Legitimate Question: Was Dave Parker a better baseball player than Jim Rice?

gregmo32 · August 14, 2009 3:48AM

Discuss.

joestalin · August 14, 2009 6:23AM

Dave had a bigger nose than Rice, so he could probably beat him in a coke snorting contest.

strangecreature · August 14, 2009 6:44AM

Both players were monsters in the late 70's. Rice is the only player in history to have 3 straight 200 hit/35 hr seasons. Parker was a better overall athlete and better defensive player. Parker played on winning teams most of his career, while Rice did not.

Hoopster · August 14, 2009 7:47AM

The good thing about the era that they played in is that there is no mystery to what their run value was offensively. When the play by play study is put into effect, it becomes clear which hitter had the best run value. Whether their teammates took advantage of it is not in their control.

The situational batter runs accounts for every at bat and accounts for the different values of hits based on number of outs and number of runners on base. For instance, a double with the bases loaded is of more worth than a double with two out and nobody on. Subsequently, hitting into a double play with the bases loaded is of far more NEGATIVE value than making an out with nobody on base.

Once all these at bats and situations are tabulated for, you get a very clear picture which hitters were the best offensive players for a team to have.

Here are the situational batter runs for a Parker and Rice. These are adjusted for their home parks.

Parker 365.....Non Park adjusted 400

Rice 190.........None Park Adjusted 284

A guy like Rice who hit into an incredible amount of double plays is correctly painted with a MUCH lower Situational Batter Runs.

The thing that makes people think Rice would be better is the yearly RBI totals. What they don't account for in those totals is the number of more opportunities RIce had.

What the situational batter runs does account for are the times Rice failed to drive in runs, or the big outs that he often made. So this sort of already accounts for the number of opportunities. Hence why Parker is so far ahead of Rice.

It has been said that Wade Boggs was put into the Hall of Fame twice! Once when he got elected, and then second when Rice got elected due to his inflated RBI totals greatly attributed to Boggs(from 1982-1989). Or the great lineup he had before Boggs got there.

Or it can be said that Fenway park got elected to the Hall of Fame when Rice was voted in

jaxxr · August 14, 2009 9:00AM

Always fun to compare all-star ballplayers from a similar time era.
No perfect way, or evaluation method, but interesting nevertheless.

Parker did play for six different ballclubs, Rice just one, and surprisingly, to many it might seem, they BOTH hit better at home than on the road !

Rice's away hitting stats, do better Parker's away stats, BA, SLG, and OPS. Rice betters Parker at home as well.

The very popular OPS + figure, when imperfectly adjusted for ballpark factor, shows Rice with a career adjusted OPS + of 128, Parker had a 121.

Both guys were multiple Total base league leaders, Rice with a remarkable high of 406, did it four times, Parker whose high was 350, led three times.

Parker was the better defensive outfielder.

Both fellows outstanding baseball players.

SDSportsFan · August 14, 2009 10:48AM

Dave Parker was pretty much considered to be on par with Dave Winfield pre-1981. I remember many arguments back in the 1970s about which of the Daves was better. Both could run, both could hit, both had cannons for arms (they both played right field).....

In fact, IIRC, Parker's rookie card (both his and Winfield's were 1974 Topps) was actually worth more than Winfield's, until Winfield went to the Yankees and Parker had his drug issues.

So I would say yes, Dave Parker was better than Jim Rice. Unfortunately, Parker squandered his talent there in the early-mid 1980s, with his drug problems. If not for them, I believe he would be in the Hall of Fame.

Steve

Hoopster · August 14, 2009 11:59AM

If one chooses to use a rate stat such as OPS+ to compare the careers of players, it is imperative that the career length is accounted for. After all, if a guy plays only one year with an OPS+ of 160, and another guy plays 20 years with an OPS+ of 130, clearly the 130 guy was better.

OPS+ does not account for GIDP, nor does it account for how well a player hit with men on base. Those are big factors in determining the players value. Situational batter runs accounts for everything OPS+ does, PLUS the GIDP and Men on Base hitting. Situational Runs also accounts much more for the value a player gets when he plays longer. OPS+ skews that.

Despite having a lower career OPS+ than Rice, here is how they stack up on a yearly basis from their best year to their worst

Parker...rice
166.....157
149.....154
149.....147
145.....141
141.....136
133.....130
118.....127
117....123
115.....122
113.....120
110.....116
107.....112
105....102
105....101
103.....70
97.......0 Same value as Louis Skulnik
92.......0 Same value as Louis Skulnik
81.......0 Same value as Louis Skulnik

Remember, OPS+ does NOT count for men on hitting, or GIDP, like the superior method of Situational Batter Runs(where Parker dwarfs Rice).

But even looking at OPS+, Parker beats Rice 11-7 when you match up each of their seasons from best to worst. No, 11-7 isn't a beating like in a case where guy like Eddie Murray beats Jim RIce EVERY SEASON from best to worst by a score of 21-0. But nonetheless, 11-7 still shows how the career length can skew the OPS+ rate stat.

But that doesn't even matter! Why use OPS+ when the situational batter runs is available? That is like using a blow up doll instead of Erin Andrews!

jaxxr · August 14, 2009 1:31PM

It seems some are still overly frustrated emotionally,
by the recent selection of Jim Rice into baseball's Hall of Fame via the regular official election process, and want to compare Jim to Eddie Murray.

Jim Rice made a few errors in his day, perhaps somewhat similar to the error/mistake/falseness in the statement about OPS +,

"where guy like Eddie Murray beats Jim Rice EVERY SEASON from best to worst by a score of 21-0"
....................................................................

First of all, raw OPS, is different from OPS +, and park adjusted OPS + is also different. Rice tops Murray many actual real seasons, 1979 for instance, in OPS, and OPS+ and Adjusted OPS +

Secondly, Jim Rice did not hang on to compile stats , and only played 18 MLB seasons, mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to be 21-0 !

Dave Parker and Jim Rice each, have been the best in their respective leagues in OPS and PF OPS +, while Murray, with the most chances, never bested his peers.

Career numbers, and despite different teams/pitchers faced, different teammates, different seasons which did not overlap, and different amount of games played, they are the actual, final real life official MLB stats for each fine ballplayer;
career OPS = Parker .810, Murray .836, Rice .854,.. career OPS+ = Parker129, Murray 128, Rice 134,... career PF adjusted OPS + =, Parker 121, Murray 129, Rice 128

There obviously, is no stat which is all inclusive and all telling, not RC/600, not situation formula, not OPS, nor even GIDP.

Speaking of GIDP,
it is not too harmful, or statistically significant, if a batter hits into a DP in the 8th inning of a 8-1 ballgame, also not overly harmful if it advances the runner, and even the aforementioned dreaded DP with the bases loaded, if it happens in a tie game, bottom of the ninth, no outs, I am sure the manager is much more interested in scoring the run, and winning the game, rather than the hypothetical statistical implications of a GIDP.

Career GIDP, Dave Parker, two time Slg % leader, 209, Jim Rice, also a two time Slg % leader, 315, and Eddie Murray, hung on long enough to get the most, 316, though not long enough to ever lead the league in Slg %.

perkdog · August 14, 2009 2:20PM

<< Dave had a bigger nose than Rice, so he could probably beat him in a coke snorting contest. >>

Talking about big noses? Geezuz Kevie' Ryan has got a bigger nose than both of them!

LMAO!

Sincerley,

200k's

grote15 · August 14, 2009 3:08PM

Jaxxr, when you try and rationalize the benefits of GIDP, it kind of illustrates that your argument is on thin ice...and the suggestion that Rice was a player of Murray's caliber is certainly a rather thin argument indeed..

BassPro77 · August 14, 2009 3:14PM

maybe in a snorting contest

jaxxr · August 14, 2009 9:03PM

Grote15,

Please check whom brought up a comparison using Eddie Murray, who is NOT the topic of this thread.

I also did not initiate any use of GIDP, as being a good measure of a ballplayer's overall worth
It is a fairly minor aspect, and definitely not always a negative factor.
Cal Ripken, Hank Aaron, Carl Yaz, Dave Winfield, and Eddie Murray are the top five via GIDP all time, and all are HOFers.

WinPitcher · August 14, 2009 9:28PM

, and even the aforementioned dreaded DP with the bases loaded, if it happens in a tie game, bottom of the ninth, no outs, I am sure the manager is much more interested in scoring the run, and winning the game, rather than the hypothetical statistical implications of a GIDP.

Jax the only problem i have with that is wouldn't it be a DP where the ball was thrown home first then to 1b?

Unless I misunderstood your point.

Steve

CrimsonTider · August 14, 2009 10:19PM

This is a flawed arguement. The question was asked to compare Parker to a HOFer, when in reality he should be compared to those who he is competing against for enshrinement.

A better question would be 'Was Dave Parker a better player than Dale Murphy?'

Both of these players had stellar careers which are worthy of debating their merits for enshrinement.

jaxxr · August 14, 2009 10:51PM

Sure it COULD be,

however, in the wide range of possibilities that exist in real life, the grounder could be deep between 1B and 2B, no change to throw home,, OR perhaps the defenders knew a chance at a triple play was more likely than a throw home, as the runner might have been trying to steal home.

There are more often, DPs which do harm the team at bat, than neutral or runner advancing/scoring ones, but it is not realistic to assume ALL DPs , in every situation, really hurt a team's chance to win the ballgame, and that the amount of GIDPs is a major evaluation factor in player performance.

Hoopster · August 15, 2009 1:23AM

While it is true that Parker only edges out Rice in the year to year comparison in OPS+, not on the scale of a guy like Murray beating him 21-0 in the same measurement...it really doesn't matter in that measurement, because the better measurement really shows the difference between PARKER and RICE.

When Murray beat Rice 21-0, Rice didn't play 21 seasons because he was not good enough. Since he was not good enough to play MLB, he has the same value/contribution to MLB as Grote, Winpitcher, or myself had in those years...years in which other players were good enough to play. So yes indeed, 21-0 is accurate...or in this case 11-7 is accurate in this case(depending on how partial years are looked at).

The Parker case is closer to Rice than a true HOFer like Murray, or Yaz, or Brett. But Parker beats him nonetheless.

The SItuational Batter runs show truly how much they contributed, and shows the very wide gap between the two.

Jaxxr, you saying that a GIDP down 8-1 doesn't matter, therefore why bother...is the same thing as saying a Total Base down 8-1 doesn't matter, so why bother. The funny thing about this is that the game score situation can also be added on top of the situational batter runs.

But if you are a backer of Rice, you do not want to go there. Why? Because he did his BEST hitting when the games were out of reach!

So, adding game/score situation or meaning to each event, Rice sinks even further!

jaxxr · August 15, 2009 3:28AM

21-0 ???

Despite the fact Jim Rice has 18 MLB season, and despite the fact Eddie Murray was not the subject of this particular thread,

Here's a few different seasons, which give Rice a 3-0 mark vs Murray and Parker a 2-1 mark over Murray, via adjusted OPS +

1979 real life MLB stats,
Dace Parker, OPS + 141
Jim Rice OPS + 154
Ed Murray, OPS + 130

Final or last full, MLB 100 game season stats,
Dave Parker OPS + 76
Jim Rice OPS + 102
Ed Murray OPS + 87

Peak, or very best single MLB season
Dave Parker OPS + 166
Jim Rice OPS + 157
Ed Murray, OPS + 156

For those who feel traditional Triple crown stats, HRs, BA, and RBI, may count for something,
Lets see how Dave Parker, Jim Rice, and thread outsider, Ed Murray, actually compare in full, at least 100 games, MLB seasons in which they lead the league, were the very best among their peers.

Dave Parker, who also has an OPS + title, triple crown stat league leader, 3 different seasons.
Jim Rice, another OPS + titleist, got 5 different triple crown stat wins.
Ed Murray, who may not have played long enough to garner one OPS + crown, has zero full seasons leading in any triple crown stat.

Please do not think I am berating Murray by showing some areas where he suffers, he is a 500 HR, 3000 hit guy. who was elected to the HOF via the regular process, just as Jim Rice was elected.
Baseball player evaluation is a complex and somewhat subjective task, no method is all inclusive, nor close to perfect, Dave Parker compares well to either Murray or Rice in several areas, not so well in other aspects.

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 3:54AM

<< 21-0 ???

Despite the fact Jim Rice has 18 MLB season, and despite the fact Eddie Murray was not the subject of this particular thread,

>>

Thanks for the interesting stats, but Rice only played 16 seasons.

MAD · August 15, 2009 4:24AM

Excuse me for digressing, but considering this statement:

Jaxxr's reliance on Rice's HR, RBI, career BA...and his complete neglect of Fenway park factor, RBI chances, and Rice's shorter career reminds me of the old joke about the guy on his hands and knees at night looking underneath a street lamp for his car keys. He knew the keys were lost a block over, but the light was better under the lamp.

I would like to ask the following question to better understand whether it was just Jim Rice who was aided by the Fenway factor...

I was wondering - How do Bobby Doerr, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski, all hall of famers who played their entire careers with the Red Sox stack up with the Fenway factor?

MAD · August 15, 2009 4:38AM

Back to the question at hand,

Dave Parker was a stud right fielder with a cannon, while Jim Rice was a liability to mediocre left fielder.

As hitters over their careers they were comparable with Rice having some more impressive years and Parker having greater longevity.

As a Red Sox fan who believes the Hall of Fame has elected some less than worthy individuals, I do wonder why Rice got voted in, in this his last year of eligibility?

Could it be that the steroid issue helped Rice where his stats are unquestionably untainted.

WinPitcher · August 15, 2009 8:04AM

I always thought Parker was a tad better but that Rice had the better over all career.

As for why he got in on his 15th and final try, some guys get in that way, they build up votes each year.

Not everyone gets in the first try.

If they allowed only one try it IMO would be a true Hall of Fame.

Steve

Dave99B · August 15, 2009 8:26AM

Yes

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 9:44AM

<< 

If they allowed only one try it IMO would be a true Hall of Fame.

>>

If that were the case there would only be 44 players inducted.

SDSportsFan · August 15, 2009 11:00AM

<< Not everyone gets in the first try.

If they allowed only one try it IMO would be a true Hall of Fame.

Steve >>

Here's just a partial list of the players who would NOT be in the Hall of Fame if it was limited to one try:

Carlton Fisk
Duke Snider
Eddie Mathews
Whitey Ford
Yogi Berra
Roy Campanella
Bill Dickey
Mel Ott
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Tris Speaker
Rogers Hornsby
Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Cy Young
Joe DiMaggio

So, Molitor, Yount and Eckersley YES, Gehrig, Young and DiMaggio NO!!!!!

Steve

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 11:39AM

<< 

<< Not everyone gets in the first try.

If they allowed only one try it IMO would be a true Hall of Fame.

Steve >>

So, Molitor, Yount and Eckersley YES, Gehrig, Young and DiMaggio NO!!!!!

Steve >>

WOW. How in the world did those 3 not make it in the first try? I dont know whats worse. The Rock n roll hall of shame or baseball?

Hoopster · August 15, 2009 12:43PM

Jaxxr, those methods you use above are the same ones used to make Dave Kingman to compare to Honus Wagner, LOL. Have you found your keys yet? Dude, you need help.

Also, why did you get so upset when Murray was used as HOF comparable to contrast the Parker vs. Rice comparable?? That showed the contrast between a HOFer who dwarfs Rice, and then showed how a non HOFer beats him...but not to the same degree.

<< Excuse me for digressing, but considering this statement:

Jaxxr's reliance on Rice's HR, RBI, career BA...and his complete neglect of Fenway park factor, RBI chances, and Rice's shorter career reminds me of the old joke about the guy on his hands and knees at night looking underneath a street lamp for his car keys. He knew the keys were lost a block over, but the light was better under the lamp.

I would like to ask the following question to better understand whether it was just Jim Rice who was aided by the Fenway factor...

I was wondering - How do Bobby Doerr, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski, all hall of famers who played their entire careers with the Red Sox stack up with the Fenway factor? >>

Williams is still a top five player all time even when the Fenway factor is factored in. Yaz is still a superb HOF candidate with it as well. Rice? His case is a mirage, built by Fenway, built by a great lineup, and built by a shorter career where his percentages were saved(wheras other guys played and were quite viable players for another 3,000 at bats!).

A guy like Parker who is not in, or Rice's two teammates Lynn and Evans who are not in, are all superior players. Guys like Murray, Brett, Yount, Molitor...are all vastly superior.

grote15 · August 15, 2009 1:48PM

<< Not everyone gets in the first try.

If they allowed only one try it IMO would be a true Hall of Fame.

Steve >>

Here's just a partial list of the players who would NOT be in the Hall of Fame if it was limited to one try:

Carlton Fisk
Duke Snider
Eddie Mathews
Whitey Ford
Yogi Berra
Roy Campanella
Bill Dickey
Mel Ott
Lefty Grove
Carl Hubbell
Tris Speaker
Rogers Hornsby
Jimmie Foxx
Lou Gehrig
Cy Young
Joe DiMaggio

So, Molitor, Yount and Eckersley YES, Gehrig, Young and DiMaggio NO!!!!!

Steve

HOF voting is MUCH different in recent years compared to when most of the players on that list became eligible (and guys like Young, Hornsby, Gehrig, et al were part of that first ballot in 1936 from which the first five players were inducted). After all, even Babe Ruth got only 95% of the vote at that time. That is also the main reason why the voters will not unanimously elect a player...there are some old school voters who believe that if guys like Ruth and Cobb weren't unanimous selections, then nobody should be.

strangecreature · August 15, 2009 1:56PM

<< Jaxxr, those methods you use above are the same ones used to make Dave Kingman to compare to Honus Wagner, LOL. Have you found your keys yet? Dude, you need help.

A guy like Parker who is not in, or Rice's two teammates Lynn and Evans who are not in, are all superior players. Guys like Murray, Brett, Yount, Molitor...are all vastly superior. >>

I wouldnt say Yount was vastly superior than Parker or Rice.

Hoopster · August 17, 2009 2:20PM

To answer your question, Dave Parker was absolutely 100% a better player than Jim Rice. IN FACT, ther are about 25 players who are not in the HOF that are also better than Rice...including his two outfield teammates, Lynn and Dewey.

There is also a resident poster on this board(Jaxxr) who developed a method which makes Dave Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner.....and Vinny Castilla comparable to Brooks Robinson.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 12:49AM

From Mr Skinpinch aka as Hoopster,

"There is also a resident poster on this board(Jaxxr) who developed a method which makes Dave Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner.....and Vinny Castilla comparable to Brooks Robinson. "
.................

That is an outright lie,
the originator of both threads making those absurd comparisons was Hoopster.

For those not familiar with last years' posting fiasco, one might incorrectly take Hoopster's lie as a valid statement, it can be researched to see who initiated those threads.

I, nor anyone else, has a "method' which perfectly evaluates baseball players. Only a true unbalanced ego-manic might they know a completely perfect way. I certainly enjoy hearing different views and polite discussions about baseball.
No rational baseball fan would ever think to reasonably try to compare legendary HOFer, Honus Wagner with a sub quality fellow from a different time era.

larryallen73 · August 18, 2009 1:09AM

As a child of the 70's, who was really into baseball back then, I would say Parker.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 1:10AM

Jaxxr, you absolutely did indeed develop a method that makes Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner. You perfected the method in your Rice/Murray comparisons. YOUR method also made Castilla comparable to Brooks.

Jaxxr, in your estimation...based on all those stats and formulas you presented as having merit, you have three possible answers on who was better. Simply pick one...

1)Murray was better than Rice
2)Rice was better than Murray
3)they are equal

No hemming and hawing. No, 'perhaps', no 'however interesting it is to compare players from a time.' If you truly understand all those formulas and methods you present, it should not be that hard to pick one.

The second question is...

What is better, playing MLB and achieving an OPS+ of 103 and a WinShare per 648 PA of 10, OR not playing MLB at all? SImply pick one.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 1:23AM

The fist question is ........

Why can you not be civil, polite, and respect slightly different opinions regarding baseball evaluation ?

The second question is...

Why wont you admit it was YOU, and you personally, who started and then inserted into other threads, the ridiculous comparisons ???
I assume It may be researched to see who was the originator.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 1:35AM

<< The fist question is ........

Why can you not be civil, polite, and respect slightly different opinions regarding baseball evaluation ?

The second question is...

Why wont you admit it was YOU, and you personally, who started and then inserted into other threads, the ridiculous comparisons ???
I assume It may be researched to see who was the originator.

>>

1) I am civil to many people on this board. I was civil to you at the start, but your inability to grasp simple concepts, and the complete neglect of items that you know are of importance, either on purpose or because of ignorance, is irritating...and the fact that you pulled some weasel moves in our debates, like purposely leaving out information, flat out stating that you only highlight the things that make your stance, and ignore the ones that don't.

And , setting criteria so that it goes out of the way to ignore important factors. For instance, in your Kingman/Wagner method, you compared Rice to Murray in all these totals of their best. But when it got to Batting Average you restricted it to "AL ONLY." Why is that? None of the others were restritcted to league!! Because if you had included all the years like you did in the other "kingman/wagner methods" Murray's .330 AVG with LA would have made one of your dumb comparisons invalid. So yo just ignored it, and fixed the criteria so that it wouldn't be included!

This is why I don't owe you an apology, because weasel stuff like this, YOU owe ME and apology.

2) The second question is that YOU created the Kingman/Wagner method of picking/choosing/ignoring categories, context, and level of validity, in order to TRY and show that Rice was as good as Murray. You were such a laughing stock at doing it, that even the most die hard Rice fans stayed away from the Rice debates once you entered them with that obvious mindless, bias, ignorant junk. That method was then transposed to Kingman/Wagner to show the folly of your attempts.

Answer the questions, or just please leave.

TheVon · August 18, 2009 1:43AM

Both of you guys should probably take a break and pop a few Excedrin tablets. With all this beating your head against walls, I have to imagine the headaches are incredible.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 1:47AM

"Answer the questions, or just please leave.'

So you apparently think you have the right to censor or restrict posters, based on how much they agree with your views. A very large ego, indeed.

I have the right to answer or not answer any questions whatsoever, you have no control over the content of this message board, however, your vile personal insults should probably be censored.

You are also apparently too shallow admit that YOU, you personally, initiated and inserted the absurd comparisons, and somehow still try to make people think I caused you to do so, by Voodoo, black magic, or ventriloquism I suppose.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 1:47AM

TheVon, no headaches...more of an escape for me. Maybe I am a fool for debating a fool...or debating a weasel with a hidden agenda. Jaxxr, I responded below.

<< The fist question is ........

Why can you not be civil, polite, and respect slightly different opinions regarding baseball evaluation ?

The second question is...

Why wont you admit it was YOU, and you personally, who started and then inserted into other threads, the ridiculous comparisons ???
I assume It may be researched to see who was the originator.
>>

1) I am civil to many people on this board. I was civil to you at the start, but your inability to grasp simple concepts, and the complete neglect of items that you know are of importance, either on purpose or because of ignorance, is irritating...and the fact that you pulled some weasel moves in our debates, like purposely leaving out information, flat out stating that you only highlight the things that make your stance, and ignore the ones that don't.

And , setting criteria so that it goes out of the way to ignore important factors. For instance, in your Kingman/Wagner method, you compared Rice to Murray in all these totals of their best. But when it got to Batting Average you restricted it to "AL ONLY." Why is that? None of the others were restritcted to league!! Because if you had included all the years like you did in the other "kingman/wagner methods" Murray's .330 AVG with LA would have made one of your dumb comparisons invalid. So yo just ignored it, and fixed the criteria so that it wouldn't be included! Weasel move!

This is why I don't owe you an apology, because weasel stuff like this, YOU owe ME and apology.

2) The second question is that YOU created the Kingman/Wagner method of picking/choosing/ignoring categories, context, and level of validity, in order to TRY and show that Rice was as good as Murray. You were such a laughing stock at doing it, that even the most die hard Rice fans stayed away from the Rice debates once you entered them with that obvious mindless, bias, ignorant junk. That method was then transposed to Kingman/Wagner to show the folly of your attempts.

Answer the questions, or just please leave.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 2:00AM

The topic of this particular thread is;

Legitimate Question: Was Dave Parker a better baseball player than Jim Rice?
Created On Friday 14, August

I gave a reasonable response earlier, I will not copy/paste it here.

It is a shame some with an apparent agenda go way off topic , bring up Eddie Murray, Honus Wagner, and sometimes even Paula Abdul, if it suits their concept of baseball discussion.

Morgoth · August 18, 2009 2:04AM

Hoopster you can't ask people to leave just because they don't agree with you. You seem to get overly emotional in these debates, why not just present your info and let others decide in their minds who they feel is correct. Demanding someone leave if they don't answer your questions is pretty juevenile

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 2:51AM

Morgoth, actually, according to everyone, I am entitled to an opinion, right? My opinion is that he should just leave if he doesn't want to add anything constructive, continue to use methods that put Kingman on par with Honus Wagner, and continue to side step easy and fair questions that he won't answer.

You may like his methods, that is your choice, but it is my opinion he has worthless contributions, and I have a hunch that he does it on purpose(how else could one explain it).

I can drop the opinion card too

Jaxxr, I answered your questions, even though you have continued to use weasel-like methods.

Jaxxr, why is it that you usually only appear in Jim Rice related threads? You showed no interest in the Dave Park HOF thread, but the moment that Jim Rice was compared to Parker, here you come. The moment I put Jim Rice in a thread title, here you come with your continued mindless, irrelevent data with your typical Kingman/Wagner method. Is Rice your husband?

Jaxxr, in your estimation...based on all those stats and formulas you presented as having merit, you have three possible answers on who was better. Simply pick one...

1)Murray was better than Rice
2)Rice was better than Murray
3)they are equal

No hemming and hawing. No, 'perhaps', no 'however interesting it is to compare players from a time.' If you truly understand all those formulas and methods you present, it should not be that hard to pick one.

The second question is...

What is better, playing MLB and achieving an OPS+ of 103 and a WinShare per 648 PA of 10, OR not playing MLB at all? SImply pick one.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 3:30AM

"You showed no interest in the Dave Park HOF thread"

I assume that is a mistake,
not really talking about former minor league hockey star Dave Park, and likely not former 49ers wide out, Dave Parks, but probably meant Dave Parker, the famous former Pirate OFer.

You are also mistaken about my lack of interest, on Dave Parker vs Jim Rice,
Please check back at the fourth or fifth post herein of this thread, I made a reply and used a few statistics which covered some aspects of both fine baseball players.
I shall not copy/post it now, if you are sincerely interested, you can easily go back and read it.

gregmo32 · August 18, 2009 3:41AM

I was watching the UFC Pay per View the other night and a Collectors Universe sports talk forum thread broke out.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 3:56AM

And , setting criteria so that it goes out of the way to ignore important factors. For instance, in your Kingman/Wagner method, you compared Rice to Murray in all these totals of their best. But when it got to Batting Average you restricted it to "AL ONLY." Why is that? None of the others were restritcted to league!! Because if you had included all the years like you did in the other "kingman/wagner methods" Murray's .330 AVG with LA would have made one of your dumb comparisons invalid. So yo just ignored it, and fixed the criteria so that it wouldn't be included! Weasel move!

Please, don't repost anything. Any of your first dumb posts are enough. You probably shouldn't spend your time looking for typos or such, as you need to devote as much brain power to learning what you are 'trying' to debate.

You do need to address the above weasel scenario, and answer some questions though.

Jaxr, you may have perfected your Kingman/Wagner method.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 5:12AM

This thread, started by Gregmo 32,
is NOT about Eddie Murray, or Honus Wagner, or Dave Kingman.

Any agendas regarding those aforementioned fellows, might possibly be more properly addressed elsewhere.

Dave Parker and Jim Rice were both fine OFers, and both from a relatively similar time era.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 5:46AM

Jaxr, Mr. Weasel,

Based on YOUR estimation, who was better Dave Parker, or Jim Rice. It is a simple choice. Pick one. Why all the side stepping?

Who was better Rice or Murray, pick one.

Who was a better baseball player, Alex Rios or Denise Richards, pick one.

Who was a better baseball player, Jaxr or Gary Coleman. Estimate on Coleman's ability, and pick one.

No, the thread isn't about Honus Wagner, or Kingman, but you are using your methods that make them comparable. So in a sense, you are actually bringing them in.

jaxxr · August 18, 2009 5:58AM

Amazing how one can repeatedly continue to make similar mistakes,

"Who was a better baseball player, Jaxr or Gary Coleman"

Look at the avatar for the correct spelling of jaxxr, and BB Ref for the correct spelling of Gordy Coleman.

Hoopster · August 18, 2009 6:51AM

Jaxr, I was talking about Gary Coleman the actor. So now that is clear....

Based on YOUR estimation, who was better Dave Parker, or Jim Rice. It is a simple choice. Pick one. Why all the side stepping?

Who was better Rice or Murray, pick one.

Who was a better baseball player, Alex Rios or Denise Richards, pick one.

Who was a better baseball player, Jaxr or Gary Coleman. Estimate on Coleman's ability, and pick one.

No, the thread isn't about Honus Wagner, or Kingman, but you are using your methods that make them comparable. So in a sense, you are actually bringing them in.

Legitimate Question: Was Dave Parker a better baseball player than Jim Rice?

Comments