Options
Jim Rice, Eddie Murray, Alex Rios...and WinPitcher(Steve)?? Who was better?
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
You can skip to the bold highlighted info if you want to cut to the chase.
No offense Winpitcher(Steve), but is there a sane person who thinks that WinPitcher is as good a hitter as Alex Rios? Is Rob Lowe as good a hitter as Alex Rios. Are Winpitcher, Denise Richards, or Rob Lowe as good a hitters as Aaron Rowand? No.
I ask this, because currently Alex Rios has a caeer OPS+ of 104, and Aaron Rowand a career OPS+ of 103. Keep in mind that both of those figures represent a figure that is better than the MLB average, and they have done it in over 3,000+ plate apperances. I think anybody on these boards would be proud to say that they hit like Rios or Rowand for that many trips to the plate in MLB games.
But some people actually view an OPS+ of 103 as a negative...something that should be held against a person who can do that in MLB for 3,000 at bats. I know I would be proud to do that, and I know that Jaxxr would be proud to do that as well. So why would that be held in such poor light?
It is because of a lack of understanding of longevity and how to properly use a rate stat to measure a player's ability/value.
For example. Jim Rice has a career OPS+ of 128, and Eddie Murray has a career OPS+ of 129. Those marks seem close, and indicate that the players are of equal value. But when one considers that Murray played a longer career to the tune of an extra 3,700+ PA, one should immediately dig deeper.
After 9,058 plate apperances, Jim Rice was no longer good enough to hold a regular MLB job(he was 'washed up'). His career ended, and from then on he produced at the same rate as Winpitcher, or Denise Richards. He basically had the same value to a MLB team as they did. Whether he could have squeezed out another subpar year, who knows. What we do know is that HE DIDN'T. He did nothing after 9,058 plate apperances.
If that is compared to Eddie Murray, Murray didn't stop after 9,058 plate apperances. He went on and added another 3,700+ apperances(appx the same amount as Rios and Rowand have done thus far). So why does this matter?
When Murray hit the 9,058 plate appearance mark in his career, his OPS+ sat at 141...compared to Rice's 128. Now that tells a bit of a different story than the 129 vs. 128.
Keep in mind that OPS+ does not include GIDP, nor does it include a players performance in hitting with men on base. When those are added, the gap between the two widens greatly. In OPS+ terms, I would estimate it widens to a 152-129 margin. But let's focus on the 141 to 128 for now.
Basically what happened is that Murray matched Rice's 9,058 plate appearances, and bettered him in performance by a 141-128 margin. Clearly a nice advantage for Murray...even greater with the men on performances.
The next part is what confuses people. Murray was old, but was still good. Rice was then finished. Murray went on to add another 3,700+ plate apperances at the rate of an OPS+ of appx 103. What happened is that this lower rate made Murray's career rate drop, while Rice's absence from a MLB team made his stay at the 128. To sum it up it looked like this.
Rice career OPS+ 128...and he had 9,058 career plate apperances.
Murray carer OPS+ 141...over his '1st' career of 9,058 plate apperances.
EDGE? Eddie Murray by a nice margin. By a large margin when Men on Hitting is included.
Rice career OPS+ of ZERO...over the rest of his MLB baseball life. The same as Denise Richards, or Winpitchers.
Murray career OPS+ of 103...over the rest of his MLB life of 3,700+ plate apperances. The same as Aaron Rowand or Alex Rios.
Absolute HUGE edge to Eddie Murray here. This is a PLUS in the evluation of Murray, NOT a negative! It is quite an accomplishemtn for a person to do this. I would love to had an OPS+ of 103 in 3,700 MLB plate appearances. On the other side, Rice did the same thing as every other blob sitting at home.
So to the fellas who don't grasp the career rate stat measuring, Murray had Rice's career beat substantially already....then he went ahead and added the hitting value of an Alex Rios on top of that.
It is what you call a slam dunk, no contest between the two players.
This is a public service announcement for those who like to use rate stats to measure MLB hitting careers. Use them right.
No offense Winpitcher(Steve), but is there a sane person who thinks that WinPitcher is as good a hitter as Alex Rios? Is Rob Lowe as good a hitter as Alex Rios. Are Winpitcher, Denise Richards, or Rob Lowe as good a hitters as Aaron Rowand? No.
I ask this, because currently Alex Rios has a caeer OPS+ of 104, and Aaron Rowand a career OPS+ of 103. Keep in mind that both of those figures represent a figure that is better than the MLB average, and they have done it in over 3,000+ plate apperances. I think anybody on these boards would be proud to say that they hit like Rios or Rowand for that many trips to the plate in MLB games.
But some people actually view an OPS+ of 103 as a negative...something that should be held against a person who can do that in MLB for 3,000 at bats. I know I would be proud to do that, and I know that Jaxxr would be proud to do that as well. So why would that be held in such poor light?
It is because of a lack of understanding of longevity and how to properly use a rate stat to measure a player's ability/value.
For example. Jim Rice has a career OPS+ of 128, and Eddie Murray has a career OPS+ of 129. Those marks seem close, and indicate that the players are of equal value. But when one considers that Murray played a longer career to the tune of an extra 3,700+ PA, one should immediately dig deeper.
After 9,058 plate apperances, Jim Rice was no longer good enough to hold a regular MLB job(he was 'washed up'). His career ended, and from then on he produced at the same rate as Winpitcher, or Denise Richards. He basically had the same value to a MLB team as they did. Whether he could have squeezed out another subpar year, who knows. What we do know is that HE DIDN'T. He did nothing after 9,058 plate apperances.
If that is compared to Eddie Murray, Murray didn't stop after 9,058 plate apperances. He went on and added another 3,700+ apperances(appx the same amount as Rios and Rowand have done thus far). So why does this matter?
When Murray hit the 9,058 plate appearance mark in his career, his OPS+ sat at 141...compared to Rice's 128. Now that tells a bit of a different story than the 129 vs. 128.
Keep in mind that OPS+ does not include GIDP, nor does it include a players performance in hitting with men on base. When those are added, the gap between the two widens greatly. In OPS+ terms, I would estimate it widens to a 152-129 margin. But let's focus on the 141 to 128 for now.
Basically what happened is that Murray matched Rice's 9,058 plate appearances, and bettered him in performance by a 141-128 margin. Clearly a nice advantage for Murray...even greater with the men on performances.
The next part is what confuses people. Murray was old, but was still good. Rice was then finished. Murray went on to add another 3,700+ plate apperances at the rate of an OPS+ of appx 103. What happened is that this lower rate made Murray's career rate drop, while Rice's absence from a MLB team made his stay at the 128. To sum it up it looked like this.
Rice career OPS+ 128...and he had 9,058 career plate apperances.
Murray carer OPS+ 141...over his '1st' career of 9,058 plate apperances.
EDGE? Eddie Murray by a nice margin. By a large margin when Men on Hitting is included.
Rice career OPS+ of ZERO...over the rest of his MLB baseball life. The same as Denise Richards, or Winpitchers.
Murray career OPS+ of 103...over the rest of his MLB life of 3,700+ plate apperances. The same as Aaron Rowand or Alex Rios.
Absolute HUGE edge to Eddie Murray here. This is a PLUS in the evluation of Murray, NOT a negative! It is quite an accomplishemtn for a person to do this. I would love to had an OPS+ of 103 in 3,700 MLB plate appearances. On the other side, Rice did the same thing as every other blob sitting at home.
So to the fellas who don't grasp the career rate stat measuring, Murray had Rice's career beat substantially already....then he went ahead and added the hitting value of an Alex Rios on top of that.
It is what you call a slam dunk, no contest between the two players.
This is a public service announcement for those who like to use rate stats to measure MLB hitting careers. Use them right.
0
Comments
No offense taken.
Steve
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I hit as many HR's this month as Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, AND Barry Bonds did this month.. COMBINED! AWESOME! >>
But did you also accomplish what they did before they stopped?
<< <i>I have eaten almost as many hot dogs and slept with almost as many women as Babe Ruth did. >>
The hot dog part is probably true.
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
<< <i>I have eaten almost as many hot dogs and slept with almost as many women as Babe Ruth did. >>
In your dreams!
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
However, the point of the the thread is longevity and using a rate stat like OPS+ to compare hitters who played different career lengths. TheVon, Murray and Rice highlight that example perfectly....hence the use of those two players.
will greatly change the perception of a baseball player, depending on which ones are used.
Are Total bases, or OPS +, or RC/600 better evaluations of a hitter ?
No absolute perfect ways, and one's personal views of importance, influence their opinions.
A good example of such stat inconclusiveness might be shown via Wins Shares,
"The back of the Win Shares book by Bill James proclaims “Win Shares, a revolutionary system that allows for player evaluation across positions, teams and eras, measures the total sum of player contributions in one groundbreaking number. James’ latest advancement in the world of statistical analysis is the next big stepping stone in the “greatest players of all time” debate."
WS per 648 PA, a typical or average full season estimate, show the following for just firstbaseman;
1. Lou Gehrig = 32.80, no big surprise at all, however,
some of the following firstbasemen might be a bit of a surprise,
11. Dave Orr = 27.55, 15. Pedro Guerrero = 26.07, 19. Jack Fournier = 24.81, 29. Ripper Collins = 22.65, 32. Don Mincher = 22.22, and perhaps surprising to some, at the number34 spot is Steady Eddie Murray with a mark of 22.09 !
Eddie's superior longevity is somewhat offset by the fact, he never, in a full 100 game+ season, ever led his league in HRs, or BA, or RBI, or Runs Scored, or Total bases, or Hits, or OPS +, or Slg %., valid hitter categories a much criticized fellow like Jim Rice, for example, who despite 5 less seasons or chances, led his league 13 different times.
<< <i>WS per 648 PA, a typical or average full season estimate, show the following for just firstbaseman;
1. Lou Gehrig = 32.80, no big surprise at all, however,
some of the following firstbasemen might be a bit of a surprise,
11. Dave Orr = 27.55, 15. Pedro Guerrero = 26.07, 19. Jack Fournier = 24.81, 29. Ripper Collins = 22.65, 32. Don Mincher = 22.22, and perhaps surprising to some, at the number34 spot is Steady Eddie Murray with a mark of 22.09 !
Eddie's superior longevity is somewhat offset by the fact, he never, in a full 100 game+ season, ever led his league in HRs, or BA, or RBI, or Runs Scored, or Total bases, or Hits, or OPS +, or Slg %., valid hitter categories a much criticized fellow like Jim Rice, for example, who despite 5 less seasons or chances, led his league 13 different times.
The James WinShares per 648 plate apperances is another version of a rate stat. Read the entire first post of this thread, as I don't think you understood it. Murray is at 22.09 winshers per 648 Plate Apperances because that is counting his years where he played longer, while other guys like Rice, or Guerrero, weren't good enough to play at all!
Think about it. For the years where he averaged 10 win shares per 648 plate appearances, it is making his career winshare average per 648 PA go down. But guys that were not good enough to play, like Rice, WinPitcher, or Denise Richards were contributing the same...zero. It is also not accounting for platoon type players, or guys that took a lot of days off against tough matchups to save their figures...think Ken Phelps or McCovey early on.
So by using that per season average with a guy with a long career, you are saying that Murray's years where he averaged 10 winshares is as good as Winpitchers, or Densie Richards. This is the jist of the entire thread. You really need to read it again to understand. You are really making yourself look foolish again.
Jaxxr, I see your Kingman/Wagner methods at work again. Murray led both leagues in Situational Batter runs TWICE. Leading the league in situational batter runs, and comparing it to leading it in Total Bases, is like comparing winning the lottery to winning a dollar. Again, when looking at the various categories Rice led in, you have to account for home park and lineup, both of which heavily influence the things he won in. You need to start looking at the items that most accurately depict a players value/ability. When you compare OPS+ and put it on the same par as Total Bases, you are failing at that miserably. By the way, Total Bases are already equated in OPS+, so no need to equate them TWICE. Didn't you learn that lesson before???? I guess not, because you are using the Kingman/Wagner methods again.
PS. Your quote about Rice having five less seasons or chances kill me! That is also the jist of this thread. He had the chances, he just wasn't good enough to gain employment, and that is why he had less seasons. Don't you get that yet moron? Murray bettered Rice in their equal lenght careers by a large margin...then he went and addded an ALex Rios career on top of that. Repeat, understand, learn...get out of the first grade, please.
When you understand how the rate stat formula's work for a career player, then you will begin to learn. Read above the first post to understand, and apply that to the winshare's rate stat as well. Then also realize that Winshares doesn't fully include the players Men ON Base hitting, where Murray excelled. But since you are reading James, notice that James has Murray as having the second Most WinShares ever among 1B, behind only Gehrig(as of 2006). Where does Rice rank???
Oh, thats right, you consider a season of 10 Winshares as of equal value as the contributions from WinPItcher, Denise Richards, or Michael Jackson. Do you get this aspect yet???? Do you?
Eddie Murray didn't just sneak into the Hall of Fame like Jim Rice did. Eddie was in there on his first ballot.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Hoopster, I know that Rice and Murray highlight the issue perfectly. But you've already made this same case using these guys about a dozen times. I think anyone that frequents this board has already read your thoughts on both OPS+ and the differences between Rice and Murray and people are either going to get it or they aren't at this point. I don't see how repeating yourself makes it more clear. >>
I guess I believe in the no child left behind philosophy.
The people I have talked to on this board have indeed understood the point of the rate stat/longevity topic, so I must be conveying somewhat o.k. However, it seems there is a straggler on board, and I am just trying to help.
I guess the main point to understand is to see if one feels a year of a 110 OPS+, or a year of 10 WinShares per 648 plate apperances, is more worthy of praise than the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul. Seems Jaxxr views them equally.
Is Alex Rios as good as Denise Richards? Is he Jaxxr? Is there a reason why Denise Richards is not employed on a MLB 25 man roster? Is there a reason Rios has been for the last several years? These questions need to be addressed.
When a player is good enough to play past his peak, AND be a viable MLB player, that is a POSITIVE, even when it does drop his career rate stat such as OPS+, OB%, SLG+, or WinShares per 648 PA.
The player that is not good enough to be a viable player past his peak has the same value as a Denise Richards, or Paula Abdul from that point on.
This is the first point that needs to be understood for our resident student. This explains what he called inconsistencies in the good measurement tools.
The second point is the effect of ballparks.
The third is the validity of each measuring tool...and what the measure. Including, but not limited to, items such as measuring the player and not the teammates(see RBI and Runs Scored). Also giving appropriate value to each event so that it matches up with what has actually occured in MLB(this is where the use of play by play data really comes in handy).
For example, Situational Batter Runs is the most comprehensive and of the highest validity of all the measurements. Jaxxr, you like to look at times led the league, well try this one on for size...
Murray led MLB (BOTH leagues) in Situational Batter runs TWICE, 1983, and 1984. He was second in 1985, and third in 1990. This is for MLB, not just one league. Rice led MLB ZERO times. That is an impressive accomplishment by Murray because it means more for producing runs, than say leading in total bases would(while ignoring other KEY aspects like you do) would. There simply is no comparison
But we need to take it one step at a time, and this step is the Denise Richards step. So Jaxxr, stay on step one for now. We can tackle the others later after this is mastered.
"Don't you get that yet moron? Murray bettered Rice in their equal lenght careers by a large margin...then he went and addded an ALex Rios career on top of that. Repeat, understand, learn...get out of the first grade, please."
I do get that "lenght" and also the term "addded" , probably intensify one's anger and haste in posting.
My initial point was that longevity, and other factors do NOT tell the whole story, additional things like being able to be a league leader, where Rice bettered Murray considerably, are also of importance, and while you may use the term "moron" freely as you see fit, towards anyone who has a alternate opinion, it is quite rude.
Also from Mr Shinpinch / Hoopster,
"James has Murray as having the second Most WinShares ever among 1B, behind only Gehrig(as of 2006). Where does Rice rank???"
Many of us know Rice never played 1B, thus can not rank anywhere, it's mathematically impossible.
I am sure most rational posters herein, can see Rice was superior in some features of hitting, like HRs, and other aspects, Murray better in some as well, like drawing walks, and other things, both guys outstanding ballplayers, from a relatively similar time era.
I have great respect for both, and no emotional problems giving them their due, and also realize Murray's 6th most games ever, gave him a great chance to compile some truly fine career numbers, and a more obvious, and justly deserved recognition.
Address this...
I guess the main point to understand is to see if one feels a year of a 110 OPS+, or a year of 10 WinShares per 648 plate apperances, is more worthy of praise than the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul. Seems Jaxxr views them equally.
Is Alex Rios as good as Denise Richards? Is he Jaxxr? Is there a reason why Denise Richards is not employed on a MLB 25 man roster? Is there a reason Rios has been for the last several years? These questions need to be addressed.
You see, Murray beats Rice 141 to 128 in OPS+ in their equal 9,000 plate apperances. Then he added another 3,7000 PA at the rate of Alex Rios's.
BUT, you continue to use the 129-128 closeness in their career OPS+ as if they are of equal ability. What you need to do is to stop using that.
My point about James is/was, that if you are indeed reading something of worth(like you did), then please don't stop. Because James has Murray as having the second most WinShares among first baseman, and he has him beating Rice handily in career WinShares...please do not bring up per 648 plate apperance WinShares again, because that is the same exercise used in OPS+.
Then later, we can address the league leader stuff, and ballpark effect stuff(which has been addressed already, but we can take it slow like the above). You know, like leading the league in Situational Batter Runs carries far more weight and importnace than leading it in Total Bases, or any other single category. Total Bases are already expressed in the situational batter runs, but so are all the other important pieces of info. But address the above first.
For this exercise, do the following task. Place where Murray and Rice ranked among their league in WinShares every year. Do the same for OPS+. Do the same for Situatioal Batter Runs. You have three outstanding measurements there. You will see already that Murray lead MLB for two years in SItuational batter Runs. That is quite an accomplishment, and truly highlights the value of his performance. If you are reading James's book, you should NOT be looking where they ranked in HR, RBI, Total Bases, you should be looking at the more valid measurements. And by God, you should not be neglecting the park factor, AGAIN!
" Situational Batter Runs carries far more weight and importnace than leading it in Total Bases, or any other single category."
That of course, is a personal opinion, regardless of whatever "importnace" is supposed to imply, what one does with no one on base has a big impact in baseball as well.
Just for fun, below is a MLB season with some situational numbers,
1979 AL Season
Eddie Murray, 341 runners on, via PA-ROB stat, drove in 74, overall season's total RBI 99.
Jim Rice, 356 runners on, via PA-ROB stat, drove in 91, overall season's total RBI 130.
Seems Rice, in any situation, drove in more percentage-wise than Murray.
Win Shares is another good, however imperfect, measure,
All methods which do not over value compiled numbers, do NOT show Murray near the best firstbaseman.
"Objective"
1 Musial, 2 Gehrig, 3 Foxx, 4 D Allen, 5 Bagwell
"WS per 648 PA"
1 Gehrig, 2 D Allen, 3 F Chance, 4 Dan Brouthers, 5 Johnny Mize. Musial not rated as a 1B, but would rank second to Gehrig if so.
"WS above replacement"
1 Musial, 2 Gehrig, 3 Foxx, 4 Dan Brouthers, 5 F Thomas
"Modified"
1 Musial, 2 Gehrig, 3 Foxx, 4 Bagwell, 5 D Allen
"WS above average"
1 Musial, 2 Gehrig, 3 Foxx, 4 Dan Brouther, 5 F Thomas
OPS is also good, but also not all telling, perhaps Murray did average a 141 via PF adjusted OPS +, in 9000 specific PA, however it does not change that FACT, that Rice had a higher single season PF adjusted OPS + than Murray ever did, and also that Rice was a league leader in that stat, unlike Murray.
Again, most rational posters can see, Rice tops Murray in some peak or averaged aspects of hitter performance, but certainly not all, and can weigh the various factors , rates, and stats based on whatever frame of references they prefer.
I am fairly sure a pool would probably show most feel Murray was a better player, than Jim Rice, Sam Rice, or even Del Rice. Nothing wrong or unusual with that.
What seems irrational or very peculiar, is a constant, almost perpetual need to attempt to degrade a player like Jim Rice, at every possible opportunity, and often regardless of any relevancy to a topic, that is difficult to reason. It may make one feel superior to other posters, smarter than official HOF voters, more intelligent to baseball fans, or somehow satisfy some deep need to be recognized as an expert on baseball.
<< <i>I have eaten almost as many hot dogs and slept with almost as many women as Babe Ruth did. >>
Bill, your cousins don't count.
Sorry man, you made that too easy
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Glad to see you are researching the WinShares, and using them to try and make a point. Now your next step is to do this, just fill in the blanks.
Eddie Murray Winshare total=
Jim Rice WinShare total=
Then put their yearly WinShare totals side by side next to each other to see how their best stack up against each other, their second best, third best, and so on to their 21st best.
.............Murray.........Rice
1st best
2nd best
3rd best
4th best
5th best
6th best
and so on
Then, you must address this......
I guess the main point to understand is to see if one feels a year of a 110 OPS+, or a year of 10 WinShares per 648 plate apperances, is more worthy of praise than the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul. Seems Jaxxr views them equally.
Is Alex Rios as good as Denise Richards? Is he Jaxxr? Is there a reason why Denise Richards is not employed on a MLB 25 man roster? Is there a reason Rios has been for the last several years? These questions need to be addressed.
You see, Murray beats Rice 141 to 128 in OPS+ in their equal 9,000 plate apperances. Then he added another 3,7000 PA at the rate of Alex Rios's.
You keep looking at one season examples? That is your famous Kingman/Wagner method again. Please eliminate all such references. You look ABSOLUTELY foolish doing that. Again, any raw number you post in regard to Rice, needs to be adjsuted for his home park. By the way, if you post how many RBI a guy drove in, please post how many times he made an OUT in the same situations! Or in Rice's case, made two outs.
Not degrading Rice, just putting him in proper perspective. You can say I am sticking up for the guys who were BETTER than Rice, but didn't get the notoriety they deserved, over that of Rice...because people are ignorant to the topic. Guys like Lynn, Dewey,...and too many to type, that are not in the HOF or get praise because of bias and ignorance. Jaxxr, you should try and be fair and stop degrading deserving players because your hero is in question.
"Situatioanl" ???
Well whatever you are talking about, a HR is the most valuable result a batter may have, in ANY situation whatsoever, Rice has a better peak, a better seasonal average, and a better HR frequency than Murray, and in several seasons, Rice's ROAD homeruns, when doubled, are greater than any single season Murray ever had !
..............................
" Jaxxr, you should try and be fair and stop degrading deserving players because your hero is in question."
Here is what I just posted prior,
"Again, most rational posters can see, Rice tops Murray in some peak or averaged aspects of hitter performance, but certainly not all, and can weigh the various factors , rates, and stats based on whatever frame of references they prefer.
I am fairly sure a pool would probably show most feel Murray was a better player, than Jim Rice, Sam Rice, or even Del Rice. Nothing wrong or unusual with that."
I would guess many normal people would assess that wording to be reasonably "fair"
..........................................
Jim Rice is no personal hero of mine, I have many more cards of Murray, including 6 or 7 Rookie cards, than of Rice. I truly like Steady Eddie, and feel his being a member of the 500/3000 Club is phenomenal. I have never disputed, and often forwarded, the opinion, that Rice was a borderline HOFer, but it is now a real FACT, that he is a HOFer, apparently some cant stand it, and their ability to spell words correctly and discuss in a polite manner, suffer greatly.
What I feel is irrational, is the constant and repeated failures to acknowledge any accomplishments of Rice whatsoever, no merit or quality at all, in 406 total bases, multiple HR crowns, or four 200 hit seasons, in addition to narrow minded musings over stats allegedly done ENTIRELY due to the ballpark, numbers reached ALL due to teammates, and foolish insinuations that each and every GIDP was a costly, game deciding event.
Best seasons inTOTAL BASES, NOT adjusted for Park factor.
Murray......Rice
322.........406
313.........382
305.........369
302.........344
299.........307
295.........303
293.........283
290.........280
288.........277
287.........266
286.........254
285.........199
238.........197
236.........165
233..........72
232..........25
229...........0
225...........0
202...........0
184...........0
53.............0
From this point on, both have zero for eternity. Please note that Murray had three Player Strikes/work stoppages. Rice had one.
Hmmm, by my count, Murray's best beat Rice's best 15-6. If one chooses to neglect the five years where Murray had MLB value, and RIce had Denise Richards value, then he still beats him 10-6. Hmmm. I wonder how these numbers would change if we did their road totals and doubled them(like you did before, but only for a ONE of the seasons).
Hey, if you look just in the top 16 years(rice's career length only), then Murray actually averaged MORE per year than Rice!!
But, aHa, Murray then added five more seasons worth of Total Bases, and Rice added the same as Denise Richard's.
So, in using YOUR most hyped measurement, it pretty much says the same thing the OPS+ did on the yearly comparisons!
I also wonder what would happen if we did this with every single stat on baseball-reference, not even doing the park adjustment, and then also did it with the more accurate comprehensive stats. I actually gave you a template below to begin with one of the comprehensive measurements.
You owe me this. I did a year by year ranking with YOUR more hyped stat for Rice, and did NOT use a ballpark factor. You owe it upon yourself to do the same with either WinShares or Situational Batter Runs.
Glad to see you are researching the WinShares, and using them to try and make a point. Now your next step is to do this, just fill in the blanks.
Eddie Murray Winshare total=
Jim Rice WinShare total=
Then put their yearly WinShare totals side by side next to each other to see how their best stack up against each other, their second best, third best, and so on to their 21st best.
.............Murray.........Rice
1st best
2nd best
3rd best
4th best
5th best
6th best
and so on
P.S. Nobody every said every GIDP was a game ending event goof. Read what SITUATIONAL batter runs are about. Now that it is spelled correctly, maybe you can understand?
"You owe me this"
If anyone is "owed" anything, it would be me, due a sincere apology, for the vile, crude, and childish insults used while trying to discuss the relative merits of ball players.
.............................................................
Total bases are one of many good stats which measure part of a hitter's quality.
WIn Shares, any of the 6 or 7 versions, are also good, so are RC/600AB or RC/660PA, or RC/27outs. Value above replacement, either via median, average, or minimum player is also good.
There are numerous others, BOP= base out percentage, TA= total averages, OR= offensive ratio, BPA=base production average, and EBA=earned base average, all which use much detail and provide reasonable evaluations.
The authors or originators of any or all of these formula, do agree, no measure is completely all inclusive, nor can perfectly reflect every aspect of the game.
And once again,
most rational posters can see, Rice tops Murray in some peak or averaged aspects of hitter performance, Total bases is merely one, but certainly not all the aspects, and they can weigh the various factors, rates, and stats, based on whatever frame of references they prefer.
How can you not get the idea of the measuremnets on per at bat basis, when measuring players of different career lengths??? What part of the Densie Richard/Alex Rios aspect don't you understand??? You keep using those measurements in this case.
You must address this......
I guess the main point to understand is to see if one feels a year of a 110 OPS+, or a year of 10 WinShares per 648 plate apperances, is more worthy of praise than the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul. Seems Jaxxr views them equally.
Is Alex Rios as good as Denise Richards? Is he Jaxxr? Is there a reason why Denise Richards is not employed on a MLB 25 man roster? Is there a reason Rios has been for the last several years? These questions need to be addressed.
You see, Murray beats Rice 141 to 128 in OPS+ in their equal 9,000 plate apperances. Then he added another 3,7000 PA at the rate of Alex Rios's.
Rice does not beat Murray in peak by any means at all.
If you want to continue to refuse to address the above because you know it kills everything you ever posted, then at least answer this one question, and please answer it straight for once...
In YOUR opinion, who was a better player, Eddie Murray or Jim Rice. Simply pick one of the two. NO mumbo jumbo, or 'perhaps', or 'not all measurements are 100% accurate.' Go ahead and go out on a limb and say either 1)Murray, or 2) Rice. It does not get any simpler than that.
All parts of it are beyond my baseball insight, especially the name DENSIE, you are certainly much more knowledgeable regarding "Densie Richard" , than I.
"the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul."
Once again, you are more informed about those people than I.
Just curious, is Densie Richard, as in the first quote from you, supposed to be the same person as Denise Richards, from your second quote ? Or merely yet another mistake by you ?
Densie, Denise, Richard Simmons, Paula Abdul,
You really dont appear to desire serious discussions on the relative merits of Eddie Murray and Jim Rice via single season, peak years, or career measures.
The questions still stand. No point trying to side track by focusing on typos(maybe that is why you dont' comprehend this stuff??).
How can you not get the idea of the measuremnets on per at bat basis, when measuring players of different career lengths??? What part of the Densie Richard/Alex Rios aspect don't you understand??? You keep using those measurements in this case.
You must address this......
I guess the main point to understand is to see if one feels a year of a 110 OPS+, or a year of 10 WinShares per 648 plate apperances, is more worthy of praise than the contributions to MLB from Denise Richards, Richard Simmons, or Paula Abdul. Seems Jaxxr views them equally.
Is Alex Rios as good as Denise Richards? Is he Jaxxr? Is there a reason why Denise Richards is not employed on a MLB 25 man roster? Is there a reason Rios has been for the last several years? These questions need to be addressed.
You see, Murray beats Rice 141 to 128 in OPS+ in their equal 9,000 plate apperances. Then he added another 3,7000 PA at the rate of Alex Rios's.
Rice does not beat Murray in peak by any means at all.
If you want to continue to refuse to address the above because you know it kills everything you ever posted, then at least answer this one question, and please answer it straight for once...
In YOUR opinion, who was a better player, Eddie Murray or Jim Rice. Simply pick one of the two. NO mumbo jumbo, or 'perhaps', or 'not all measurements are 100% accurate.' Go ahead and go out on a limb and say either 1)Murray, or 2) Rice. It does not get any simpler than that.
Steve
<< <i>I wish I could say me.
Steve >>
LOL. Me too, but I am not part of the competition
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.
Not sure if that was a typing mistake, or a mental mistake, but regardless, that is another incorrect statement.
The "means" via HRs, Total Bases, RBI, Slg %, Etc., would show several single seasons, or consecutive seasons in which Rice had better numbers.
If the the means is to be OPS+, probably the stat implied, there are also several where Rice is better, for example,
Best peak single MLB season; Jim Rice 157, Eddie Murray 156
First Five consecutive full MLB seasons; Jim Rice 141, Eddie Murray 137
Peak seasons, or single season betterments are not the whole picture, obviously, however they are an important part, and as often said before,
most rational posters can see, Rice tops Murray in some peak or averaged aspects of hitter performance, but certainly not all, and can weigh the various factors , rates, and stats based on whatever frame of references they prefer.
Jaxxr, first five full seasons??? HuH? That isn't their peak my friend.
Here are their OPS+ for their BEST five season streak...which is their peak. I also put their second best FIVE YEAR streak
Rice 1975-1979 OPS+ 143
Rice 1976-1980 OPS + 142
Murray 1981-1985 OPS+ 154
Murray 1980-1984 OPS+ 152
Murray 1979-1983 OPS+ 146
Here are their best FOUR year runs...
Rice 1977-1980 OPS+ 146
Murray 1981-1984 OPS+ 156
Murray 1982-1985 OPS+ 154
Murray 1980-1983 OPS+ 151
Murray 1983-1986 OPS+ 150
As you can see, Murray had mulitple different peaks better than RIce's BEST peak! By the way, HR, SLG%, TB are already included in OPS+.
How about the BEST and most accurate measurement? The Situational Batter Runs, which includes 1B, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, Outs MAde, GIDP, SO, Runners Advanced via an OUT Made, and each of those are also weighed based on how many men were on base. Obviously, a HR with the bases loaded is worth more than one with nobody on.
Here are their best five year runs. It is runs produced above league average player.
Rice 1975-1979.... 127
Murray 1981-1985 ....242. This includes the strike year were Murray lost 60 games worth of them.
Murray has multiple five year runs better than Rice's BEST. If that isn't a drubbing, then I don't know what is.
Nevertheless, the following is interesting,
Best single season; Jim Rice 157, Eddie Murray 156
First five consecutive full MLB seasons; Jim Rice 141, Eddie Murray 137
Last five consecutive full MLB seasons; Jim Rice 115, Eddie Murray 106
Poorest full MLB single season; Jim Rice 102, Eddie Murray 86
Number of below average adjusted OPS + seasons, full or part time; Jim Rice two, Eddie Murray five different seasons.
Beginning of their careers, end of their careers, best and worst full season of their careers, Rice betters Murray, Middle five years go to Murray, perhaps the middle 8-10 also go to Murray, the similarity in these two is obvious, the career averages. OPS, and OPS + to Rice, Adjusted OPS + to Murray by one point, also enhance that similarity.
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.
By the way, in your complete neglect of the career lengths in your breakdown above, you made an obvious error. Murray did not have five seasons of below average OPS+. Instead of concentrating on my typos, try to get things right for once. But on to the questions above.
When making your decision on Rice/Murray you can continue to use the methods you used to make Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner if you wish, or you can choose more valid ones. Either way, all you have to do is make your proclamation, if you can't, then just leave because the special needs board is elsewhere. They will be more trained to help you make decisions.
That is true, I have no problem admitting a mistake,
I am probably guilty of many, such as trying to have a civil and courteous conversation with some.
Eddie had only four MLB seasons, in which he was below average via the one particular stat, adjusted OPS +.
Eddie did bounce around from team to team greatly near the end of his career, and I missed one "total" , for two different teams as a separate season, and double counted one team OPS + below 100 as a season. I stand corrected, and apologize for my inaccuracy.
<< 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.
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.
You put up all this information that you see, and obviously don't understand, and try to make a case for a player. But you cannot make a simple declaration, based on your opinion, on who was better, Murray or Rice?
You cannot make a judgement on which is better...Alex Rios having an OPS+ of 103, or Denise Richard's baseball ability?
But you can make a method that makes Dave Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner. I will give you that.
I am not sure of whom you are referring to.
Denise Richard, as in Denise Richard's baseball ability, as you posted, or
Denise Richards, which would correctly be Denise Richards' baseball ability.
???
You put up all this information that you see, and obviously don't understand, and try to make a case for a player. But you cannot make a simple declaration, based on your opinion, on who was better, Murray or Rice?
You cannot make a judgement on which is better...Alex Rios having an OPS+ of 103, or Denise Richards' baseball ability?
But you can make a method that makes Dave Kingman comparable to Honus Wagner. I will give you that.