Options
Rice v Tenace
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From Billjamesonline.com:
By Dave Fleming
In my last article, I wrote that people who advocate that Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame ought to fight for Gene Tenace instead.
It was an off-hand comment: a snarky remark made without too much consideration. When I wrote it I knew three things about Gene Tenace: he was a catcher for the A’s, he had a good World Series once, and he has a better OPS+ than Jim Rice.
By comparison, I know a lot about Jim Rice. He was one of the most popular players on my favorite team. He once broke his bat on a checked swing. He had over 400 total bases in 1978, which sure seemed like a damned big deal. And he was the leftfielder for the Red Sox, the guy who replaced the great Yaz.
Tenace over Rice: it was glib comment and the good readers at BJOL seemed content to let it pass. ChiSox wrote: “Some assertions just have to be let go without a comment.” Evan, taking the bait, wrote some thoughtful comments about Tenace and Rice before concluding: “You probably didn’t get a debate because it’s a preposterous assertion.”
Evan is correct: the suggestion that Gene Tenace was better than Jim Rice is preposterous. On the one hand you have one of the most prominent hitter of the late 1970’s, a player who was a legitimate Triple Crown threat. On the other hand you have Gene Tenace, a lifetime .241 hitter. There should be no comparison.
The Golden Years
Let’s stick with 1975-1979. Five years in which the careers of Jim Rice and Gene Tenace overlapped.
1975-1979 is Jim Rice’s best five years stretch. He had another fine run between 1982 and 1986, but 1975-1979 represents the peak of Jim Rice’s career
These are not Gene Tenace’s best years: Fury’s best five-year stretch was 1973-1977. Tenace is seven years older than Jim Rice, and his peak years came a little earlier. So we’re comparing the best of Jim Rice with the not-quite-best of Gene Tenace.
Enough talk. Here are their numbers between 1975-1979:
G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS+
Jim Rice 778 509 147 570 .311 .360 .556 142
Tenace 726 334 102 342 .246 .396 .438 140
It doesn’t seem a fair fight, does it? Tenace has a 36-point edge in on-base percentage, but Rice has a 65-point edge in batting average and a 118-point edge in slugging percentage. He had 45 more homeruns, 174 runs scored, 228 RBI.
Just to pile on: here are their season-by-season Triple Crown numbers:
BA HR RBI
1975 Rice .309 22 102
Tenace .255 29 87
1976 Rice .282 25 85
Tenace .249 22 66
1977 Rice .320 29 114
Tenace .233 15 61
1978 Rice .315 39 139
Tenace .224 16 67
1979 Rice .325 46 130
Tenace .263 20 50
The only time Tenace beats Rice in any Triple Crown category is 1975, when he hit 7 more homers than Rice. Otherwise, Rice destroys Tenace. It’s never particularly close.
I’ll add that the consensus opinion of people who watched these players was that Rice was a far greater player than Tenace. Jim Rice finished 3rd in the 1975 AL MVP vote, 4th in 1977, 1st in 1978, and 5th in 1979, which means that four times in those five years, the people who watched him closely believed that Jim Rice was one of the very best players in the league. That counts for something.
For what it’s worth, Gene Tenace also had his best showing on the MVP ballots during this years, finishing 18th in both 1975 and 1976. Those were the only years he ever appeared on the MVP ballot.
Context Elements
We could stop there. The raw numbers give a decisive edge to Rice. The opinions of educated and thoughtful observers support this. So, too, does our common perception. No need to recount hanging chads: Rice is winning in a landslide.
But since we’ve gone this far, it can’t hurt to consider some contexts.
Let’s start with parks. Most of us know that Fenway Park is a terrific hitter’s park. Most of us know that Jim Rice benefited from playing in that park. Here are his home/road splits, 1975-1979:
Rice BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .313 .357 .520 Road .304 .343 .464
1976 Home .299 .339 .509 Road .266 .291 .455
1977 Home .321 .375 .683 Road .319 .377 .509
1978 Home .361 .416 .690 Road .269 .325 .512
1979 Home .369 .425 .728 Road .283 .337 .472
We all know that Rice benefited from playing in Fenway Park. What is misunderstood is just how much Rice benefited from playing there. Take Rice’s MVP year, 1978. He wasn’t just better at Fenway: he was a completely different hitter:
G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG
1978 Home 82 69 28 75 .361 .416 .690
1978 Road 81 52 18 64 .269 .325 .512
That’s not cherry-picking, either: the same thing holds true for 1977 and 1979. In those three years, Rice hit 124 homeruns. Of those, 82 were hit in Fenway Park, while only 42 came on the road.
Gene Tenace played in some terrible parks. The Oakland Coliseum, where Tenace played until 1977, was a lousy hitter’s park. San Diego’s Jack Murphy Stadium, where he moved in 1977, was even worse.
Tenace BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .254 .405 .467 Road .256 .385 .461
1976 Home .218 .368 .389 Road .277 .377 .518
1977 Home .205 .412 .300 Road .260 .417 .511
1978 Home .247 .389 .468 Road .204 .395 .355
1979 Home .256 .402 .332 Road .271 .403 .550
In 1977, his first year in San Diego, Tenace posted a .511 slugging percentage on the road, but only a .300 slugging percentage at home. Same hold true for 1979 (though his home/road splits flip in 1978).
Let’s compare Rice’s road numbers with Tenace’s road numbers:
Rice BA OBP SLG Tenace BA OBP SLG
Road .304 .343 .464 Road .256 .385 .461
Road .266 .291 .455 Road .277 .377 .518
Road .319 .377 .509 Road .260 .417 .511
Road .269 .325 .512 Road .204 .395 .355
Road .283 .337 .472 Road .271 .403 .550
Rice has the higher batting average, but Tenace laps him in on-base average. What’s more, Gene Tenace outslugs Jim Rice on the road in three of the five seasons.
Positions on Positions
Gene Tenace was a catcher/first baseman during these years. Jim Rice was a leftfielder and designated hitter. How do we measure across positions? How much credit do we give Tenace for playing a little over half his games behind the plate? How much should we penalize Rice for playing a position that is low on the defensive spectrum?
To step back a moment: there are a number of things that statistics are really good at quantifying, and a number of things that statistics are still trying to understand fully. We can easily quantify how many balls go over the fence, or how many runs are driven in. It’s harder to determine how many balls an average shortstop would get to, and compare that to Ozzie Smith or Derek Jeter.
One of the reasons that Jim Rice will probably be elected to the Hall of Fame is that he excelled at those measures that are easy to quantify. He hit a lot of homeruns. He drove in a lot of runs. A high percentage of his at-bats turned into hits.
It’s harder to give accurate value to something like a walk. It’s a positive result by way of non-action: the batter isn’t acting to draw a walk: instead, he is resisting the impulse to act. The pitcher is the catalyst for the walk: the pitcher has to throw the ball outside of the strike zone.
Jim Rice had one specific talent, and I think guys who have one specific talent are more likely to get elected to the Hall of Fame than guys with a diversity of skills. Alan Trammell could hit for power and average, he was a fine baserunner, and he played a key defensive position very well, but it’ll be some time before he gets into the Hall of Fame. Jim Rice was a good hitter: that’s the most you can say about him. And in reality, he wasn’t that good: his park inflated his numbers dramatically.
To compare Tenace to Rice, we need statistics that measure a player’s full range of skills. There are two statistics that do a thorough job at capturing a player’s full talents and drawbacks. One is ‘Win Shares,’ invented by Bill James. The other is ‘Wins Above Replacement Player,’ or WARP, created by the good folks at Baseball Prospectus.
Win Shares measures a player’s contribution in relation to its team’s wins: a team that wins 100 games will have 300 Win Shares to distribute among its players. WARP measures the number of wins a player adds to his team when measured against a replacement-level player. Both metrics strive to measure the entirety of a player’s contribution to his team, within the contexts of the league and park. Because both measures consider defensive contribution, position is accounted for.
Sorry….a tad boring there. Hope you’re still with me.
So how do Rice and Tenace compare on the Win Shares and WARP measures? Let’s go year-by year:
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1975 Rice 20 3.9 178th
Tenace 32 10.5 13th
Remember, this is the year Rice came in 3rd in the MVP vote. Tenace came in 18th. Rice’s numbers (.309/22/102) are pretty, but WARP tells us that 177 other players contributed more wins to their teams than Rice. Win Shares agrees: Tenace was far more valuable than Jim Rice.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1976 Rice 17 3.8 212th
Tenace 22 6.4 74th
This was Rice’s worst year of the five, and Tenace beats him in both Win Shares and WARP. In 1976 Rice wasn’t one of the 200 best players in baseball.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1977 Rice 26 6.5 82nd
Tenace 25 8.6 30th
Rice posted a .320/29/144 Triple Crown line and finished 4th in the MVP vote. Tenace finished at .233/15/61, and received no votes.
Win Shares narrowly gives the season to Rice, 26 to 25. WARP says Gene Tenace was overwhelmingly the better player.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1978 Rice 36 9.6 9th
Tenace 22 7.5 49th
This is Rice’s MVP year, and both metrics says he was the better player.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1979 Rice 28 7.1 56th
Tenace 24 9.4 19th
Again we have a split. Rice wins the Win Shares tally, Tenace wins in WARP.
I don’t know the reason for this, but I’ll speculate that Rice does better in Win Shares because it is measuring his contributions against his team’s success, while WARP measures players against replacement-level players. I don’t know if that’s a completely accurate explanation, so I won’t take it any further.
Their totals over the five-year period between 1975 and 1979:
Win Shares WARP
Jim Rice 127 30.9
Gene Tenace 125 42.4
Win Shares is a dead-heat, and WARP gives a considerable edge to Tenace. I’m willing to call it: between 1975-1979, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
Fine: Tenace was more valuable than Rice over those five years. But Jim Rice played 500 more games than Gene Tenace. How do we account for that?
Win Shares gives Jim Rice an edge in career value: Rice has 282 Win Shares to 231 for Tenace.
That said, Win Shares recognizes that when they played Tenace was the better player. Per 162 games, Tenace averaged 24.07 Win Shares, while Rice averaged 21.86.
And even with those 500 extra games, WARP still gives the career edge to Tenace: 77.5 to 73.0. The reason? WARP is a position-adjusted metric, and Rice’s contributions are set against a replacement-level DH. Because it’s easy to replace a DH, Rice doesn’t earn a lot of points.
There is still that pesky problem of Rice’s 51 more Win Shares. But that’s a deceptive count: to be fair, one would have to add the Win Share contributions of a replacement-level player for the three years Rice played when Tenace did not. That is to say, the Red Sox had Rice for fifteen years: the A’s/Padres had Tenace for twelve years, plus a replacement-level player for those three extra years of Rice’s career.
The Whole > The Sum of Its Parts
I think the Tenace or Rice debate is fascinating because it delineates, in stark terms, two distinct ways of measuring baseball players. One is atomistic: the events of player’s career exist in isolation. A .315 batting average means someone is a good player. 46 homeruns are 46 homeruns, context be damned.
The other way is a holistic approach; an effort to understand the events of a player’s career within a broader context. How did that .315 batting average help his team win? How many of those 46 homeruns mattered in games? What position did the player play? Was he a good defender? Did he ground into double plays?
We are moving towards the second, more holistic approach. We are beginning to place a player’s contributions within larger contexts. Stats like ‘WARP’ and ‘Win Shares’ as complicated as they are, as foreign as they may seem, they are attempting to do merely that: consider a player’s contributions against larger contexts.
Atomisticly, Jim Rice was better than Gene Tenace. Rice had a better batting average. He hit far more homeruns. He drove in and scored more runs. He played more games. He won more awards, played on more All-Star games, and had more articles written about him in the press. His rookie card is worth more money, and someday he will make the Hall of Fame.
But Gene Tenace did more to help his teams win baseball games than Jim Rice did. He was more important to the success of his teams than Rice was, and he offered more diverse skills than Rice did. Considering the whole of the player and the contexts that surrounded him, looking at it from a holistic, all-encompassing perspective, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
By Dave Fleming
In my last article, I wrote that people who advocate that Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame ought to fight for Gene Tenace instead.
It was an off-hand comment: a snarky remark made without too much consideration. When I wrote it I knew three things about Gene Tenace: he was a catcher for the A’s, he had a good World Series once, and he has a better OPS+ than Jim Rice.
By comparison, I know a lot about Jim Rice. He was one of the most popular players on my favorite team. He once broke his bat on a checked swing. He had over 400 total bases in 1978, which sure seemed like a damned big deal. And he was the leftfielder for the Red Sox, the guy who replaced the great Yaz.
Tenace over Rice: it was glib comment and the good readers at BJOL seemed content to let it pass. ChiSox wrote: “Some assertions just have to be let go without a comment.” Evan, taking the bait, wrote some thoughtful comments about Tenace and Rice before concluding: “You probably didn’t get a debate because it’s a preposterous assertion.”
Evan is correct: the suggestion that Gene Tenace was better than Jim Rice is preposterous. On the one hand you have one of the most prominent hitter of the late 1970’s, a player who was a legitimate Triple Crown threat. On the other hand you have Gene Tenace, a lifetime .241 hitter. There should be no comparison.
The Golden Years
Let’s stick with 1975-1979. Five years in which the careers of Jim Rice and Gene Tenace overlapped.
1975-1979 is Jim Rice’s best five years stretch. He had another fine run between 1982 and 1986, but 1975-1979 represents the peak of Jim Rice’s career
These are not Gene Tenace’s best years: Fury’s best five-year stretch was 1973-1977. Tenace is seven years older than Jim Rice, and his peak years came a little earlier. So we’re comparing the best of Jim Rice with the not-quite-best of Gene Tenace.
Enough talk. Here are their numbers between 1975-1979:
G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS+
Jim Rice 778 509 147 570 .311 .360 .556 142
Tenace 726 334 102 342 .246 .396 .438 140
It doesn’t seem a fair fight, does it? Tenace has a 36-point edge in on-base percentage, but Rice has a 65-point edge in batting average and a 118-point edge in slugging percentage. He had 45 more homeruns, 174 runs scored, 228 RBI.
Just to pile on: here are their season-by-season Triple Crown numbers:
BA HR RBI
1975 Rice .309 22 102
Tenace .255 29 87
1976 Rice .282 25 85
Tenace .249 22 66
1977 Rice .320 29 114
Tenace .233 15 61
1978 Rice .315 39 139
Tenace .224 16 67
1979 Rice .325 46 130
Tenace .263 20 50
The only time Tenace beats Rice in any Triple Crown category is 1975, when he hit 7 more homers than Rice. Otherwise, Rice destroys Tenace. It’s never particularly close.
I’ll add that the consensus opinion of people who watched these players was that Rice was a far greater player than Tenace. Jim Rice finished 3rd in the 1975 AL MVP vote, 4th in 1977, 1st in 1978, and 5th in 1979, which means that four times in those five years, the people who watched him closely believed that Jim Rice was one of the very best players in the league. That counts for something.
For what it’s worth, Gene Tenace also had his best showing on the MVP ballots during this years, finishing 18th in both 1975 and 1976. Those were the only years he ever appeared on the MVP ballot.
Context Elements
We could stop there. The raw numbers give a decisive edge to Rice. The opinions of educated and thoughtful observers support this. So, too, does our common perception. No need to recount hanging chads: Rice is winning in a landslide.
But since we’ve gone this far, it can’t hurt to consider some contexts.
Let’s start with parks. Most of us know that Fenway Park is a terrific hitter’s park. Most of us know that Jim Rice benefited from playing in that park. Here are his home/road splits, 1975-1979:
Rice BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .313 .357 .520 Road .304 .343 .464
1976 Home .299 .339 .509 Road .266 .291 .455
1977 Home .321 .375 .683 Road .319 .377 .509
1978 Home .361 .416 .690 Road .269 .325 .512
1979 Home .369 .425 .728 Road .283 .337 .472
We all know that Rice benefited from playing in Fenway Park. What is misunderstood is just how much Rice benefited from playing there. Take Rice’s MVP year, 1978. He wasn’t just better at Fenway: he was a completely different hitter:
G R HR RBI BA OBP SLG
1978 Home 82 69 28 75 .361 .416 .690
1978 Road 81 52 18 64 .269 .325 .512
That’s not cherry-picking, either: the same thing holds true for 1977 and 1979. In those three years, Rice hit 124 homeruns. Of those, 82 were hit in Fenway Park, while only 42 came on the road.
Gene Tenace played in some terrible parks. The Oakland Coliseum, where Tenace played until 1977, was a lousy hitter’s park. San Diego’s Jack Murphy Stadium, where he moved in 1977, was even worse.
Tenace BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG
1975 Home .254 .405 .467 Road .256 .385 .461
1976 Home .218 .368 .389 Road .277 .377 .518
1977 Home .205 .412 .300 Road .260 .417 .511
1978 Home .247 .389 .468 Road .204 .395 .355
1979 Home .256 .402 .332 Road .271 .403 .550
In 1977, his first year in San Diego, Tenace posted a .511 slugging percentage on the road, but only a .300 slugging percentage at home. Same hold true for 1979 (though his home/road splits flip in 1978).
Let’s compare Rice’s road numbers with Tenace’s road numbers:
Rice BA OBP SLG Tenace BA OBP SLG
Road .304 .343 .464 Road .256 .385 .461
Road .266 .291 .455 Road .277 .377 .518
Road .319 .377 .509 Road .260 .417 .511
Road .269 .325 .512 Road .204 .395 .355
Road .283 .337 .472 Road .271 .403 .550
Rice has the higher batting average, but Tenace laps him in on-base average. What’s more, Gene Tenace outslugs Jim Rice on the road in three of the five seasons.
Positions on Positions
Gene Tenace was a catcher/first baseman during these years. Jim Rice was a leftfielder and designated hitter. How do we measure across positions? How much credit do we give Tenace for playing a little over half his games behind the plate? How much should we penalize Rice for playing a position that is low on the defensive spectrum?
To step back a moment: there are a number of things that statistics are really good at quantifying, and a number of things that statistics are still trying to understand fully. We can easily quantify how many balls go over the fence, or how many runs are driven in. It’s harder to determine how many balls an average shortstop would get to, and compare that to Ozzie Smith or Derek Jeter.
One of the reasons that Jim Rice will probably be elected to the Hall of Fame is that he excelled at those measures that are easy to quantify. He hit a lot of homeruns. He drove in a lot of runs. A high percentage of his at-bats turned into hits.
It’s harder to give accurate value to something like a walk. It’s a positive result by way of non-action: the batter isn’t acting to draw a walk: instead, he is resisting the impulse to act. The pitcher is the catalyst for the walk: the pitcher has to throw the ball outside of the strike zone.
Jim Rice had one specific talent, and I think guys who have one specific talent are more likely to get elected to the Hall of Fame than guys with a diversity of skills. Alan Trammell could hit for power and average, he was a fine baserunner, and he played a key defensive position very well, but it’ll be some time before he gets into the Hall of Fame. Jim Rice was a good hitter: that’s the most you can say about him. And in reality, he wasn’t that good: his park inflated his numbers dramatically.
To compare Tenace to Rice, we need statistics that measure a player’s full range of skills. There are two statistics that do a thorough job at capturing a player’s full talents and drawbacks. One is ‘Win Shares,’ invented by Bill James. The other is ‘Wins Above Replacement Player,’ or WARP, created by the good folks at Baseball Prospectus.
Win Shares measures a player’s contribution in relation to its team’s wins: a team that wins 100 games will have 300 Win Shares to distribute among its players. WARP measures the number of wins a player adds to his team when measured against a replacement-level player. Both metrics strive to measure the entirety of a player’s contribution to his team, within the contexts of the league and park. Because both measures consider defensive contribution, position is accounted for.
Sorry….a tad boring there. Hope you’re still with me.
So how do Rice and Tenace compare on the Win Shares and WARP measures? Let’s go year-by year:
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1975 Rice 20 3.9 178th
Tenace 32 10.5 13th
Remember, this is the year Rice came in 3rd in the MVP vote. Tenace came in 18th. Rice’s numbers (.309/22/102) are pretty, but WARP tells us that 177 other players contributed more wins to their teams than Rice. Win Shares agrees: Tenace was far more valuable than Jim Rice.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1976 Rice 17 3.8 212th
Tenace 22 6.4 74th
This was Rice’s worst year of the five, and Tenace beats him in both Win Shares and WARP. In 1976 Rice wasn’t one of the 200 best players in baseball.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1977 Rice 26 6.5 82nd
Tenace 25 8.6 30th
Rice posted a .320/29/144 Triple Crown line and finished 4th in the MVP vote. Tenace finished at .233/15/61, and received no votes.
Win Shares narrowly gives the season to Rice, 26 to 25. WARP says Gene Tenace was overwhelmingly the better player.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1978 Rice 36 9.6 9th
Tenace 22 7.5 49th
This is Rice’s MVP year, and both metrics says he was the better player.
Win Shares WARP WARP Rank
1979 Rice 28 7.1 56th
Tenace 24 9.4 19th
Again we have a split. Rice wins the Win Shares tally, Tenace wins in WARP.
I don’t know the reason for this, but I’ll speculate that Rice does better in Win Shares because it is measuring his contributions against his team’s success, while WARP measures players against replacement-level players. I don’t know if that’s a completely accurate explanation, so I won’t take it any further.
Their totals over the five-year period between 1975 and 1979:
Win Shares WARP
Jim Rice 127 30.9
Gene Tenace 125 42.4
Win Shares is a dead-heat, and WARP gives a considerable edge to Tenace. I’m willing to call it: between 1975-1979, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
Fine: Tenace was more valuable than Rice over those five years. But Jim Rice played 500 more games than Gene Tenace. How do we account for that?
Win Shares gives Jim Rice an edge in career value: Rice has 282 Win Shares to 231 for Tenace.
That said, Win Shares recognizes that when they played Tenace was the better player. Per 162 games, Tenace averaged 24.07 Win Shares, while Rice averaged 21.86.
And even with those 500 extra games, WARP still gives the career edge to Tenace: 77.5 to 73.0. The reason? WARP is a position-adjusted metric, and Rice’s contributions are set against a replacement-level DH. Because it’s easy to replace a DH, Rice doesn’t earn a lot of points.
There is still that pesky problem of Rice’s 51 more Win Shares. But that’s a deceptive count: to be fair, one would have to add the Win Share contributions of a replacement-level player for the three years Rice played when Tenace did not. That is to say, the Red Sox had Rice for fifteen years: the A’s/Padres had Tenace for twelve years, plus a replacement-level player for those three extra years of Rice’s career.
The Whole > The Sum of Its Parts
I think the Tenace or Rice debate is fascinating because it delineates, in stark terms, two distinct ways of measuring baseball players. One is atomistic: the events of player’s career exist in isolation. A .315 batting average means someone is a good player. 46 homeruns are 46 homeruns, context be damned.
The other way is a holistic approach; an effort to understand the events of a player’s career within a broader context. How did that .315 batting average help his team win? How many of those 46 homeruns mattered in games? What position did the player play? Was he a good defender? Did he ground into double plays?
We are moving towards the second, more holistic approach. We are beginning to place a player’s contributions within larger contexts. Stats like ‘WARP’ and ‘Win Shares’ as complicated as they are, as foreign as they may seem, they are attempting to do merely that: consider a player’s contributions against larger contexts.
Atomisticly, Jim Rice was better than Gene Tenace. Rice had a better batting average. He hit far more homeruns. He drove in and scored more runs. He played more games. He won more awards, played on more All-Star games, and had more articles written about him in the press. His rookie card is worth more money, and someday he will make the Hall of Fame.
But Gene Tenace did more to help his teams win baseball games than Jim Rice did. He was more important to the success of his teams than Rice was, and he offered more diverse skills than Rice did. Considering the whole of the player and the contexts that surrounded him, looking at it from a holistic, all-encompassing perspective, Gene Tenace was a better player than Jim Rice.
0
Comments
He may make an exception since Gene Tenace is involved...
This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>This thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.. >>
Eerie, isn't it? I had the same reaction.
from four different, respected HOF rate methods;
Gray Ink= Tenace 36, Rice 176
Black Ink= Tenace 4, Rice 33
HOF Standards= Tenace 27.9, Rice 43.0
HOF Monitor= Tenace 7.0, Rice 144.5
Fiore Gino Tennaci, now Gene Tenace, along with guys like Dick Dietz, are fine walkers, and are generally under-rated.
OTOH, the far more deserving Raines and Blyleven will be left out.
<< <i>This discussion will die a natural death when Rice is elected next month. I would not vote for him.
OTOH, the far more deserving Raines and Blyleven will be left out. >>
I sincerely doubt that this will be the end of the Rice in the HOF discussion. If he gets voted in, the topic will simply shift to how he's the least deserving HOFer and all the articles and debates will focus on comparing Rice to those who are "more deserving" that haven't been elected yet. This might sound ludicrous, but I think that Rice's legacy would be better served by NOT getting into the hall because induction will only foster decades of ridicule and iconoclasm.
The attack on the "settled beliefs or institutions" would be an attack on the belief of the BBWAA that Rice was worthy of being inducted and the institution that would be attacked would be the Hall of Fame itself. I gather from your post that you feel I'm being grandiose, but I defend my choice of words. I don't think it's far fetched at all to imagine that people will say that Rice being in the Hall of Fame cheapens what it means to be in the Hall of Fame.
The HOF is cheapened anytime a non-deserving player is inducted, or a deserving player is kept out. Both have happened before (Chick Hafey?????), and will happen again.
Mickey71
<< <i>I honestly do not care if Rice gets in, but he was arguably the games best slugger for about 12 years.
Mickey71 >>
From Rob Neyer:
And here's a little tip: If you do read that Rice was "feared" and you don't read anything (substantive) about his defense or the significant advantage he gained from playing half his games in Fenway Park, then what you're reading is not serious. What you're reading is propaganda.
<< <i>if we break down the stats in too many areas we can knock down just about any player. If someone broke down Sandy Koufaxs' stats they might consider him a lower tier hall of famer when in fact he was maybe the greatest pitcher who ever lived when he retired. >>
1. It is trivially true that we can knock down any player if we break down the stats in "too many areas" - e.g., curveballs in September - but that tells us nothing about what happens when stats are broken down appropriately. Ignoring that Honus Wagner played in the dead ball era is foolish as is any analysis that results from ignoring it. Ignoring the impact of the park any hitter played in is foolish, as is any analysis that results from ignoring it. Ignoring a player's defensive contribution is foolish, and so on and so on. The argument that because it is silly that somebody MIGHT break down a player's stats to the point that we are looking at how they hit in September against lefties in indoor stadiums in day games, it is therefore silly or pointless to break down home/road stats or offensive/defensive value, etc. is the most foolish argument of all.
2. Sandy Koufax is a lower tier HOFer.
Nobody ever takes my quizzes, but here's a good one for you to ignore:
A: 110-70 W/L, 3.59 ERA in 1675 innings
B: 108-72 W/L, 3.47 ERA in 1607 innings
C: 79-70 W/L, 2.74 ERA in 1313 innings
Match these up with:
1. Gary Nolan
2. Jim Maloney
3. Sandy Koufax when NOT pitching in Dodger Stadium
4. Claude Osteen when pitching in Dodger Stadium
And then for full credit, explain why one of these is a top-tier HOFer and the others are all but forgotten?
<< <i>
<< <i>if we break down the stats in too many areas we can knock down just about any player. If someone broke down Sandy Koufaxs' stats they might consider him a lower tier hall of famer when in fact he was maybe the greatest pitcher who ever lived when he retired. >>
1. It is trivially true that we can knock down any player if we break down the stats in "too many areas" - e.g., curveballs in September - but that tells us nothing about what happens when stats are broken down appropriately. Ignoring that Honus Wagner played in the dead ball era is foolish as is any analysis that results from ignoring it. Ignoring the impact of the park any hitter played in is foolish, as is any analysis that results from ignoring it. Ignoring a player's defensive contribution is foolish, and so on and so on. The argument that because it is silly that somebody MIGHT break down a player's stats to the point that we are looking at how they hit in September against lefties in indoor stadiums in day games, it is therefore silly or pointless to break down home/road stats or offensive/defensive value, etc. is the most foolish argument of all.
2. Sandy Koufax is a lower tier HOFer.
Nobody ever takes my quizzes, but here's a good one for you to ignore:
A: 110-70 W/L, 3.59 ERA in 1675 innings
B: 108-72 W/L, 3.47 ERA in 1607 innings
C: 79-70 W/L, 2.74 ERA in 1313 innings
Match these up with:
1. Gary Nolan
2. Jim Maloney
3. Sandy Koufax when NOT pitching in Dodger Stadium
4. Claude Osteen when pitching in Dodger Stadium
And then for full credit, explain why one of these is a top-tier HOFer and the others are all but forgotten? >>
A---Nolan
B--Koufax
C --Ostenn
D-- Maloney
Who was fearing Jim Rice?
It didnt' seem to be oppsoing managers and pitchers, otherwise they would have pitched around him more often. Guys like Eddie Murray, George Brett, and Mike Schmidt were truly feared as they were pitched around both with intentional walks and uninentional walks.
The perceived 'fear' stems from the high RBI totals. The high RBI totals are a result of five things...
1) Rice was a better than average hitter, but NOT as good as the other HOF sluggers of his time
2) Fenway Park
3) Batting in one of the best lineups in the league, thus more opportunities than his competitor sluggers.
4) Did I say Fenway Park?
5) Rice's swing at all cost approach. Sure, it resulted in more runs driven in, but also resulted in making more outs in key run producing situations. Rice after all was among the very top of the leaderboards of FAILING to drive in runners from scoring position. The sum total of the two gave him a value lower than the true HOFers of that era. Can somebody sayd GIDP.
dallasactuary - C'mon. You cannot ignore Koufax numbers in Dodger Stadium and yet include his numbers in the LA Coliseum where I believe it was 250 feet down the left field line.
His road earned run averages between 1960 and 1966
3.00
2.77
3.53
2.31
2.93
2.72
1.96
During that stretch he also averaged over 9 k's per nine innings on the road.
Other than Pedro Martinez it would be tough to find a post-WWII pitcher more dominant over a 5 or 6 year stretch than Koufax.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Probably not all statisticians, or base on balls advocates, however, from one who uses a different frame of reference, a well-known peer who was a MLB pitcher facing Rice in real situations, not textbook theory, recent HOF inductee, Rich "Goose" Gossage;
"I think Jim Rice does belong in the Hall of Fame," Gossage said. "No hitter scared me, but Jim Rice came the closest."
<< <i>Thanks for posting the information regarding Rice and Tenace.
dallasactuary - C'mon. You cannot ignore Koufax numbers in Dodger Stadium and yet include his numbers in the LA Coliseum where I believe it was 250 feet down the left field line.
His road earned run averages between 1960 and 1966
3.00
2.77
3.53
2.31
2.93
2.72
1.96
During that stretch he also averaged over 9 k's per nine innings on the road.
Other than Pedro Martinez it would be tough to find a post-WWII pitcher more dominant over a 5 or 6 year stretch than Koufax. >>
I'll grant you your point if you'll grant me mine. Koufax was indeed a HOF caliber pitcher - he was NOT a top-tier HOF pitcher. Even ignoring that he pitched several years before 1960 and wasn't very good, the road ERAs that you posted are, with the exception of 1966, pretty average for that era. Sandy Koufax was phenomenal at home for six years and on the road for one - that gets him in the HOF but it leaves him WAY behind the top-tier pitchers (Johnson, Grove, Gibson, etc.) and well behind what I consider the second-tier pitchers (Spahn, Feller, Carlton, etc.), too. We'll never know how Koufax would be remembered had he pitched for Washington or California in the 1960's, but I think it is as likely as not that he would not have made the HOF, and that Sam McDowell would today be remembered as a similar pitcher. I can't say that about anyone but lower-tier HOFers.
And the strikeouts are a non sequitor.
--------- G ---- AB ---Runs--Hits ---2B---3B--HR--RBI---BB--IBB---K---HBP--DP--SB--CS---AVG----OBP---SLUG
Home-1048--4075--681--1304--207--44--208-802--348--50--691--34--156--32--17--.320---.374---.546
Away--1041--4150--568--1148--166--35--174-649--322--27--732--30--159--26--17--.277---.330---.459
Please try not to be confused by the facts-----Sonny
Opposing managers and pitchers did not show their fear of Jim Rice. A simple recourse of fearing a hitter is refusing to pitch to him. Rice simply was not feared as much as the better sluggers like Murray, Brett, or Schmidt...guys who got the respect of opposing managers and pitchers as people they didn't want to give an opportunity to beat them.
Rice was a preferred player to pitch to, especially with a man on first base. Can one say GIDP??
However, here are Koufax road numbers and the league ERA
1958 3.75 4.11
1959 5.50 4.22
1960 3.00 3.95
1961 2.77 4.31
1962 3.53 3.59
1963 2.31 2.99
1964 2.93 3.25
1965 2.72 3.26
1966 1.96 3.28
Those numbers also do not give him the benefit of pitching road games in Dodger Stadium. I still see an elite pitcher with these numbers.
His World Series stats elevate him further.
Also, I do not see how you can ignore strikeouts. A pitcher has control over three things - his strikeouts, walks and homeruns allowed. Once the ball is put into play the chances of a hit resulting are the same against Sandy Koufax as any other pitcher on the Dodger staff. His strikeout to walk ratio is phenomenal. He did a decent job of keeping the ball in the park.
For his career his ERA+ is 131 which is second behind only Whitey Ford from his era. If you only look at a six year stretch I believe it is around 175 which would be tough to match for most pitchers.
Finally, yes Dodger Stadium helped Koufax more than most. But using your criteria that is irrelevant. Dodger Stadium helps the average pitcher by 10% - the fact it helps Kouax by 30% is irrelevant.
Fred Lynn, Wade Boggs and Carl Yastrzemski all benefitted more from Fenway Park than Jim Rice did - yet you give each the same generic benefit. Why should Koufax case be any different?
<< <i>For his career his ERA+ is 131 which is second behind only Whitey Ford from his era. If you only look at a six year stretch I believe it is around 175 which would be tough to match for most pitchers. >>
First, I'm conceding that every point you are making is valid - for a very, very short time Sandy Koufax was a fantastic pitcher and HOF-worthy overall - as was Dizzy Dean.
But the 131 "career" ERA+ is extremely misleading - he quit pitching at 30. Consider another pitcher from his:
Sam McDowell, had he quit pitching at 30, would have retired with an ERA+ identical to Koufax's 131. Instead he pitched hurt (or drunk) for a few more years and dropped to 112. McDowell was robbed of the Cy Young in 1970, and maybe if he had won it he would have made the HOF. He was a much better than Jim Hunter and would hardly be the worst pitcher in the HOF. Maybe he deserves it, maybe not, I don't know. What I do know is that the notion that Sandy Koufax was THAT much better than Sam McDowell that McDowell misses the HOF and Koufax goes to the top tier of the HOF is preposterous.
So I see two choices - either Sam McDowell belongs in the middle of the pack among HOF pitchers, or Sandy Koufax is a lower tier HOFer, and I strongly disagree with the first choice.
Another way to look at this - by looking at higher-tier HOF pitchers:
If Juan Marichal stopped pitching at 30 - ERA+ of 138; Tom Seaver 147. Whitey Ford finished a little higher than Koufax - at 30, though, he was at 147.
Or some pitchers who made the majors at a later age - what if they had stopped after about 2,300 innings?
Bob Gibson - 148, Phil Niekro - 131 (+ 3,000 more innings after that)
ALL of these pitchers had much more valuable careers than Sandy Koufax. A HOF player has a great peak and/or a long productive career - a top-tier HOF pitcher has both. Sandy Koufax has among the shortest careers in the HOF and his peak isn't that much different than the other HOF pitchers from his own era. (His ERA+ in his best six seasons is 161; Gibson 169, Marichal 150, Seaver 162, Carlton 158, Ford 158). He gets a near-top share of peak points, he gets a bottom share of career points, and in the end he's behind most HOFers and substantially behind the true greats.
And regarding the strikeouts, let me just use one example to make sure I understand your point. In 1962, Ken Johnson was sixth in the league in K's and led the league in K's/BB ratio; I don't know his rank, but he was not in the top 10 in HR allowed with 18. Those are the things you say were under his control, he excelled at them and his ERA+ was 98 and his W/L was 7-16. That same year Bob Purkey gave up 28 HR for 5th most in the league, he didn't make the strikeout leaders and his K/BB ratio was 9th. In every aspect of the game which was "under his control" Johnson whooped Purkey's ass, but Purkey's ERA+ was 143 and his W/L was 23-5. Just to be clear, you are saying that the biggest difference - or maybe the only difference - between Johnson and Purkey was luck? That Purkey won 16 more games and had a 45 point ERA+ advantage over Johnson due to factors entirely outside of their control? I need convincing.
when imperfectly park adjusted, it drops to 131
Bob Gibson ( mentioned prior ) had a career ERA + of 123,
park adjustments add a bit, to reach 127
So, after using home-road concepts, speculating on what ifs as to playing times and circumstances, and if adjusted ERA + is a good measure, over their actual careers, Koufax still tops Gibson by a few points.
Koufax' best 5 consecutive yrs gives him a 167.4 adjusted ERA +, Gibson gets a 162.4 mark.
<< <i>Koufax had a career ERA + of 134,
when imperfectly park adjusted, it drops to 131
Bob Gibson ( mentioned prior ) had a career ERA + of 123,
park adjustments add a bit, to reach 127
So, after using home-road concepts, speculating on what ifs as to playing times and circumstances, and if adjusted ERA + is a good measure, over their actual careers, Koufax still tops Gibson by a few points. >>
You entirely ignored the only point I was making, which was the absurdity of comparing "career" ERA+ when one of the two pitchers being compared stopped pitching at age 30 with 2,300 innings pitched. Someday, I hope to figure out why you do that so often; until that day, I will just continue to scratch my head.
assumptions, speculations, estimates, whatever, when considering "exceptions" or "qualifiers", in comparing two players' entire actual MLB careers ???
For contrast, a guy like Rice was clearly a bad baseball player when he retired, and it wasn't really his choice to stop playing, but more that nobody wanted to hire him. He was finished as a MLB quality player, kind of like Chrisitan Okoye in football. His value and ability take a big hit.
Wheras, Koufax did have that short career, I think some consideration is given to his short career, and how he abruptly ended it. He was still breaking the bats of the LA Dodgers during bp in 1978.
Of course, one could argue that maybe it should be held against him, and that his decision making is part of his ability, and thus not being able to answer the bell due to injury or mental fatigure or disinterest...it is all part of the skill set, and maybe it should be held against him.
Gee wizz, always ready to berate or belittle Rice at any chance, but CLEARLY, not quite accurate.
Rice retired in 1989, after an injury-marred season. Jim, of his own choice, preferred to retire, rather than have additional medical procedures done, and face a good chance he would not be able to play with his beloved Red Sox again, regardless of medical success or not. As most know . Rice missed the 1975 WS, due to a broken wrist, often coming back to affect his performances, but very brutal in the part time last season.
In Rice's last FULL year, 1988, he produced an OPS+ of 102, a little above average, certainly not "bad' by any stretch. For comparison, Eddie Murray had an OPS + in his last full season of 87, kind of "bad" perhaps.
In his last part time season, Rice plodded to an OPS+ of 70, somewhat below average, maybe "bad". For comparison, Eddie Murray got a OPS+ of 55 in his last, part-time season.
Many guys have injuries. RIce had nothing catastrophic. Murray got hurt in '86, and had a rough injury in '95. By your same reasoning, Murray was never the same after his 1986 injury compared to just the previous year.
Murray was in his 40's in his last season, I would hope his OPS+ was lower than Rice's in his mid 30's!
In Rice's last two somewhat full seasons his OPS+ was 102 and 101. That was age 34 and 35. At age 36 it was 70
In Murray's age 34 and 35 seasons his OPS+ was ........158 and 105. Murray's age 36 OPS+ was.....................115.
A stark difference for sure. Please measure their OPS+ at every age interval now.
Please keep in mind that OPS+ doesn't measure men on hitting, of which Murray's were good.
I am glad that you measured their OPS+ in their last seasons, NOW you should do the same exercise for their first season on through the last with a side by side comparison to get a clearer picture.
P.S. You might want to check Rice's rate of GIDP in his last two somewhat full seasons. That rate puts his OPS+ value below average for those years...not average.
regardless of age, orgin, race, religion, or any other variables or assumptions, shows a "bad" player ?
What happened , happened, the facts are the facts, the stats are there for their respective last two seasons, one full and one partial,
Murray's last two years were worse than Rice's, was he an even more a bad ballplyer ?
Joe Nuxhall came into MLB at 16 yrs old, Jack Sanford another good pitcher, at 30 yrs of age, their career numbers are their career numbers, some guys peak early, some guys are late bloomers, raw numerical ages vary among the individual.
Perhaps a statement like, Rice was at the tail end of his impressive career, his skills had lessened, rather than he was a "BAD" ballplayer, might have been a bit more reasonable or understanding.
Except you left out key facts, as typical. You compared their last season, but neglected to show their age. You brought up a Rice injury, but neglected to bring up the Murray injury.
The FACT was that Jim Rice was a bad baseball player at the end of his career. What I said was...
"a guy like Rice was clearly a bad baseball player when he retired."
An immbole outfielder with an OPS+ of 70 who was a machine at hitting in double plays is a VERY bad MLB player. That is a fact, and that is what I said.
He was no longer good enough to play and was a bad baseball player.
If you want to say as a fact that Eddie Murray was a bad baseball player when he retired, that is true as well.
But to completely ignore their respective ages at those intervals is your usual M/O, and I have no idea why you still continue to do this...as you did with Koufax above.
Jaxxr , PERHAPS a statement by you should be like, "Jim Rice was a good hitter, not nearly as good as Eddie Murray in their peaks, but good, and he was done being good at age 33. He became a little below average at age 34 and 35, and was terrible by age 36. When you line up their OPS+'s, Murray's best year beats Rice's, his second best beats Rice's, his third best beats Rice's third best, and in fact all the rest of Murray's best season's beat Rice's best seasons. Then Rice retired, and Murray kept up being average and better than average for more seasons after that."
As for Purkey and Johnson. I think the biggest difference between the two was luck and team defense. Had both been free agents after the 1962 season (in the current environment) somebody would have paid Purkey huge bucks for what would become a very average performer. An astute GM would have signed Johnson for far less and been rewarded with more over the next few seasons. The best example of luck and team defense is Wally Bunker in 1964. He posted a 2.64 earned run average with an ERA + of 133. He did not strike out many and gave up a fair amount of homers. For the rest of his career he was far less than an average pitcher but based on that one season using ERA+ he was an all-star.
I believe that is the danger of using one stat without looking at a variety of stats, even if the stat you are using is the most reliable indicator.
Career OPS, Rice .854, Murray .836
Career OPS +, Rice 134, Murray 128
Career adjusted OPS+, Rice 128, Murray 129
Final full season adjusted OPS +, Rice 102, Murray 87
Best 4 or 5 seasons, of the adjusted figure, gives an edge to Murray, however use HRs, or Runs scored, or Batting average, or Total bases, or RBI, or Slg Pct., or several others, and Rice is well ahead of Murray.
Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, about only nine other retired ballplayers rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average. They are: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams. A decent list of ballplayers.
At the age of 39, Minnie Minoso, Enos Slaughter, and Fred McGriff, are among many others who had better seasons than Murray, so what. Who has the highest BA at the age of 31 ?, so what.
People vary as to maturity and decline, circumstances and personal objectives also come into play. A final season, regardless of one's birthday, is in reality, a final season. The fact remains, Rice had a better final two seasons than Murray's final two.
What a disinengenuous argument! A fair comparison is to use seasons of the same age, not "last seasons". I do not have a dog in this fight, but it is hard to take keep a straight face when reading the above statement.
If Koufax went off to fight in a war, or he died pulling children from a fire, then I MIGHT be inclined to consider what he could have done after 1966. But he didn't. He retired. When you retire, the clock stops, the meaurements are tallied and the stats are final. Koufax could have had four or five more great seasons, or he could have trashed his legacy like McDowell did; there is no way to know and it is nothing but a guess what might have happened. If Sudden Sam had stayed off the sauce, I have no doubt that he COULD have been a HOF pitcher - but COULD means nothing when deciding who WAS a great pitcher.
And the fact is, Koufax was nowhere near great enough in his 2,300 innings to be considered in the same class as the top tier HOFers who had peaks better than, equal to, or almost equal to Koufax and pitched two or three times as long. Koufax is MUCH closer to Sam McDowell than he is to Lefty Grove, Bob Gibson or even Whitey Ford. Again, I agree that he's a HOFer - he's closer to Lefty Grove than he is to mediocre pitchers like Jack Morris - but his seat at the HOF table is at the end next to Dizzy Dean, not at the head next to Walter Johnson (Marquard, Hunter, et. al., for purposes of this analogy, I have banished to the kid's table in the kitchen).
And there you are with those career percentages again, completely neglecting the career lengths. You may as well add Ken Phelps in the HOF due to having higher career ops too.
HR, Batting Average, TOtal bases, are already measured in OPS+ No need to use them again, unless you plan on doing the Kingman/Honus Wagner type comparison again.
I would have thought by now that you would be over the use of runs and RBI, again completely neglecting how those totals were achieved(due to teammates and park).
I'm not going to do that again.
Onto a legit discussion...
Dallas, like I mentioned, knowing that Koufax was one of the best upon his retirement, and that most likely he would have been quite capable of pitching at a high level for some more years, I think he is in a unique situation. Unlike where as a guy like Jim Rice who was so bad of a player at the time of his retirement, that no matter what desire he had for the following season, he wouldn't be worth rostering on a MLB team as he retired as a terrible player at age 36.
An adult professional baseball player may choose when he wishes to retire, injury, age, skill, personal reasons, whatever, the last season or two, is in fact, their last season or two. One may argue possible physical decrease might be offeset by experience gained. Diet, training, eyesight, speed, strength, and a host of other elements vary among people of the exact same age.
At the age of 25 Rice had a fantastic MVP season, at age 25 Murray had a lesser season, so what ????
Rice had a great rookie season, Murry did also, only a bit less OPS + than Rice, so what ???
Rice had a better final two seasons than Murray did, so what ?
No one is "forced" to play beyond their prime, in possible seach of benchmark stats.
Despite a prior post's opinion, Rice was not a "bad" baseball player ( 102 OPS + ) in his last full season, Murray was perhaps ( 87 OPS + ) one. Not a big deal at all, not a proof of much, merely just a clarification of that prior post.
Pardon me if it appeared to be disinengenuous statement.
You therefore must assume OPS is the only factor for HOF status.
I must repectfully disagree,
It is merely a combination stat, which actually double values certain items. While good, it is far from the only stat important. As most know, runs are the true currency of the game, and baserunning, defense, and many other items, contribute to creating them. Stats alone are not the only factors as well, things such as awards, league titles, post-season play, and records set, all leave lasting impressions on baseball, and are used in most HOF evaluations.
Phelps had less than 800 MLB games, he probably would miss the minimum HOF time qualifications as well.
Rice was a very bad player when he retired. That was my point in relation to Koufax(who was fantastic when he retired). Koufax was worthy of further play, Rice not.
Then you mentioned his last full season...and you aren't even correct on that either. His last full season was three years prior to his last when he was 33 years old. Rice only played full time up to age 33. He palyed 108 and 135 games in those last two semi-full years. Those OPS+ of 101 and 102 in those two years don't account for his ALARMING rate of hitting into DP's or his men on hitting.
If you want to get a more true measure of those two years, then go to the play by play data...you have used the rest, now use the best.
His Situatioal batter runs in his las two semi-full seasons were
-9.9
-9.4
A full seasons worth of at bats puts him even lower in those measurements.
His defensive value was below average, as was his baserunning. So what you have is a guy who at age 34 and 35 was a well below average player.
If you want to match up Murray's last two years to Rice's, THEN DON'T STOP THERE. Match up their last three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21st seasons. Use OPS+ for a good comparison, use Situational Batter runs for the BEST comparison.
Hey, if the guy is your favorite player, enjoy him. But it doesn' make sense to ignore the evidence to get that good feeling. Enjoy him for what he was....Chili Davis at Fenway.
Some situations;
With runners in scoring position Rice hit .308, Murray .292, Rice also bettered Murray in Slg pct. with RISP, therefore, he was very much more likely to drive in a run, which he did do, at a much greater pace than Murray.
With merely men on base, Rice hit .305, Murray .300, better Slg pct. also, and again, therefore more likely to produce a run.
Sandy Koufax' finish to his great career, was quite unique, a multitude of ballplayers do finish on the a decline, just like Rice, Murray, and many others, although they were not pitchers, "odd" you couldn't think of one former hurler who might be a better contrasting analogy to Koufax, I guess Jim Rice is always in your thoughts. You are not alone, he has left a lasting impression on many baseball fans.
Here is an easy way to get yourself out of this mess of yours that makes absolutley no sense, and with no validity. Just claim that your entire argument for Rice is that he is as FAMOUS as guys like Eddie Murray, but NOT AS GOOD! Not as good at their Peak, not as good at theri career. But simply just as known. If being as famous is your stance, then fine, but if being as good is, then you are over your head.
As a side note about OPS+ double counting numbers. Here is where you prove your Kingman/Wagner methods are not good.
OPS+ does double count stuff, and it is a coincidence that it actually is a great tool to measure accurately and almost as good as Batter Runs. They are two flawed stats added together to make a good one. It is by luck that it is accurate.
But your stance is that they double count things. Then in another post you will post something saying other stats are important too, and you will list BA, SLG%, HR, and Total Bases.
Hey Einstein do you realize that Home Runs are being counted in ALL FOUR OF THOSE STATS? If you dislike double counting, why do you like QUADRUPLE counting of stats??????????????????????????????????????
OPS+ does double count stuff, and it is a coincidence that it actually is a great tool to measure accurately and almost as good as Batter Runs. They are two flawed stats added together to make a good one. It is by luck that it is accurate.
But your stance is that they double count things. Then in another post you will post something saying other stats are important too, and you will list BA, SLG%, HR, and Total Bases.
Hey Einstein do you realize that Home Runs are being counted in ALL FOUR OF THOSE STATS? If you dislike double counting, why do you like QUADRUPLE counting of stats??????????????????????????????????????
THIS ABOVE NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, so I posted it due to me posting a post immediately after another...didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
Hey, Hank Aaron's last full season OPS+ was 95. Lenny Dykstra's was 143!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHall I continue, or do you understand that your coninued harping on that 'last full year' instance is trivial and meaningless, and provides NOTHING to the point that Rice was not as good as Eddie Murray, either in his prime, or in his career?
<< <i>OPS+ does double count stuff, and it is a coincidence that it actually is a great tool to measure accurately and almost as good as Batter Runs. They are two flawed stats added together to make a good one. It is by luck that it is accurate. >>
I wouldn't call it "luck" exactly. I forget if it was Palmer or James who popularized the stat, but whoever it was they didn't just throw darts at a record book; they thought about which readily available stats best measure a player's ability and looked for a way to combine them into a single stat. OPS+ "won". There are undoubtedly better stats in theory that would involve multiple decimal places and exponents, etc., but OPS+ is simple to calculate, easy to understand, double counts LESS than what we can call "the jaxxr approach", and those things it does double count are more important than those things it counts only once (a HR is "worth" 5, a single 2, a walk 1, etc.); think of it as weighting rather than double counting. I wish there was a comparable (easy to calculate) stat that took GIDP and SB/CS into account; those stats don't make much difference to the majority of players, but they add 20 points to player's like Tim Raines and take 20 points away from certain right handed hitters in Fenway, and a lot of these comparisons are so far off the mark primarily because of the omission of those stats.
Most important, OPS+ doesn't depend on a player's park or teammates and the arguments based on stats that do (especially RBI and the ever-popular "runs realized") get so tedious and pointless that debating a player's eye color or hair length would be more interesting and just as relevant.
That is incorrect, perhaps an actual lie.
I can understand getting your facts mixed up or having a different opinion, but out and out mistruths or lies, really reflect poorly on your social skills, not a real sober, adult, manner to post herein.
You Skin / Hoop, are the lone starter of that thread, and you are the only one to boast of its merit, and drone on and on about it, as you still do.
Check that original thread, which, for a reason known only to you, you also placed it into about four other spots, you can see I never even posted within, and still feel it is not worthy of a response.
It is your thread and your concept Skin / Hoop, and yours alone, please be man enough to admit you started the particular thread, and are adult enough to take responsibility for your own personal actions or posts.
Here is how much I value any particular final season, from a post in this thread yesterday;
At the age of 25 Rice had a fantastic MVP season, at age 25 Murray had a lesser season, so what ????
Rice had a great rookie season, Murry did also, only a bit less OPS + than Rice, so what ???
Rice had a better final two seasons than Murray did, so what ?
For clarity, So what = indifference, or lack of much importance.
OPS is one of many ways to measure a batter's skill, long before Bill James popularity, several others used different "combination" stats to try and evaluate a hitter.
If one substitutes BA for OB%, the result will more correctly show the likelyhood of driving in a run, as hits usually do, while walks usually dont. OPS , with OB %, more reflects a liklyhood to score a run. Of course an 0PS , of the same exact number, may have different value itself, an OBP of .360 plus a SLG of 400 gives an OPS of .760, but also a .330 OBP and a .430 SLG result in a .760, two different type hitters.
Sandy Koufax was a poor hitter, even by pitcher standards, he also was a bit below average defender, one may only speculate on how he might have pitched, if he might have continued his career.
Herb Score, Joe Wood, and Monty Stratton are among other hurlers, who had somewhat similar "shortened" careers.
You didn't do the Kingman/Wagner comparison. The concept was the same though. I just followed your procedure, and substituted different players.
Jaxxr, if it is lack of importance, or "so what", why on earth would you keep posting it? It just looks foolish. Why don't you look at every year and actually recognize that Murray's best, 2nd , 3rd, 4th best, and so on, beat all of Rice's? You continually discard that and instead harp on something as inane as, "Rice's last full season was better than Murray's."
Jaxxr, of course many used a combination of stats...but they aren't as accurate, and most of those people didn't pruposefully leave out stats to 'attempt' to make their stance look stronger...like you routinely do(part of the Jaxxr method).
I am still wondering why you dislike OPS+ due to double counting, but like counting certain stats FOUR times?
The only stats that really matter are the following....
BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, OUTS MADE, GIDP, SB and CS.
The context of which those occur define them to their value. A 2B at memorial stadium goes more towards winning than a 2B at Fenway park.
Your other stat is the ridiculous "Runs Realized." You continually show ignorance on the creation of runs, and the value of each event. You point our Rice's RBI, but completely fail to account that much of those RBI value are a credit to Wade Boggs, and that the runs scored are much of a credit to Yaz....well, and Fenway.
FInally, are you simply stating that Rice is as 'Famous' as Murray, or do you actually believe he was as good? At least clarify this for me, since you have not clarified anything else ever, not even once.
Only posted as to show how "odd" to use Rice in relation to Sandy Koufax, as you did,
why not use Murray , who had an even worse final two years, to better show a hanger-on type ?
"The only stats that really matter are the following....
BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, OUTS MADE, GIDP, SB and CS."
You somehow forgot Runs, as a fairly important stat in the determination of the result ofa baseball game, forgot about hits, and a few other contributory ones as well, and somewhat interesting you list BB first. Kind of wonder why they refer to good offensive ballplayers as good "hitters" and not as a good "walkers" ???
Fine: Tenace was more valuable than Rice over those five years. But Jim Rice played 500 more games than Gene Tenace.
I got to this point and spit soda all over the place.
Steve
<< <i>"The only stats that really matter are the following....
BB, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, OUTS MADE, GIDP, SB and CS."
You somehow forgot Runs, as a fairly important stat in the determination of the result ofa baseball game, forgot about hits, and a few other contributory ones as well, >>
jaxxr, if there is a better example of why it is becoming so difficult to participate in these discussions with you, I need to see it to believe it.
hoopster listed as "stats that really matter" 1B, 2B, 3B and HR, and then you criticized him because he "forgot about hits". There are only a very few possibilities:
1. You can't read. For the record, I know this isn't the answer.
2. You know of another type of hit than a 1B, 2B, 3B or HR. Again, I know this isn't the answer.
3. You can't understand what you read. Doubtful, but your post makes it impossible to dismiss this entirely.
4. You care so little about what other people post that you don't bother to read what they say and consider their opinions or even their facts. This is almost surely the case, in almost every thread.
But I'm open-minded. If I have left out an explanation that accounts for you reading what hoopster posted, understanding what he posted, caring enough to consider what he posted, and then posting what you did, then by all means tell me what that is.