-
Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Player A/Player B
AVG: .295/.298
OBP: .343/.352
SLG: .561/.502
HR: 434/382
RBI: 1404/1451
R: 1061/1249
2B: 388/373
OPS+: 132/128
Btg. Runs: 280.3/294.7
Best OPS+'s:
Player A: 169 149 148 145 141 133 131 130
Player B: 157 154 147 141 136 130 127 123
MVP's: 2/1
Top 5 MVP: 4/6
ASG: 3/8
Top 5 SLG%: 7 (1 1st)/5 (2 1st)
Top 5 OPS+: 1/2 (1 1st)
Top 5 HR: 5 (2 1st)/5 (3 1st)
Top 10 RBI: 9 (1 1st)/9 (2 1st)
Black Ink: 17/33
Gray Ink: 105/176
HOF Standards: 39.5/43
HOF Monitor: 120.5/144.5
Postseason Play:
Player A: .290/.333/.742, 8 HR, 15 RBI in 15 games
Player B: .225/.313/.366, 2 HR, 7 RBI in 18 games
Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to draw the Hall of Fame in/out line between these two players.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
They both should be in- I could've sworn Gonzalez's career average was lower, so I'm surprised, but yeah, they both should be in
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
They both should be in
I can't wait to see how fast you change that when you find out who the second player is.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I can't wait to see how fast you change that when you find out who the second player is.
I already did, I added to my post
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
They are Juan Gonzalez and Jim Rice
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
They are Juan Gonzalez and Jim Rice
I realized that
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
I think player A, 2 Time MVP and over 400 Homers kind of does it for me. Not to mention he seemed to be quite the force in the postseason.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
They both should be in- I could've sworn Gonzalez's career average was lower, so I'm surprised, but yeah, they both should be in
Even though Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids!?!
The point of this is that even putting aside the steroid issue, Juan Gonzalez would likely fall off the HoF ballot very quickly, while Jim Rice will be inducted this spring...but they were both extremely similar players.
(It should be noted that both of Juan Gonzalez's MVP awards were undeserved, but the BBWAA voters don't care about that. All they care about is that he won them. And even with that, he's likely to fall off the ballot quickly, and would still be likely to fall off quickly without the very minuscule steroid taint.)
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
I have to say neither. Juan Gone was good, but he battled too many injuries, and his career was too short. If he had stayed healthy, I would say he would be in.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Even though Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids!?!
Juan Gonzalez did steroids? If he did, then that changes my opinion.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Juan Gonzalez did steroids? If he did, then that changes my opinion.
:rolleyes:
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Juan Gonzalez did steroids? If he did, then that changes my opinion.
Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids. That is the only evidence that he did.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids. That is the only evidence that he did.
Well, he was hurt alot, so I'm going to assume he didn't.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Well, he was hurt alot, so I'm going to assume he didn't.
You mean kind of like how Mark McGwire was hurt a lot? And Jose Canseco himself?
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids. That is the only evidence that he did.
It is obviously possible, due to his health meltdown, but that could just as easily be unrelated. And Jose Canseco is not exactly the most trust-worthy guy in the game.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Well, he was hurt alot, so I'm going to assume he didn't.
Steroids cause bone breakdown, and mess up ligaments...
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Even though Jose Canseco said Juan Gonzalez did steroids!?!
The point of this is that even putting aside the steroid issue, Juan Gonzalez would likely fall off the HoF ballot very quickly, while Jim Rice will be inducted this spring...but they were both extremely similar players.
(It should be noted that both of Juan Gonzalez's MVP awards were undeserved, but the BBWAA voters don't care about that. All they care about is that he won them. And even with that, he's likely to fall off the ballot quickly, and would still be likely to fall off quickly without the very minuscule steroid taint.)
I think if Juan played anywhere but Texas in his prime years, talk about him would be much different. The steroid era also makes his value drop dramatically. If we have seen those type of numbers in any other era of baseball, he would totally be in.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Jim Rice has no business getting a single vote if Albert Belle couldn't get 5%.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
Well, he was hurt alot, so I'm going to assume he didn't.
You do realize that steroids make it MORE likely and EASIER for injury to occur?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
It is obviously possible, due to his health meltdown, but that could just as easily be unrelated. And Jose Canseco is not exactly the most trust-worthy guy in the game.
Jose Canseco may not be the nicest or most moral guy, but a lot of what he's said has come to be. I'd believe him at this point.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Of course, then there's Rafael Palmeiro who was a model of durability, with 17 consecutive seasons of 150+ games, his last coming at age 39. (I'm counting the strike years as 150+ because in 1994 he played 111 of 112 games and in 1995 he played 143 of 144 games).
This is just to say that you cannot draw any conclusion about a player's steroid use from his health record.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wahoosamC
Jim Rice has no business getting a single vote if Albert Belle couldn't get 5%.
The steroid era has made it very difficult to determine who is Hall worthy and who isnt. I think in the end, we will see the majority of players during the steroid era getting in the HOF will be pitchers, even though they used as well.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
I think if Juan played anywhere but Texas in his prime years, talk about him would be much different. The steroid era also makes his value drop dramatically. If we have seen those type of numbers in any other era of baseball, he would totally be in.
132 OPS+ to Rice's 128 OPS+, which compares players to their league.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Of course, then there's Rafael Palmeiro who was a model of durability, with 17 consecutive seasons of 150+ games, his last coming at age 39. (I'm counting the strike years as 150+ because in 1994 he played 111 of 112 games and in 1995 he played 143 of 144 games).
This is just to say that you cannot draw any conclusion about a player's steroid use from his health record.
True, but it has been proven steriods can effect health. Just to point it out, not that they necessarily did in these players
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
The steroid era has made it very difficult to determine who is Hall worthy and who isnt. I think in the end, we will see the majority of players during the steroid era getting in the HOF will be pitchers, even though they used as well.
I've never understood this, either. The steroid era hasn't made anything "difficult." The 1920's and 30's didn't make it more difficult to assess who was a Hall of Famer, even though they were a higher offensive level compared to the deadball era than the steroid era was compared to the 1970's.
We just simply have to judge players based on their era, and nothing is difficult about that.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
True, but it has been proven steriods can effect health. Just to point it out, not that they necessarily did in these players
It's also "been proven" that they can improve health. There's still a ton of unknowns with steroids, and I'd say it depends more on the person than the drug. There's people that it'll harm, and people that it'll help.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
132 OPS+ to Rice's 128 OPS+, which compares players to their league.
I dont think its really fair to compare a player in a time where Homers were abundant to a time when it was more a pitchers game like when Rice played, its really not fair to Rice, but I dont think he should be in anyway.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
It's also "been proven" that they can affect health. There's still a ton of unknowns with steroids, and I'd say it depends more on the person than the drug. There's people that it'll harm, and people that it'll help.
I just said that...
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
I dont think its really fair to compare a player in a time where Homers were abundant to a time when it was more a pitchers game like when Rice played, its really not fair to Rice, but I dont think he should be in anyway.
What's that have to do with OPS+? OPS+ compares Juan Gonzalez's OPS to the average player in Gonzalez's league, and Jim Rice's OPS to the average player in Rice's league.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
It's also "been proven" that they can affect health. There's still a ton of unknowns with steroids, and I'd say it depends more on the person than the drug. There's people that it'll harm, and people that it'll help.
I heard it also depends on the dosage as well, steriods taken in moderation I heard could be quite helpful to someones health.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedsoxRockies
I just said that...
Affect should be improve.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
What's that have to do with OPS+? OPS+ compares Juan Gonzalez's OPS to the average player in Gonzalez's league, and Jim Rice's OPS to the average player in Rice's league.
Oh my bad, misunderstood ya.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
Oh my bad, misunderstood ya.
To put it in a bit simpler terms..
Gonzalez had an OPS of .904. The average player in his league and park for his career had an OPS of .767.
Rice had an OPS of .854, and the average player in his league and park had an OPS of .744.
Gonzalez's OPS was 137 points higher than the average player, and Rice's was 110 points higher than the average player.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
To put it in a bit simpler terms..
Gonzalez had an OPS of .904. The average player in his league and park for his career had an OPS of .767.
Rice had an OPS of .854, and the average player in his league and park had an OPS of .744.
Gonzalez's OPS was 137 points higher than the average player, and Rice's was 110 points higher than the average player.
Now I understand you thanks.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
I would say neither should be in the hall - but I have no problem with someone saying that Rice should get in while Gonzalez doesn't. There is more to baseball than statistics.
Also, I'd be interested in seeing a distribution of the top OPS+ numbers across decades - ie. the average of the top 20 in the league for each year. My feeling is that OPS+ is not a completely unbiased measure of relative ability - I think it still underestimates the quality of good hitters in weak-hitting environments.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
I hate the steroid era... it's sad that so many great numbers are in question... Gonzalez is one thing, but consider names like McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds. The last two could be argued as the greatest pitcher and hitter of all time.
Maybe Jim Rice belongs, after all, perhaps as a big "f**k you" to steroids era players with similar careers that were juiced.
I can't wait to see how that era of baseball goes down in history. How will they look back on this era in 2050?
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
When people ask you who was the most dominant player in the 90's and 2000's do you say Juan Gonzalez???? That's what i thought. Now if someone asked you who one of the most feared hitters was in the late 70's and early 80's Jim Rice has to be 1 of the 1st players you think of
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
I would say neither should be in the hall - but I have no problem with someone saying that Rice should get in while Gonzalez doesn't. There is more to baseball than statistics.
I would say neither goes in, as well, but what exactly separates Rice and Gonzalez, statistical or otherwise?
Quote:
Also, I'd be interested in seeing a distribution of the top OPS+ numbers across decades - ie. the average of the top 20 in the league for each year. My feeling is that OPS+ is not a completely unbiased measure of relative ability - I think it still underestimates the quality of good hitters in weak-hitting environments.
I'll get back to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Red Sox Fan 734
When people ask you who was the most dominant player in the 90's and 2000's do you say Juan Gonzalez???? That's what i thought. Now if someone asked you who one of the most feared hitters was in the late 70's and early 80's Jim Rice has to be 1 of the 1st players you think of
Yeah, nevermind the fact that there were better hitters than Jim Rice.
I hate the "fear" crap. It can't be proven. It's not even supported by any evidence (for example, he never got intentionally walked more than a handful of times a year).
Jim Rice wasn't the "most dominating player of the 1970's and 1980's", just like Gonzalez wasn't of his time period. When attempting to support that position, Rice supporters throw out numbers like his RBI totals over an arbitrarily selected period of time, usually 1975-1986. Well, let's play that game.
From 1975-1986, Rice had 1,276 RBI's, 55 ahead of second place Mike Schmidt. He had 350 home runs, good for 3rd behind Schmidt and Dave Kingman, he was 90 homers behind Schmidt.
From 1991-2001, Juan Gonzalez had 1,263 RBI's, 40 ahead of second place Jeff Bagwell. He was 6th in home runs, 58 behind the first place guy, Barry Bonds.
So, using the usual Jim Rice standard of dominance, if Jim Rice was the most dominant hitter of his time, so too was Juan Gonzalez. Of course, I believe, and the facts support, that neither was the most dominant. In Gonzalez's time, that was Barry Bonds, among others. In Rice's time, it was Mike Schmidt, among others.
The "most dominant/feared of his time" has only came up recently in these last-ditch efforts to get Rice into the Hall, because it's clear his overall record doesn't match up to the Hall's standards, so unquantifiable statements have to be made up to "prove" he belongs.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Average of the Top 20 OPS+'s of each year:
2000-2008: 157.4 (This is brought up by Barry Bonds 2001-2004, take him out and the average goes to 155.2.) (30 teams)
1990-1999: 156.9
1980-1989:148.2
1970-1979:150.9
1960-1969:150.8
1950-1959: 147.0
There is a jump once you enter the '90's. However, if you go back, it doesn't appear to be really related to the overall offensive level. The 1950's, for example, were a higher level of offense than the 1960's, but had a lower top 20 OPS+ average. The 1980's was a higher offensive level than the 1970's, but had a lower OPS+ average.
You also have to account for there being more players now. I quickly peaked through the 1900-1909 period, and the average was much lower...not because the offense level was lower, but simply because there were so few players that the top 20 players of that time weren't as good as the top 20 players of later times. The top of the league (the top 5/10) tended to be right inline with that amount of later years, as the BEST players always tend to be of a relatively similar quality.
I'm not convinced that OPS+ levels are at all tied to offensive levels. My cursory "study" of the last half-century, I think, is inconclusive (and horribly flawed, which I get into below). Yes, the high offensive levels of the 90's and 00's come at a higher OPS+ level...but there's no correlation in the other 4 decades with OPS+ level and offense level...and that higher OPS+ level of the 90's/00's came at a time when there were two expansions in 5 years, so there were an extra 4 teams worth of players as compared to the earlier decades.
The above study, though, now that I think of it, is incredibly flawed. Take this: making the top 20 in 2000 meant you were in the top 12.1% of qualified position players. Making the top 20 in 1970 meant you were in the top 17.5% of qualified position players.
The top 12.1% of players in 1970 averaged an OPS+ of 158.8. The top 12.1% of players in 2000 averaged an OPS+ of 163.1.
The top 17.5% of players in 1970 averaged an OPS+ of 153.5. In 2000, the top 17.5% of players averaged an OPS+ of 156.1.
See? When you look at it that way, the numbers even out much more. If you just looked at the top 20 players, the 2000 players have a huge 10 point edge on the 1970 players...but that's explained nearly entirely because of there being 50 more qualified players in 2000. I suspect that if you used this process over the decades instead of the raw top 20, the progression would be much smoother. If you're really interested, I might be willing to do that, although I'm spent for tonight.
At any rate, this "concern" is also why it's helpful to look at how player's ranked in their league in OPS+, as I listed above. Gonzalez finished in the top 5 once, and Rice finished in the top 5 twice. Gonzalez had three top 10 finishes, and Rice had five.
All told, I would rank Rice higher than Gonzalez, but I find them similar enough in that I don't think I could draw the in/out line of the Hall of Fame between them.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
Thanks for doing that - it is interesting that OPS numbers appear to have a higher variance since 1990. I was attributing this to higher offense levels but it seems to make more sense to relate it to the number of players. As the number of players has increased, those players must be relatively weak, so the top players are further above the new average.
By any measure, Rice and Gonzalez aren't far apart statistically though I would give a slight edge to Rice. If someone wants to draw the line between these two they are basically saying that Rice is a borderline HOF - and Gonzalez falls just on the other side of that line. Wherever you draw the line you get someone on each side of it. But I also don't mind voters taking into account non-performance based measures - fame, causing fear, fan appreciation, etc. I think that the HOF represents the story of baseball and I am OK with someone that tells me that Jim Rice is an important part of that story and Juan Gonzalez isn't.
-
Re: Which one's a Hall of Famer?
I'd be interested myself in looking at what I looked at above except using percentages instead of the raw top X players, just because I've heard similar concerns before, usually more in reference to ERA+ than OPS+, though. The concern there is that a higher offensive level makes it easier to post a higher ERA+, but I haven't seen anybody look at it in depth. I'm a bit too lazy to go through right now and do it myself, and it'd be easier if I had the numbers in a spreadsheet or something instead of calculating it myself by hand off Baseball-Reference, and there's probably an easy way to get it into spreadsheet format that I'm overlooking, but...eh.
