o
It's great how much being on the right team at the right team can boost your value.Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Youkilis is a great player, but the number of rings he has means nothing to how good of a player he is. Ramiro Mendoza has a few rings too.
Registered User
It has something to do it, but on an individual stance, rings mean nothing...well only when HOF discussion comes
To me, a ring means how good the team is/was (duh), and to play for that team, that season you were one of the 25 men who played on a championship team.
I mean if Edgar Martinez one a few championships in the 90s with Seattle...he would have a shot at the HOF. More-so then now.
If Dwight Evans and Jim Rice won a championship...would they be in the HOF?
E=I*R
True... Jim Rice should be in the hall anyway, though. Martinez and Evans, not so much.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Oh no, not him again
Nothing personal against Youkilis but I don't see him anywhere near the top 3. I'm admittedly biased being a Dodgers fan but I'd take James Loney way ahead of Youkilis.
Registered User
With Edgar thou, sorry to take this off the subject. If you look say from 92' - 2002, that was one heck of a 10 year run. His OBP and Batting average were high, and at the age of 37, he was still hitting the cover off the ball. Edgar will make it in one day.
Registered User
Evans one of the top 10 players in the 80's. A 30 homerun season was very valueable then.
Registered User
I'd put Martinez and Evans in before Rice. Actually, I think all 3 should probably be in, though all of them are somewhat marginal candidates. I just think that Rice is the most problematic.
Martinez would be a stronger candidate if injuries hadn't kept him from staying at 3rd, but if we induct everybody whose career we can attach an "if only" to, we'll need to start inducting 10-15 guys every year.
Registered User
Rice/Evans combo was one of the best in history in the 80's.
As for Edgar even with injuries, he piled up some good career numbers.
E=I*R
Interesting. I'd be really interested in hearing the reasoning behind "I just think that Rice is the most problematic."
Personally, I'm a big Black Ink type of person. It's certainly not a foolproof, end all, be all measure by any means. However, it does provide a good unbiased starting point. All three are marginal (especially considering that they were all mainly DH's), and with more choices in the mix it wold likely be easy to overlook all of them. However, just between the three of them, Jim Rice leads by a country mile in Black Ink. Considering their whole work though, I'd have to give it to Rice. I mean sure, he played a couple fewer years then Evans. Evans was a bit more disciplined at the plate as well. You just can't ignore the difference in power (and not just home runs, either. total power) and Rice has a slight edge in contact as well.
The biggest things for me though are that Rice had more speed (doubles and triples), and most importantly he was much more consistent. His deltas (change in rate stats) are much smaller from year to year than Evans' are. You can't buy that consistency, and you can't teach it either. That's pure skill.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
Jim Rice was also greatly consistent at making multiple outs with one swing
Evans was better than Rice. Evans was just as valuable at the plate, and one of the best right fielders in his time. Absolute cannon for an arm too.
Right. Rice didn't want to wear glasses, and that alone probably cost him his HOF place. If only.....
Also consistent at putting multiple runs on the board with one swing.Jim Rice was also greatly consistent at making multiple outs with one swing
E=I*R
I don't dispute the importance of OBP, by any means. You know that.Jim Rice was also greatly consistent at making multiple outs with one swing
However, I'll gladly accept a 10 or 20 point loss in OBP for almost 100 points in slugging any time. Especially when that slugging is primarily doubles and triples from a guy who seems to be able to put the ball in play where it needs to go. Not only that, but I'd never have to worry about Jim Rice's performance. The guy was obviously a workhorse with tons of natural talent. Just look at the consistency of all of his rate stats... the guy basically hit his career averages every single year that he played (with the obvious exceptions of '74 and '89). That's just awesome.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
I wasn't referring to OBP.
I was referring to double plays, hence multiple outs with one swing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote