The Goose Has Landed!

[Ben Kenobi]

You concede that Rice is clearly inferior to those guys. Ok, good. Now quit using that list of players to try and make a case for Rice.

So was Barry Bonds, who hit .298

There hasn't been a hitter who has hit significantly above .300 for their entire career since Mays.

If Rice isn't a hall of famer, why don't we see folks who are not in the hall above him in these stats? That's what I think is remarkable, not only do they include stars, but there are many other hall of famers who don't have either.

I can understand your criteria for rejecting him, but he is clearly better then Bernie Williams by a wide margin. I don't see why letting Rice in means Bernie gets in too. There are many hall of famers with worse stats then Rice that are there.

[Ben Kenobi]

While you may be half joking (imagine that ), Bill James did come up with his Black Ink Test, Grey Ink Test, HoF Standards, and HoF Monitor based on how often a player led the league in certain stats or won awards (showing how voters seemed to like looking at that, rather than actually doing analysis of players).

And where does Rice rank there Imran? I'm sincerely curious.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks for making my point. Ted Williams has the highest OBP for a career in history. He happens to be 7th in career Batting Average.

#4 in career BA is Lefty O'Doul, who played from 1919 to 1934 (so not the pre-modern era). Is he better than Ted Williams as a hitter?

Thank you for making mine. BA and OPS are correlated with one another. For a useless stat, you wouldn't see this.

Why should you downgrade Ruth? Yankee Stadium in the years he played there was more of a pitcher's park. And if you don't downgrade hitters in Coors field then you are a fool. You HAVE to take park factors into account.

Oh I would agree. Just it seems you take the players you like (Helton), and give them a pass, while players you don't like (Rice) are subject to full scrutiny.

Really, if the object is to measure the runs that a player is responsible for, shouldn't all runs be equal everywhere?

Runs scored and RBIs are highly dependent on other players. You can't score runs without people driving you in and you can't have RBIs without people on base ahead of you. OBP is other player independent. This is quite obvious.

It will depend on the quality of the pitching you face. The higher the quality, the lower the OPS+, as the schedules aren't balanced.

Baseball is fundamentally a team sport, individual statistics can only get us so far to determine the contribution of a player to his team.

Speaking of which, RBI is another completely overrated stat. RBIs per RBI chances should be used. It's far easier for, say, A-Rod to get RBIs than the cleanup hitter on the Royals.

Or the Mariners?

Do you actually understand statistics and math?

Yes, you are arguing we have better statistical methods now. Stands to reason that they will be improved upon as time goes on.

Or did God come down from heaven and bless us with Sabermetrics for all time?

Actually he was better than Molitor. Even using your quaint BA, they are just about tied (.305 to .306). Brett hit for far more power though, and that's shown in SLG (.487 to .448) and thus better off in OPS+ (135 to 122)

So let me see. Molitor with an OPS+ of 122 is HOF material, while Rice with an OPS+ of 128 is not?

Thank you Imran.

If you just look at his "traditional stats" a .292 BA and 351 HRs aren't that great (but seem not that far off from to Rice's .298 and 382 HRs :hmmm, but he knew how to take a walk. And his runs created per game is 7.3 (compared to Rice's 6.0).

.292 and 351 are pretty good for his era. What's the problem with the traditional stats?

Because your opinion is more valid than, you know, actual statistical backing as it correlates to scoring runs.

And what, you are the one who does that work? Geez Imran, you would think you came up with the idea all on your own.

Just because a person disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand how the stat works.

OPS+ shouldn't be the sole measurement, but it is one of the most important statistics in evaluating hitters. BA is not.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I think they are both valuable tools in assessing hitters.

And what would be the correlation to scoring runs? Can you statistically prove it correlates to run scoring more than other measures?

You are the one who is asserting that OPS+ correlates better with run scoring.

All I'm saying is that both are valuable, neither more nor less.

Seems to me your job to prove your own assertion, not mine.

Mostly because they are idiots and value simple counting stats than actual great seasons.

Wow, no wonder people don't like baseball.

Honestly, Imran who died and made you king?

Ichiro, as much as you have a hate on for him because he didn't like walks had an amazing season.

And come to an incredibly wrong conclusion. So when someone is so completely wrong, I get curious as to their angle.

OMG Imran says I was wrong.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[Imran Siddiqui]

There hasn't been a hitter who has hit significantly above .300 for their entire career since Mays.

Wait, what?

Gwynn anyone? Boggs?

he is clearly better then Bernie Williams by a wide margin

No, he really isn't. Williams' has a career 125 OPS+ and plays CF, one of the more demanding defensive positions, and played it well.

And where does Rice rank there Imran? I'm sincerely curious.

You can, you know... look for yourself .

Rice is a bit above the average HoFer on the black ink and grey ink test. Below the average HoFer on the HoF Standards test and above the likely HoFer on the HoF Monitor test.

And of course, standard disclaimer, this is James' predictions for how voters vote not how good a player actually is.

BA and OPS are correlated with one another.

And you've worked out this correlation or have a link to someone who has? How strongly are they correlated?

Just it seems you take the players you like (Helton), and give them a pass, while players you don't like (Rice) are subject to full scrutiny.

When has Helton been given a pass? Hint, OPS+ takes into account park factors, like being easier to hit at Coors or Fenway in the 70s.

Yes, you are arguing we have better statistical methods now. Stands to reason that they will be improved upon as time goes on.

Math is math, right? Because we have complex linear algebra, does that mean basic calculus has become bunk? Has geometry been superceeded and thrown to the dustbin?

So how exactly will the correlation between OBP and run scored be shown wrong by some super advanced new math?

Besides, OBP has been around the game really since the 1950s when Branch Rickey and Allen Roth came up with it. It has only recently been more highly valued outside of the managerial community because it has been discovered that it correlates so well to scoring runs, much more than batting average (because we have computers to run regression analysis now). I'm not sure how future statistical models are going to change that.

Molitor with an OPS+ of 122 is HOF material, while Rice with an OPS+ of 128 is not?

Yep. Molitor played for 21 seasons with an OPS+ of 122. And he was, for most of his career (until around 1991), a 2B and 3B. Longevity always counts and being able to hit in certain positions (SS being the primary example) also counts more.

It is time you realized that context does matter. Batters who hit well while playing a difficult position are more impressive than doing the same hitting while playing a position like 1B or LF. And longevity always, always matters (which is why Pete Rose should be in the Hall... once his ban is lifted).

.292 and 351 are pretty good for his era. What's the problem with the traditional stats?

Because some of them (Batting Average, RBI) don't show you how good of a player someone really was? Because they don't really correlate that well to scoring runs?

And what, you are the one who does that work? Geez Imran, you would think you came up with the idea all on your own.

Just because a person disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand how the stat works.

Yes, actually it does. Because if they actually understood how the stat works they wouldn't be making such moronic arguments and backing outdated stats like batting average over superior ones like on base percentage.

You don't have to come up with the work yourself to see the superiority of the statistical analysis.

Seems to me your job to prove your own assertion, not mine.

I have already linked you to a number of works on the subject. You can start with 'Moneyball', which is most accessible and work your way from there.

Wow, no wonder people don't like baseball.

Honestly, Imran who died and made you king?

Ichiro, as much as you have a hate on for him because he didn't like walks had an amazing season.

I don't mind being bold in my statements when I'm right, and when people make dumb statements, I'll call them on it. Ichiro had an "amazing season"... just that 10 or so players had better seasons, including one on his own team in 2001 (Bret Boone).

And let's be honest with ourselves, Jason Giambi deserved the AL MVP that year.

[-Jrabbit]

Damn, they're at it again. Guess I'll sign off this thread until pitchers and catchers report...

[Arrian]

There hasn't been a hitter who has hit significantly above .300 for their entire career since Mays.

Ben, seriously, you might want to stick to talking about sports you know something about. Baseball clearly isn't one of them.

So was Barry Bonds, who hit .298

Um... what? Barry Bonds hit .298, with a monstrous on-base percentage and slugging. He broke the single-season and all-time home run records. He stole a whole bunch of bases, too, while playing above-average defense in LF for most of his career. He also juiced up, which factors into the equation somehow (most people are still struggling with just what to do with that). This is not a valid comp for Jim Rice. To suggest that there is some equivalency here because their batting averages were similiar is just silly.

I can understand your criteria for rejecting him, but he is clearly better then Bernie Williams by a wide margin.

No, he's really not. Bernie has the slightly better case, IMO.

As hitters, and hitters alone, they are roughly comparable. Rice had more power, Bernie got on base better and had some speed. That's not the end of the discussion, though, or shouldn't be. You have to consider the positions they played (LF vs. CF), the relative value of their offensive production at those positions, and of course how well they played those positions. This is where Bernie gains ground - enough to put him past Rice IMO.

Batting average and HRs are not the only stats that matter, Ben, and even some of the old guard sportswriters have come to see that. Not enough to make the right decision on Jim Rice, though (he'll get in next year, no doubt).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Thank you for making mine. BA and OPS are correlated with one another. For a useless stat, you wouldn't see this.

First, I think you mean that batting average and OBP are correlated.

Second, not really. There are guys who hit .250 but who are very patient and so get on base at a high rate (see: Giambi, Jason or Dunn, Adam). There are guys who wouldn't take a walk if their lives depended on it, so they get on base at basically the same rate as their BA (see: Young, Delmon).

You also clearly don't understand OPS+. OPS+ is an adjusted stat. It takes the raw numbers a player put up and factors in context, including home ballpark (Coors for Helton, Fenway for Rice), league and era (what other hitters in the same league and time did).

Or the Mariners?

This is actually funny, but only because it again displays your ignorance. The Griffey-ARod-Edgar Mariners could SCORE, man. For most (all?) of ARod's Seattle career, that team played in the Kingdome - a hitter's park. Safeco, their current ballpark, is more of a pitcher's park, and their offense is now mediocre. Plus, ARod is, um, waaaaaay better than Jim Rice.

As for the correlation with run scoring, if I have some time tomorrow I'll try and dig up an article that explains in depth how OBP (not OPS+, but of course OBP is one of the two components of OPS, and OPS+ is adjusted OPS) correlates with run scoring. The basic concept isn't hard, Ben: you cannot score if you're not on base. If you don't get a hit or walk, you make an out. Your team only gets 27 of those. They're precious.

Jim Rice made outs 64.8% of the time he went to the plate. That's not bad - it's better than league average. But it's not particularly good either. Therefore, even with his good (but not great, IMO) power, his offensive value isn't HOF-worthy (and, as we've discussed, his baserunning, defense, and other variables [playoff performance] do not assist his case).

Anyway, gotta run. I'll try and find that info for ya.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

http://www.pankin.com/sabr34.pdf

There is one study that attempts to figure out the relative value of OBP and SLG. There are more out there. The concensus appears to be that an extra point of OBP is worth somewhere between 1.4 and 2 points of extra SLG, with an important caveat:

This is more pronouced for certain lineup positions (say, leadoff hitter) and less so for others (say, "cleanup man"). Rice was middle-of-the-order cleanup type hitter, not a leadoff man. As the pro-Rice people have argued, his power was important. I agree with that (though I don't think his power was amazing enough to make him a HoFer). Based on the various things I read, for a cleanup hitter, the relative values of OBP and SLG approach 1:1, more equal than the overall ~1.5:1.

Jim Rice was a good ballplayer. Very good, even. But not HoF-worthy, IMO. His batting average was good, not great. His OBP was decent, not even particularly good. His power (SLG) was very good. He played a corner OF position (and DHed too), and didn't play it well. He was slow and hit into lots of DPs. He performed poorly in the most important games he was involved in (playoffs), albeit in a tiny sample. Add all that up, and I don't see a HoFer.

If his peak had been higher, maybe. If he had been able to maintain his peak for longer, maybe. But that's not what happened.

-Arrian