The Goose Has Landed!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Babe Ruth is not particularly remembered as a singles and doubles hitter, but he is remembered as the greatest batter in baseball history; Aaron and McGwire and Sosa and whomever, included.
I just wanted to throw that out there.

Undoubtedly true. But Ruth also hit his fair share of doubles . Regardless, Ruth has the highest SLG in history: .6898. He's also second all time in OBP with .4740 (btw, #1 in OBP is Ted Williams with .4817).

Ruth has the #1 all time OPS+ with 207, well above #2, Ted Williams who has 191.

[Arrian]

Ben accusing Imran of cherry picking stats? When Ben is using batting average and HRs, but ignoring everything else?

Rice had value. He wasn't a *bad* player by any means. But he did have weaknesses in his game, namely:

1) OBP
2) Defense
3) Speed, or rather lack thereof, leading to a huge number of GIDP's
4) Shortish career - he was a dominant player for a few years, good for a few more, and then kinda fell off a cliff.

In his corner were a decent (but not phenomenal) batting average, and good (but not phenomenal) power.

Imran - I too have been enjoying the Lederer/Olney debate.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Well that's the question here. You bundle things together sometimes you overlook things. Right now, a man with low BA and high OBP, we know he walks alot.

The question isn't his SLG, but it's that OBP. By bundling them all together we miss the important stuff.

What does this even mean? What important stuff is missing, exactly?

As Imran pointed out, OBP correlates with scoring better than anything else. Seems to me that you are missing important stuff when you stick to batting average and HRs and ignore stats you appear to dislike for reasons I don't really understand.

Maybe to you it's more important to get on base, but honestly, what's better? Getting on base four out of every 10 trips or getting a hit one out of every three?

Getting on base 4/10, assuming the guy batting .333 doesn't walk at all. If the guy batting .333 has, say, a .375 OBP, then it gets interesting. OBP is critically important, and it always has been. The greats you've listed? Most if not all had good OBPs (especially if you judge based upon the league average during their time). Rice's OBP is unimpressive, not only by today's standards, but also *at the time*

As for Rice being unique... perhaps he was. Unique doesn't necessarily mean great.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Hank Aaron career OBP: .374 (league OBP .327)
All-time HR leader for a long time, and was apparently a good fielder at his position.

Ruth: .474 (!!) career OBP (league OBP .353). Record holder in a ton of categories for a long while. Oh, and he pitched a bit too...

Mays: .384 career OBP (league .330). Centerfielder, and a good one at that.

Mantle: .421 OBP (league .329). Centerfielder, and a good one.

Foxx: .428 OBP (league .362).

Williams: .482 OBP (!!!), (league .356).

Ott: .414 (.342)

...

Rice: .352 (.337)

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS NOT LIKE THE OTH-ER?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

.298/.352/.502. 382 HRs, 79 3B, 373 2B. Meh defense in LF. Poor baserunning ability, lots of GIDPs. Poor performance in post-season, in small sample size (.225/.313/.366). Career OPS+ 128.

If that's the standard...

.297/.381/.477. 287 HRs, 55 3B, 449 2B. Centerfielder, and a pretty good one for a while there (tailed off badly). .275/.371/.480 in lots of post-season play, with a number of huge hits in big spots. So-so baserunner (good at advancing, I think, but a poor SB%). 125 career OPS+

Hurray, let's put Bernie Williams in the HoF! And believe me, it doesn't stop there.

-Arrian

[-Jrabbit]

The guy I always feel sorry for is Dale Murphy. He was a 2X MVP, but fell apart after about 10 years, primarily due to injury. From 1978-87, he averaged over 30 HR/year. He was a consistent .290-.300 hitter until 1988 when the wheels fell off. Had a big arm, too -- 5X in double digit assists from the OF.

Fun facts: Made the majors at age 20 and was youngest player in MLB for 2 years. Started out as a catcher and converted to OF (played mostly CF) at the major league level. He was a natural lefty who played right-handed becasue that's how he was taught the game as a kid.

18 Years
G = 2,180 (played 162 games 4X)
AB = 7,960
R = 1,197
H = 2,111
2B = 350
3B = 39
HR = 398
SB = 161 (30/30 club once)
BB = 1,145
RBI = 1,266
AVG = .265
OBP =.346
SLUG = .469

7X All-Star
5X Gold Glove
4X Silver Slugger
Led NL in: Slugging (2X), OPS (1X), HR (2X), RBI (2X), and others.

Murphy also played on a lot of bad Braves teams (only one post-season series). It takes a bit of luck to compliment skills if you want to get into the HOF.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Murphy is a very wierd case, if you look at him from '78 to '87, he seems like he's heading for the Hall. His OPS+ from '82 to '87 looks like this: 142, 149, 149, 152, 121, 157. He was 31 in 1987. And then it all fell apart. In '88 his OPS+ went to 106, in '89 it was 89, in '90 it was 99 and he was traded and in '91 it was 103 and he was basically done.

It is said he fell apart due to injury, but he did play a lot of games in '88, '89, '90, and '91. Maybe it was stuff taken care of in the offseason? Playing through injury?

Fact though is that if he was able to play from the age of 31 to, say, 38 at a slightly lesser level than in his 20s (lower 140s OPS+ or even high 130s), he would have gotten in the Hall easy.

As for the back-to-back MVP's, In 1982, that should have been Mike Schmidt's award, but he probably deserved in 1983 (though Schmidt would have had an argument then as well). Though that doesn't diminish his great play.

Interesting in 1982 and 1983, Pedro Guerrero had a great argument for back to back MVPs (and then was absolutely ROBBED in 1985 MVP voting). That's another player who seemingly fell off a cliff.

[Arrian]

Lots of guys were once on a Hall of Fame trajectory but couldn't keep it going because of injury or some other factor.

Heck, if the aforementioned Bernie Williams' bat hadn't up and died partway through the 2003 season, and he'd instead gone through a more graceful decline phase, he might really merit serious consideration. But that's not what happened. Bernie ran into a wall, had knee surgery, and was then a shell of his former self offensively (his defense was already shot). He became what we Yankees fans called "The Ghost of Bernie" (I went with the dessicated corpse of Bernie toward the end).

To illustrate the point...

2002, Bernie Williams OPS+ 141
2003, 107 (which, factoring in horrid defense, meant he had ceased to be particularly useful)
2004, 108
2005, 85
2006, 96

In 2003, Bernie started out hot. He was still the same guy. But he ran into a wall, went 0-17, went on the DL, had surgery, came back and... it was gone. Never to return.

There are many other examples. Nomar, anyone?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think Nomar is far more tenuous. Before his major injury, he only had 3 great years and 1 really good year. I was thinking more of a player who had gone through the uprising and peak years on a HOF like level and then instead of declining gracefully, dropped like a rock from an airplane.

Nomar had the uprising years, but not the peak years (he was injured when he was 27 and wasn't the same player when he came back, making his peak years of 27, 28, and 29 really good, but not HoF level)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Williams is more interesting. Even if he declined gracefully, I think he'd end up as a borderline candidate to NOT make the Hall. Well, ok, his World Series rings would get him, but he probably wouldn't deserve it.

I mean he was a solid really good player, who before his injury had a string of ~140 OPS+ seasons, but his 31, 32, 33 Most Similar Player is Bobby Abreu. And I don't think people really consider Abreu a HoFer... unless he plays for a Hell of a lot of years and puts up the big counting stats.

[Arrian]

It all depends on just how graceful the decline was, I guess, Imran.

But I'd agree that even with a more graceful decline he'd be borderline. His peak was excellent, but not immortal. He took some time to get going. He missed a fair number of games. His baserunning was unimpressive (particularly for a fast CF type). All of that matters.

But most of all, I feel, is that he fell off a cliff at the age of 34.

(And yet, IMO, he's at least as good a candidate as Jim Rice )

-Arrian

p.s. Abreu's not a HoFer, but he is underrated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben accusing Imran of cherry picking stats? When Ben is using batting average and HRs, but ignoring everything else?

As opposed to using OBP and OPS?

I don't see why OPS and OBP should have more weight then batting average and home runs.

Rice had value. He wasn't a *bad* player by any means. But he did have weaknesses in his game.

Very, very few hall of famers have no weaknesses. If we can induct someone like Ozzy Smith who had exceptional defensive skills, I don't see what's wrong with inducting his counterpart on offense.

1) OBP
2) Defense
3) Speed, or rather lack thereof, leading to a huge number of GIDP's
4) Shortish career - he was a dominant player for a few years, good for a few more, and then kinda fell off a cliff.

Yes, but consider this.

Who's a better pure hitter in the period between Mays (who retired in 1972), and Thomas?

Right now you have a large gap in the hall of fame. Rice is the only player during that era with .300 ba and over 350 home runs. He's earned his reputation as a feared hitter in the period. He has an MVP.

In his corner were a decent (but not phenomenal) batting average, and good (but not phenomenal) power.

He stands head and shoulders over the rest of his era.

[Ben Kenobi]

As Imran pointed out, OBP correlates with scoring better than anything else. Seems to me that you are missing important stuff when you stick to batting average and HRs and ignore stats you appear to dislike for reasons I don't really understand.

I don't dislike OBP and OPS. I just don't think they are the MOST important statistic. They are a relative recent innovation.

If players in Rice's time valued OBP wouldn't it have been more likely that he would have had better numbers? Back then what mattered was the batting average.

Getting on base 4/10, assuming the guy batting .333 doesn't walk at all. If the guy batting .333 has, say, a .375 OBP, then it gets interesting. OBP is critically important, and it always has been. The greats you've listed? Most if not all had good OBPs (especially if you judge based upon the league average during their time). Rice's OBP is unimpressive, not only by today's standards, but also *at the time*

Most, but not all. Rice is one of those corner cases, where he doesn't have the array of stats that make him a first ballot hall of famer. That's why he's inferior to the hitters I listed.

As for Rice being unique... perhaps he was. Unique doesn't necessarily mean great.

I think everyone here would say that Rice was an excellent hitter.

[Ben Kenobi]

.297/.381/.477. 287 HRs, 55 3B, 449 2B. Centerfielder, and a pretty good one for a while there (tailed off badly). .275/.371/.480 in lots of post-season play, with a number of huge hits in big spots. So-so baserunner (good at advancing, I think, but a poor SB%). 125 career OPS+

25 percent average over the norm over the course of his entire career? That's pretty significant. How many standard deviations is that?

Even if you consider Bernie worthy, you have to remember that he has only 60 percent of the home runs that Rice has.

I don't see why an induction for Rice means that Bernie would get one too.

[snoopy369]

125 OPS+ is not HoF territory. It's All Star territory, usually. Look at Dale Murphy (above). About 150 OPS+ for the bulk of his career; but not HoF.