Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count

[ohms_law]

The whole league was different in the 1970's and 1980's then it was in the 1990's. WARP doesn't adjust for those differences, it simply adjusts the individuals to the league that they were in. That's a perfect methodology for comparing a player to others within the same season, but it doe not compare a player in one season to a player (even the same player) in another. The value of individual events (hits, doubles, home runs, etc...) differs from season to season. See Pete Palmer's linear weights, for example.

[HoustonGM]

The whole league was different in the 1970's and 1980's then it was in the 1990's. WARP doesn't adjust for those differences, it simply adjusts the individuals to the league that they were in. That's a perfect methodology for comparing a player to others within the same season, but it doe not compare a player in one season to a player (even the same player) in another. The value of individual events (hits, doubles, home runs, etc...) differs from season to season. See Pete Palmer's linear weights, for example.

It's not the perfect way to adjust for era, but I don't think saying that it completely fails to adjust for era is correct at all. Basic stats like average, on-base percentage, and slugging-percentage FAIL to adjust for era. Adjusting for league IS a method of adjusting for era. Using a linear weights based stat I would say is probably better, but I'm unaware of any easily accessible stats based on linear weights. I think that the WARP stat (completely unrelated to BP's) that Dan Rosenheck of Baseball Think Factory created may do just that, but I haven't read his methodology at all, although it is available (here, I believe, in the comments.). Like I said, I haven't looked into it, so I'm not sure if it uses a linear weightsesque system or not.

[justanewguy]

At any rate, for the hell of it, the left fielders listed above sorted by OPS+:

Player	        OPS+
Ted Williams	191
Stan Musial	159
Ed Delahanty	152
Ralph Kiner	149
Willie Stargell	147
Jesse Burkett	140
Joe Medwick	134
Jim O'Rourke	133
Billy Williams	133
Joe Kelley	133
Chick Hafey	133
Fred Clarke	132
Al Simmons	132
Yastrzemski	129
Zack Wheat	129
Goose Goslin	128
Jim Rice	128
Heinie Manush	121
Lou Brock	109

Wow... It's Ted Williams and then everyone else. What a remarkable player.

I'm curious how you might rank the greatest HITTERS ever (just hitting). I'd go Ruth-Gehrig-Williams-Bonds... after that I'm not sure who I'd put.

Still, Rice comes in at the bottom of the pack. He's ahead of Manush again, and also Brock, but Brock is an entirely different case, as he got in on the strength of 3,000 hits, the stolen base records, and playoff performance. This does put Rice closer to the pack, with a bunch of players being within 5-6 OPS+ points, but that's because OPS+ fails to adjust for the things that really hurt Rice, such as his lack of career value (which is most of it) and his defense.

You can do this sort of thing with the metric of your choice, and Rice is still going to come in at the bottom of the HOF left fielders.

Rice was very, very good but not HOF. It's an argument that's been around for years and years now. What I hate about it is, even after all the argument and uncertainty, he's going to get in. Then they're going to put Andre Dawson in by the same argument. Then who? Greg Vaughn?

What I hate about Jim Rice in the Hall is that it pushes the line further outward. Seriously, before you know it you may see tons of outfielders in the HOF that hit really well, weren't spectacular, were not good defensively, and are not legendary by any means.

[HoustonGM]

I'm curious how you might rank the greatest HITTERS ever (just hitting). I'd go Ruth-Gehrig-Williams-Bonds... after that I'm not sure who I'd put.

I'd out Williams and Bonds both ahead of Gehrig, but I think that's a fair top 4.

Rice is very, very good but not HOF. It's an argument that's been around for years and years now. What I hate about it is, even after all the argument and uncertainty, he's going to get in. Then they're going to put Andre Dawson in by the same argument. Then who? Greg Vaughn?

I, personally, wouldn't put Dawson in, but his argument is much stronger than that of Rice, mostly because Dawson played fantastic defense in center field for a good portion of his career. Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit inducted Dawson, and I respect their opinion a lot as their voting populace consists of some incredibly smart people. However, it is notable that when they ranked their center field inductees Dawson came in last.

What I hate about Jim Rice in the Hall is that it pushes the line further outward. Seriously, before you know it you may see tons of outfielders in the HOF that hit really well, weren't spectacular, were not good defensively, and are not legendary by any means.

Right. That's another reason I don't like Rice for the Hall. I do think that he significantly lowers the bar for corner outfielders.

[ohms_law]

It's not the perfect way to adjust for era, but I don't think saying that it completely fails to adjust for era is correct at all.

It's a much to simplistic approach which (as is demonstrated here) leads to misuse. In that respect, it's a failure in my eyes.
I'm not saying that Rice would come out better with a metric that uses proper weighting, by the way. Heck, he could come out worse for all I know (although I suspect that the opposite would be true). What I am saying is that using WARP to compare players across playing eras is a fundamental methodology flaw. Saying "it's the best available" is no excuse to misuse statistics. Using an imperfect methodology is actually worse then not evaluating the question at all, since the answers will be misleading.

Right. That's another reason I don't like Rice for the Hall. I do think that he significantly lowers the bar for corner outfielders.

I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?

[HoustonGM]

It's a much to simplistic approach which (as is demonstrated here) leads to misuse. In that respect, it's a failure in my eyes.
I'm not saying that Rice would come out better with a metric that uses proper weighting, by the way. Heck, he could come out worse for all I know (although I suspect that the opposite would be true). What I am saying is that using WARP to compare players across playing eras is a fundamental methodology flaw. Saying "it's the best available" is no excuse to misuse statistics. Using an imperfect methodology is actually worse then not evaluating the question at all, since the answers will be misleading.

I just have to disagree. I don't think it's a flawed use of the stat. I think that comparing to contemporaries (and only contemporaries) is a fine way of adjusting for era.

I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?

Purely speaking relative contemporaries...Dave Parker, George Foster, Ken Singleton, Jack Clark, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn....

[justanewguy]

I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?

It isn't "tons" per se... but if you consider how easy it is, especially in this decade, to be a great hitting LF or RF for a few years, it's not totally out of the question.

Greg Vaughn is the first guy that comes to mind. I'm more concerned about a precedent that it sets for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, when some of the "elite slugger for 3 years and 300 or 350+ career HRs" guys start to become eligible.

[HoustonGM]

Greg Vaughn is the first guy that comes to mind. I'm more concerned about a precedent that it sets for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, when some of the "elite slugger for 3 years and 300 or 350+ career HRs" guys start to become eligible.

If we expand the field past just Rice's contemporaries, a bunch more players enter the picture. But, I'm sure that the counter to that would be "You can't compare him to the guys in the higher offensive era."

Much more closer than Greg Vaughn are Juan Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Moises Alou, Ellis Burks, David Justice, Jose Canseco, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Abreu, Brian Giles....Now, obviously, Rice was a much better player than some of those guys, but not all of them.

Even so, just using other 1970s/1980s guys, there's a bunch of players that wouldn't fit anybody's idea of a Hall of Famer. George Foster and Dave Parker, in particular, are near exact duplicates of Rice. Parker has the most career value, and Foster the least, of the three, but they all had nearly identical peaks, both in terms of production AND timing, as each of their peaks came in the 1977-1979 time frame.

[ohms_law]

Well, I could point you to some statistics resources and you could figure out why you shouldn't disagree...

Anyway:
Rice 144.5
Parker 124.0
Foster 91.0
Singleton 38.0
Clark 27.5
Murphy 116.0
Evans 67.5
Lynn 85.0

It's not even a competition.

[HoustonGM]

Well, I could point you to some statistics resources and you could figure out why you shouldn't disagree...

Anyway:
Rice 144.5
Parker 124.0
Foster 91.0
Singleton 38.0
Clark 27.5
Murphy 116.0
Evans 67.5
Lynn 85.0

It's not even a competition.

C'mon Ohms....THAT'S a misuse of statistics.

HOF Monitor was created to assess how likely a player is to make the Hall of Fame, so all it does is confirm what we already know - Rice is going to make the Hall, everyone else won't.

It tells you nothing of which players were better OR which players provided more value.

[ohms_law]

Can you explain why he's more likely to make the Hall, but the others aren't, though?
HOF monitor is at least a standardized methodology.

[justanewguy]

Much more closer than Greg Vaughn are Juan Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Moises Alou, Ellis Burks, David Justice, Jose Canseco, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Abreu, Brian Giles....Now, obviously, Rice was a much better player than some of those guys, but not all of them.

Yeah, Rice was better than most of them. I think many of these players named suffer from "personality issues." Especially Canseco and Belle.

Out of these guys, I'd probably go for Edmonds for the HOF, and that's about it. I like Alou's longevity. I'm not really feeling like looking at any of these guys' careers at the moments, but I think Edmonds is asbsolutely a HOFer, and Alou is roughly borderline. I don't think I'd vote for him. Although his career OPS is above .900, isn't it? I'm guessing his OPS+ for career lies around 115 or 120.

Even so, just using other 1970s/1980s guys, there's a bunch of players that wouldn't fit anybody's idea of a Hall of Famer. George Foster and Dave Parker, in particular, are near exact duplicates of Rice. Parker has the most career value, and Foster the least, of the three, but they all had nearly identical peaks, both in terms of production AND timing, as each of their peaks came in the 1977-1979 time frame.

I think Jim Rice is better than his contemporaries that you're naming, as ohms has pointed out, but I'm not ready to say he has any business in the HOF. I don't think Foster or Parker are quite where he is in terms of HOF standards (the whole picture).

Again, my concern lies in the 90s guys you mentioned, and guys that are currently playing that could have similar careers.

[HoustonGM]

Can you explain why he's more likely to make the Hall, but the others aren't, though?
HOF monitor is at least a standardized methodology.

He does well in the things that writers overvalue, namely batting average and RBI.

HOF Monitor looks at batting average, hits, home runs, RBIs, doubles, awards, team playoff performance, and position. Hardly a good way to actually evaluate a player. In fact, it's an absolutely terrible way to evaluate a player.

[HoustonGM]

Out of these guys, I'd probably go for Edmonds for the HOF, and that's about it. I like Alou's longevity. I'm not really feeling like looking at any of these guys' careers at the moments, but I think Edmonds is asbsolutely a HOFer, and Alou is roughly borderline. I don't think I'd vote for him.

I think Alou is worse than borderline, a very good player, not close to the Hall.

Edmonds, I definitely leans towards yes...great peak, plus he was a center fielder and played very good defense.

I think Jim Rice is better than his contemporaries that you're naming, as ohms has pointed out, but I'm not ready to say he has any business in the HOF.

I put his two teammates, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, ahead of him. I'd also put Murphy ahead of him. I think he's squarely in line with Parker and Foster. None of them are HOFers to me.

[justanewguy]

Although his career OPS is above .900, isn't it? I'm guessing his OPS+ for career lies around 115 or 120.

.885 and 128, I just looked. He's both worse and better than I thought he was.

.885 career is pretty impressive, so is 128. They'll look at his H and HR totals and say "no" then eventually look at his averages and say "maybe."

I wonder if he'll make it...