then standard batter runs work fine. Winshares tell a whole lot too. People make fun of them, but trumpet a stat like RBI? It is odd, but I understand where they are coming from.
People also make the mistake by comparing a players career OB% when he only played till age 34, to a guy who played until past 40.
The second mistake is a total neglect of ballpark factor. Sure, there is some leeway in a ballpark factor, especially on a case by case basis, but a total neglect of it is missing an important part of the story.
Now it makes a lil more sense. thanks for the clarification.
Steve
Jim Rice career OPS+ is 128, Eddie Murray is 129. Seemingly the same, right? WRONG! The closeness in Park adjsuted OPS+ is firmly entrenched in the fact that Eddie Murray had THOUSANDS of post age 35 at bats, bringing his career rate down. That is the main reason. All you have to do is look at their best seasons of each and see where each was in their prime. Or an even simple method is see their yearly league rank in OPS+. That will tell you leaps in what you are looking for.
Murray's top five OPS+ seasonsa re 158,156,156,156,156.
Rice's.... Top five OPS+ seasons are 157, 154, 147, 141, 136
See, Rice's peak is excellent, but not quite as good as Murray's. But it is the NEXT five best seasons taht are more telling....
Murray. 149, 140, 138, 136, 136, 130, 129,126, 123, 120, 115, 113... still more, I am tired.
Rice.......130,127,123,122, 120, 116, 112, 102, 101, 70...then retired.
Murray's tenth best seasons is as good as Rice's fifth. Eddie Murray beats him in EVERY Season from best season one through best season twelve!! Beats him handily in many of them. Then Rice retired. Murray kept producing.
Murray's old man years drag down his career rate. He has a TON of old man at bats. Rice was at home at age 35, done as a hitter. Yet Murray was STILL above average almost all those years...jsut barely though in some years, bringing his total down, but still far superiro to rice.
Ditto for Evans to a lesser degree.
Second, OPS+ does not account for any men on hitting...or any of the situational hitting. Murray, and other palyers have much higher value than OPS+ suggests. In Murray's prime years with all those 156's, he had some of the best situational hitting in history. That isn't reflected in the OPS+, but it is in the situation batter runs. The gap widens between the two in that measure.
I just hope everybody can undestand what this means, and the proper way of comparing career rate stats like OPS+, OB%, or SLG%.
I think this is laid out clear and easy.
The simplest way to judge a player is to simply count the number of seasons where he was one of the very best in the league, then the number of times where he was well above average at a typical All-Star level, then count the number of times he was merely a solid contributor. Murray had as many as eight years where he was one of the best five hitters or so, another six still at an All-Star level and still a few more where he was still helping his team
He also hit more HRs per AB in Minnesota, Cleveland, Toronto, than he averaged at Fenway.
One can "adjust", or explain, or merely cry about certain parks favoring certain hitters, though Rice's home park was not his best hitting park, he did hit well, got over 200 hits four times, Murray got 186 in his very best season. Hits tend to drive in runs much more so than walks.
Rice had 46 HRs one year, also 3 other seasons with 39 round-trippers. 33 is Murray's very best season. I dont recall any RBI stats posted about ones with the absense of any runners on, the HR factor greatly favors Rice in those.
RBIs are a situational stat as well, an RBI in a 8-1 ballgame is not quite the same as one in a 2-1 game. A solo HR in the second inning is niot quite the same as one in the ninth.
All on base/ RBI % stats presented before, have no relation to the game situations.
Best career RBI producers:
Aaron, Ruth, Bonds, Gehrig, and Musial
Best single seasons;
H Wislon, Gehrig (3), Greenberg, Foxx, and Ruth
Rice's best RBI season 139 ( 2 others over 125 ), Murray's best is 124
Over their respedtive careers, a 162 game season projected RBIs; Rice 113, Murray 103
-A home park advantage is not merely seen in just HR, to ignore all the other events is pure folly.
-looking at just 150 at bats at a certain park is not enough at bats to back your argument. Look at what he did against all the pitchers in those parks, and then compare it to what he did against the SAME pitchers in Fenway. You will then see the difference. Why one would cry about the truth, I don't know.
But for fun, based on your logic, Rice would be a career .220 hitter in KC, and hit 12 HR for every 650+ at bats. A .232 in Arlington. See what I mean?
-How many runs a hit tends to lead to and how many runs a walk tends to lead to is all laid out int he play by play data. No mystery. No guessing. You can look it up yourself adn see. Simply look at the situational batter runs as it has been looked already.
-Rice hit HR at a good rate in his prime. Nobody is discounting that. After his prime, not so as much. BUT, I am not discounting the HR factor. That can be added as well. They were within one that season explained above, but Rice had 657 at bats, Murray 588. Rice has a ton of at bats in his prime seasons, thus high counting totals.
-Like i said above, you hail Rice for his success, i.e number of hits, number of RBI, but if you view those events to be so great, then why do you ignore his FAILURES at said events??
-RBI a situational stat. Jaxxr again NO MYSTERY!
Every one of Rice's RBI or Murray's, or anyone from 1960- to now can be seen exactly in the situation. It is no mystery. And just so you know...Rice is NOT one of the guys you will see getting a majority of his hits or RBI in key times(as opposed to non key times). In other words, he isn't one of the guys you will see in the 'clutch' arguments. Murray on the other hand, especially in those prime years, was the poster boy for Late Inning, close game hitting with men on.
For instance, through 1988 Eddie Murray was the MLB leader(from the 70's on) in Late inning hitting with Men ON, with a .353 average.
For the record, Jim Rice's career OPS in Late and Close games is .790. In at bats with the margin +/- four runs his OPS is .847.
What does that say? He certainly did not do any hitting in key situations that would make one say his RBI are worth more. ON THE CONTRARY! THe RBI posted above show they are actually worth LESS.
This is no myster. No guesswork. Everything is laid out and examined.
JAXXR, I am completely stunned, how can a person read all the above, and then in your last point use Rice's career RBI over 162 games, and compared it to Murray's! If a person can read what was written above, and then use this point as a basis for an argument, then I really don't know what to say. The answer to your 'point' can not be laid out any more clear as to WHY that looks like that.
You also used Rice's best RBI seasons and comapred to Murray. Again, I am simply dumbfounded by that last point, in respect to why those things happen.
And again, Rice's two best seasons are comparable to Murray's, no argument. It is from there on where the story truly unfolds....Murray's best season beats Rice's, and Murray's second best beats Rice, both by small margins. From there on Murray's 3rd through 15 beatr Rice's 3rd through 15(many by handy margins). But then Rice retired, and Murray added six more seasons of contribution.
If you want to do the same study with RBI you can, BUT YOU MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF OPP TO DO IT! Otherwise you get the totally erroneous result like the 1984 RBI shows Rice being better, when in fact Murray was clearly better.
But then don't forget the RBI opportunity they are leaving for others!! If you view RBI as important, surely creating one for the next guy to get an RBI is as important.
I will show you again, as you must not have read all the above, or you wouldn't be using the points you used.
OPS+ BEST SEASONS
M...R
158-157
156-154
156-147
156-141
156-136
149-130
140-127
138-123
136-122
130-120
129-116
126-112
123-102
120-101
115-70
113
111
105
87
86
Then realize that Eddie Murray had a higher percentage of his hits with men on and scoring position than did Rice, thus making that OPS+ gap even wider. That gap can be seen in the situatioanl batter runs posted in the other Rice fan vote thread.
Since you are interested in game score situation, the gap widens EVEN MORE as pointed out above, as Rice got a higher percentage of his hits with the game not close, while Murray was the opposite.
So now we have a gap between the two as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Come on guys, that was a joke...
The BBWAA does not know baseball as a general rule, nor do most of them care to learn the "new" diagnostic tools that some of the baseball wizard statistical geek geniuses have created.
They will remain ignorant, like most of the world does about most things. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will continue to vote as there is no jurisdiction in place with the authority to change that, and I don't know how it could be changed in the future...
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
The thing is, the above stuff isn't anything fancy, it is just plain common sense!
The 'fancy' stuff is just putting the above breakdown into whole terms to make it easier to put into context. The reluctance to accept such easy and precise information is just baffling.
It is so funny that the big RBI backers do not account for how many opportunities...it is such a basic and logical step...I am baffled.
It is extremely weird how they view RBI as such a big thing, yet IGNORE how many RBI opps that player is providing himself!
Again, all that stuff is answered in situational batter runs. Maybe thirty years ago all that stuff was a mystery and a guess, but not anymore. It is all laid like a hot chick with her beaver staring you in the face, ready to be jumped on.
How one cannot grasp why using a career AVG to compare players who have A)a shorter career, to B)players who batted 3,000 times after they turned 35 is not accurate, is another complete baffler.
Edit: I like this analogy better than your usual ones!
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.
Home runs, Extra base hits, and hits in total, are MUCH more likely to produce a RBI than a walk, Rice was absolutely better than Murray in those stats.
It is NOT an arguement that Rice hit better in most offensive stats, at Yankee Stadium, than he did at often misunderstood Fenway, it is a FACT.
The OPS + stat , of which Rice does have the better single season over Murray, is not the same as RBIs, nor was the topic of this thread.
The only thing that matters on who was better was the guy who's hitting was responsible for more runs. Total hits tell a small amount. The OPS+ and especially the situational batter runs tell the whole story, thus no need to even look at a guy's RBI total.
Of all the things you are presuming and guessing like how many runs a hit or walk or anything typically leads to is already known. There is no need to guess or presume, the information is there already. The COST OF TRYING TO GET A HIT AND PRODUCING MORE OUTS IN TE PROCESS is also known...and that is a facet you aren't recognizing, as do most fans not recognize.
To construct a case based on the figures you attempted to use (in order to counter the case presented that includes ALL the things you are talking about(and more), just does not make sense.
Then when you used career stats based on per 162 games, makes even less sense considering the length of their careers. All you need to do is look at the following...
OPS+ BEST SEASONS
M...R
158-157
156-154
156-147
156-141
156-136
149-130
140-127
138-123
136-122
130-120
129-116
126-112
123-102
120-101
115-70
113
111
105
87
86
That is telling. If you are interested in the RBI aspect, then you have the situational batter runs that goes over every base and out situation each hit occured in. Knowing all this information there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO EVEN LOOK AT THE TOTAL RBI.
All you have to do is take OPS+ to the next level with the situational batter runs, and you get the following comparisons...
Murray, Howard, Rice. Their best seasons in batter runs each.
M--H---R
60-71-47
55-65-43
55-50-28
46-44-24
43-34-18
33-31-15
29-26-9
28-24-9
28-8-7
27-6-6
26-4-4
20-3-3
20-2-1
19--6--5
17.....-7
17.....-10
13
12
0
-19
-21
If you are concerned about what the score was when said hitting occured, like you tried to use to debunk the method, then just realize that Rice did his worst hitting in the Late/Close category...and did much better in hitting with they were down or up by four runs. And that Eddie Murray was the complete opposite of that.
In fact, if Murray's men on hitting isn't enough, through 1988 before his regression due to age(ahem like Rice's total career), you have the following hitting when it counts from Murray...
Late Inning Pressure Situations....353 average.
LIPS w/ Runners in scoring position....373 average.
LIPS w/ Runners in scoring position and 2 outs...378 average.
And before you get excited and think it is only batting average...the OB% and SLG% both have the same spike.
And here, you asked for the % of driving in runs in meaningful situations? Through 1988 Murray drove in 41% of runners from scoring position in the late inning pressure situations(the best in MLB since 1975 with anyone near his at bats). Rice was hovering near 30%.
So when you only look at Murray's main career(like Rice's), all your questions and objectiosn are answered, period.
What else do you have? Anything else would be very minor. Intangibles like leadership, hard work, or any other cliche you know would almost never be applied to Jim Rice, unless you were his mom.
Of course that shows an unreal, stats-enamroured thought process.
Runs as most know, do in fact, not in theory, determine the outcome of a baseball game.
There are many, contibutory or interesting stats, which are all less important than runs. Runs driven in and runs scored, they are the currency of the game.
Runs scored best season; Rice 121, Murray 115
Runs driven in best season; Rice 139, Murray 124
Career via a 162 game season; RBIs Rice 113, Murray 103
Career via a 162 game season; Runs Scored Rice 97, Murray 87
I kind of feel Total bases is a little better secondary stat than OPS+, as it not only shows a hitters, likelyhood to drive in a run, it also combines the position on a base the hitter may take and therefore also add to the likelyhood of scoring a run.
Total Bases single season best; Rice 406, Murray 322
Career TB via a 162 game season; Rice 320, Murray 289
It may a little bold to continue to point out Rice's home run superiority over Murray, however it is interesting to mention that Jim Rice had a season high of 15 Triples, and averaged 6 per 162 games, Steady Eddie had a season best of 3.
RBI's win games.
Steve
The degree of misunderstanding is so high, I simply can't respond.
I am simply speechless.
Mom always said if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything. I am going to take mom's advice on this one.
Enjoy some football boys.
Skin speechless? Say it ain't so!
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 think I learned in third grade the effect that teammates have on RBI and Runs scored for players. Thank God the actual data of exactly how many Opps a player has is right there to see. But you still freakin ignore that. It is simply unbelieveable, and either you aren't reading what is written, or something simply isn't wired right upstairs.
Rice's best two seasons are comparable to Murray's, after that it is all downhill, EVEN IN RBI, WHEN YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE MEN ON OPPS.
-By fourth grade I learned the effect of a short career where a player doesn't go through the down phase of his career, and how it helps his career rates like BA, OB%, SLG%, or per at bat and per game rates. Then to compare that to a player who had thousands of at bats late in his career is a mistake.
It looks like some adults haven't learned that yet! For those adults who have not learned it yet, then I do not know why you waste your time with anything other than a crusade for KEN PHELPS! Jaxxr, Ken Phelps averaged one HR every 15 at bats. Based on your philosophy and ill informed thoughts, you should be on a crusade for the guy with that HR rate. It blows Rice's out of the water, and he is in Ted Williams territory.
-By sixth grade I learned that FAILING to drive in a run by making an out is as equally bad as it is good to drive in a run.
-I also learned that a hitter can be creating a run when he doesn't get credit for either and RBI or Run scored. A walk to move a man to second base, followed by a single by the next guy as an example. Or, by not making extra outs!! Again, thank god the play by play data shows that frequency.
Grote, that is why I am speechless.
This is all from the play by play data. No guessing. Just equalizing a guy's RBI total based on the number of opportunities in each base out situation! So we look at Rice's opps with man on third and less than two outs...the easiest RBI chance around. He simply had more of them than others, especially than a guy like Murray. He simply had more of all RBI opps than other guys...and you know what, he failed more often than others as well. DO NOT FORGET THAT!!
Here is the yearly chart. The number represents how many RBI they had, over what the expected total was for a league average hitter with their same amount of opportunties.
Murray-Rice
51...54
40...39
38...34
36...28
31...23
29...15
28...13
27...12
25...11
23...8
23...8
22...3
22...-2
19...-2
19...-2
17...-5
15
14
3
-5
-11
Steve,
If RBI win games, then Rice wasn't winning many more than the average guy most of the time. His total RBI is inflated due to the glut of runners on base. The writer was right before, it is like electing Wade Boggs to the HOF twice!
Jaxxr, if you want to get all 'wet' because his top two edge Murray's, go ahead....but then blue balls will following seeing he got trounced every other year.
But then don't forget that Murray's On base portion is what separated them even more. But simply look at the situational batter runs and it tells you the same thing.
I am going to imagine you posting those RBI totals per 162 games and think you got something telling.
Not sure why you are speechless, I too knew this in the 3rd grade. I just don't try to ram it down other peoples throats as if it is the most important factor in assessing a players ability and when comparing players. I take in other factors too.
IMO a guy could go 0 for 4 with Runners in scoring pos then drive in the winning run and IMO he did good.......that day.
Just because you say it is so does not mean that everyone has to agree with you.
How you can blame a guy for having RBI chances is beyond me. Of course it is good to be on a team that affords you those chances. When Foster got traded to the Mets I remember Pete Rose saying, "who is George going to drive in over there'? he seemed to know what you are trying to say (as many Mets fans did too) w/o going into all the mathmatics that you seem to enjoy so much. Don't get me wrong you bring some great theorys here to light but they are not the only ways to assess a player. It is the way you like to do it. Others like other ways.
Steve
Steve
-By sixth grade I learned that FAILING to drive in a run by making an out is as equally bad as it is good to drive in a run.
Not sure I understand that.
yes both are outs, so both are as bad?
you lost me.
I thought that if I drive in a run with an out it is better then not driving in a run and making an out.
Steve
<< <i>-By sixth grade I learned that FAILING to drive in a run by making an out is as equally bad as it is good to drive in a run.
Not sure I understand that.
yes both are outs, so both are as bad?
you lost me.
I thought that if I drive in a run with an out it is better then not driving in a run and making an out.
Steve >>
Ofcourse your right, no matter what way you slice that driving in a run is better. Period end of story.
Most may understand the teammate aspect, but Jaxxr seems to not.
RBI produced with an out are counted in those totals. Late innng hitting is also know(Rice wasn't special there at all). So what is your point. Yeah, those are good, but they are accounted for already. So what is the point?
But the FAILING TO DRIVE IN A RUN WITH AN OUT means, RICE FAILED TO DRIVE IN MORE RUNNERS THAN ALL THOSE GUYS! He left them on base! HE DIDN"T DRIVE THEM IN! That is the cost everyone forgets,.
Steve,
I am not blaming anybody for having RBI chances. When one guy gets 40 RBI chances with a man on third, and the other only gets 25...then some fan or writer gets all wet and says the first guy is better because he ahs more RBI, then HE is blaming the other guy for not having the luxury of all the men on base.
In the case of Jim Rice...and just like the Expected RBI chart shows...he was not nearly as important as you believe BASED ON HIS INFLATED RBI total. In some of those seasons, with all those opportunities...if he had not driven in 100 runs, then I would have questioned if he was alive.
This isn't about theory. It is simple fact. Rice had a much higher amount of opportunites, thus more RBI. Simple A,B,C.
In simple terms, Rice is like Ish from Kingpin...It takes him 15 frames to bowl a 260...while others bowl a 250 in ten frames! Then everyone gets all excited because he has a 260, because they are unaware of the extra frames or turns he needed to achieve so.
When people go around using incorrect information...or information missing the key elements, and then those people use it to elevate one person over another, then that is unfair to someone. Jaxxr's poor use of RBI total being an obvious example.
Steve, you say you do it your way...but why on earth would anyone do it that way when there are other ways so much more accurate and telling? What is the purpose? Is it to reinforce a feeling of knowledge because that is the only way one would know?
Besides, all the 'way's' you are referring to are in there...only more accurate.
Why on earth would anybody use total RBI and then trumpet a player when it is so obviously flawed, especially when the key information is all available to see. Again, Jaxxr's use of RBI total an example. When fans do this, they are doing a disservice to the players whom are truly as good or better than they are given credit for.
Does that matter? It matters to Reggie Smith, or Frank Howard, or Tim Raines and their families. So because of ignorance of all the information, fans continue to use methods as I explained above, as if they are close to truth. This hurts the players TRULY deserving of recognition, and unfairly elevates guys who should not be getting heaping amounts of recognition.
Anybody ever interested in Jim Rice's raw RBI total, need even to EVER bother looking at it with any relevance. It is only really telling when knowing the amount of Opps and his success rate at getting them in. The result is how many RBI he achieved over an average hitter with the same amount of opps. The comparison chart is posted again for illustration. Like Billy Jean Davie said..."fair is fair."
Murray-Rice
51...54
40...39
38...34
36...28
31...23
29...15
28...13
27...12
25...11
23...8
23...8
22...3
22...-2
19...-2
19...-2
17...-5
15
14
3
-5
-11
Anyone chosing to do it "their way" is simply doing a disservice to the people who merit more recognition.
But I weep when guys like Eddie Murray are dragged through the Jim Rice muck. You want to compare Murray to Harmon Killebrew or Carl Yastrzemski or someone worthy of being in the same sentence with Murray and I'm all over it. How much better was Murray than Rice? How much better was Ruth than Murray? Answer's about the same. Eddie Murray being better than JIM Rice IS divine truth; God didn't tell that to me directly, but he gave me eyes to see.
I swear if anybody notices that Rice's HR and RBI stats are a lot better than Honus Wagner's and tries to use THAT in an argument, my head will simply explode.
I think that was all Skip.
If there were 2 players left and I was picking a team and those 2 were Rice and Murray I'd pick Murray and I don't have to write up and read about a gazzillion papers to know this.
Steve
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 am simply speechless.
Mom always said if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything. I am going to take mom's advice on this one.
Enjoy some football boys."
The above was posted Sunday
Skin has responded four separate times since, good thing he wasn't ready to talk
Perhaps just his typical fun loving, warm, open minded, good-natured jests, perhaps an indicator of his credibility ???.
1984 Red Sox were last in steals in the A.L. with 38
1984 Baltimore were 12th in steals in the A.L. with 51
As well, perhaps Rice faced more quality pitchers than Murray did???
Conclusion, I'm still looking at RBIs to show production as an indicator. Does it tell the whole story no, but what is the alternative that you put on the back of a baseball card?
Erik
Hey Hoopster, when are you going to give up the crusade against Rice and pick some other victim for your pointed attacks? We all get it by now. You don't think Rice was very good and we are all idiots.
where you know see 'RBI' you will in the future see ' RBIBOTAOO'
oops I left out the 'P'
RBIBOTAOOP
that is it!
Steve
<< <i>RBIBOTAOOP >>
People use to say the same thing about OPS, but that is on cards now too. Wouldn't be very hard at all to put Batter Runs on there. But this kind of illustrates my point!!
People used to buy cards for the picture and for the stats to learn, but there is no longer any need to buy a baseball card for the stats, as that information is just a tip of the ice berg of the more ACCURATE information is available. I guess it comes down to if you want to be informed, or just not informed.
Jaxxr, I was speechless. I couldn't believe the stuff I read. I then regrouped so to speak. Still unbelievable though.
VOn, who said Rice wasn't very good? Where do you get that stuff from? He simply isn't as good as his followers believe, plain and simple. Using his RBI totals as a tool to show how great he is, is the mistake being made. I'm not sure how it can be painted any more clear.
Rice just isn't as good as the other Slugging HOFer's, he isn't as good as other slugging HOFers who are NOT in the Hall like Frank Howard, or Dick Allen, or Dwight Evans...
He is better than a heckuva lot of baseball players though. Nobody said anything different than that.
Estang, neither Murray or Rice were exactly blessed with speed burners ahead of them. Though, impact of runners can be checked as well. This impact does hurt Murray and Rice compared to some hitters(not all though, as some ahve the same thing as well).
Hoopster appears at various times, sometimes a little hammered, sometimes a little goofy, and sometimes armed and ready...stay tuned.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Perhaps the below listed stuff is hard for some to beleive, however it is in fact true and really did happen. It is documented and can be researched or looked up.
Runs scored best season; Rice 121, Murray 115
Runs driven in best season; Rice 139, Murray 124
Career via a 162 game season; RBIs Rice 113, Murray 103
Career via a 162 game season; Runs Scored Rice 97, Murray 87
Total Bases single season best; Rice 406, Murray 322
Career TB via a 162 game season; Rice 320, Murray 289
HRs one season; Rice 46 ( 3 others of 39 ), Murray 33
Career via a 162 game season; Rice 30, Murray 27
Hits single season Rice 213 ( 3 other 200+ ), Murray 186
Career via a 162 game season; Rice 190, Murray 174
It may be a little bold to continue to point out Rice's home run superiority over Murray, however it is interesting to mention that Jim Rice had a season high of 15 Triples, and averaged 6 per 162 games, Steady Eddie had a single season best of 3.
Rice hit better in Yankee Stadium than at Fenway, he also had more HRs per at bat in Cleveland, Minnesota, and Toronto, than at Fenway
May I suggest MLB.com, Retrosheet, SportingNews.com, BBref.com, BB Encyclopedia, and others, as places where you can look these up and then believe they did happen.
Do they tell the whole story, as Skin is so fond of saying, of course not, no stat or group of stats are perfect, nor without bias.
Do they possibly show Jim Rice is a bit similar to Steady Eddie Murray ? Maybe.
<< <i>Yeah, but there's approximately a bazillion other threads that Hoopster started that are all about how Rice is inferior to someone else. He's leading the league in Rice bashing while Dallas merely has the highest concentration of Rice Venom or HCoRV as we stat guys like to call it. >>
I'm #1! I'm #1! I'm #1!
But ditto what skinpinch/hoopster said - Rice was a very good baseball player, probably one of the 100 best outfielders of all time, and probably one of the 300 best overall players.
There are about 200 people in the HOF based on their play in MLB. About 25 of those are clearly mistakes, so there are about 175 players that have at least a strong argument for belonging in the HOF (and I'm including Mazeroski, so there). By my figuring, there are roughly 10 players who are not in the HOF who obviously should be (Santo, Blyleven, etc.), and about 100 more who were better than Jim Rice but don't belong in the HOF. It's not "venom", it's "frustration".
I am speechless that you would post those figures AGAIN and think they have such high relevance. No, they don't tell the whole story. They tell the first paragraph of a book, and that is about it. Please stop, for your own sake.
Jaxxr, for a guy that knows what and where Retrosheet is, and to use the figures that you just used as if they tell anything much, is another thing that makes me speechless. May I suggest you study retrosheet a little more!!! You may actually learn something there that is of use.
Your analysis being used is quite possibly the worst I have ever seen on these boards. Yes, Retrosheet is calling...please answer. PLEASE!! PLEASE!! I don't know if I can take it anymore.
Retrosheet has all the info on the number of RBI over the expected number of RBI. That is the one that tells you how it is Rice's opportunities are a drviing force in his total. I already posted the chart STRAIGHT FROM RETROSHEET. Use it for Pete's sake.
And no, not all measurements are bias. Bias is picking out one or two instances that show a tiny sliver of your case, like you did above, and then use it as if it is relevant. Your use of that makes you look foolish. I am asking to stop for your own sake.
THeVon, Dallas is certainly number one on bashing Rice. I have actually said many words of praise towards Rice...some very recently in fact. If the sleuth in you wants to check, you may be surprised!
Please check your math, or basic counting,
There are 12 or 13 stats which show Rice a bit better than Murray, even more if some single seson betterments like HRs are used.
I have no case, nor agenda, all numbers posted were FACTS, thing that really did happen, most open-minded individuals can form their own opinions as to, if Rice had some numbers better than Steady Eddie. They are probably able to decide if HRs, Total bases, Triples, base hits, batting average, whatever, is relevant in evaluating a player's performance.
You really shouldn't give Jaxxr a hard time about reposting stats that you don't find relevant because you frequently repost stats (that some don't find relevant) and I've even seen you post the same stats in multiple threads before.
Anyway, I take offense to you callilng Jaxxr's analysis the worst you've ever seen on these boards because you have said that my analysis, comparisons, or analagies were the worst. I guess I'll have to work to reclaim my throne.
Jaxxr,
That is a very good start. Now how about only using Murray's first 2100 games or so, not the final 1 000 when he was still good enough to be a Major League hitter, but Rice was not? Rice still leads, though it is a littel closer (HR 30 to 29 for examples). How about using the stats that correlate the strongest with winning baseball games that aren't so dependent on teammates?
And what were Rice and Murray's overall home-road splits, not just the 14 homeruns in 300 at bats he hit in Minnesota?
Answer those questions and the picture might look a little differently