Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Rice good, but not Hall good

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    Btw, the HOF standards and monitor are not designed to tell you how good a player was. They are designed to guage how likely it is that a particular player is inducted into the Hall. Well here, the exact definition from BR:

    Hall of Fame Stats
    These are metrics designed by Bill James to measure how likely a player is to get into the HOF, and not necessarily how good they were. Used with similarity scores, you can get a good idea of how good a chance a player has of getting into the Hall of Fame.


    The standards are set by the voters (which is something that no one seems to comprehend when it comes to voting time, just look at all the crying and gnashing of teeth in these forums), and that is the basis for the HOF tests.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    If we are going to put Puckett in the HOF, then Evans and Fred Lynn, better hitters, and also known for defensive excellence should be honored as well, I would think.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    I wouldn't disagree. I don't think Rice was "among the very best" for that entire period, though, once you break it down year by year. If you focus solely on performance over that selected period, than yes, but that cuts out players whose careers were ending or beginning in that period, and really only measures who was best out of the players that played full-time that entire period. If you go year by year, you'll get different results. Rice was "among the very best" in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1983, and 1986. His other years were good, but not "among the very best"...and still, this is only looking at his hitting and not factoring in his defense or baserunning.
    This is where I get confused with you Houston, because your opinions waver frequently, or at least thats how I perceive it. If you 'wouldn't disagree' with swamps statement, then why did you argue vehemently that Ichiro hasn't been a dominant player in his 8 year MLB career?

    I hate to throw this off course/subject, but Ichiro has 8 gold gloves and is one of the best baserunners in the game...no arguments can be made. Has been 1st or 2nd in the league in hits for each of his 8 years, top 10 in runs for much of them as well. Top ten in intentional walks, batting average...the list goes on and on.

    Looking at his hitting, while he doesn't have the power numbers no doubt he's set the table with the elite of alltime during his 8 year career, let alone players of today. And when you factor in defense and/or baserunning as you cling to in your posts in this thread.....I don't know, I just don't see how you can claim Ichiro hasn't been one of the games most dominant players in his eight years.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    No, it's not. Because, again, we really should look at the whole picture instead of cherry-picking stats.


    and BTW....questioning Ichiro is relevant here HGM, because you've spent nearly two pages arguing with my claim that Rice had a ten year stretch that was dominant, and then waver and state that in 5 of those ten years he was amongst the best in the game while the other 5 years (in the middle of the ten year stretch) were good but not amongst the very best!?!? How is it possible you could pick 5 out of ten years and claim ones amongst the best, and then claim while the other 5 years were good, he wasn't a dominant player during a ten year window?

    It always appears you are just looking to argue?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    45,249

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    I like OPS+ as well (which is what I meant when I said you could single out individual stats) but I question their why baseball-reference sees such a difference in their overall batting rankings while the OPS+ was so close. Sadly, researching how they come to their conclusion on overall rankings.
    What "overall rankings" are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay
    and heck even how the OPS+ is determined is difficult and often leads to subjective analysis. An OPS+, while in depth has to be subjective in premise, as park factors, and normalizing the league will entail some opinion.
    It does not include opinion. It's all strictly from the data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swampdog View Post
    If we are going to put Puckett in the HOF, then Evans and Fred Lynn, better hitters, and also known for defensive excellence should be honored as well, I would think.
    Agreed. Evans and Lynn were better than Puckett.

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay View Post
    This is where I get confused with you Houston, because your opinions waver frequently, or at least thats how I perceive it. If you 'wouldn't disagree' with swamps statement, then why did you argue vehemently that Ichiro hasn't been a dominant player in his 8 year MLB career?
    Because Ichiro hasn't been "among the very best" every year of his career. At least, as far as I see it. He's been an excellent player every year. *shrug* When I think dominate...I think Albert Pujols. Alex Rodriguez. Superstar players. Look, it's semantics. Does it matter whether I think he's "dominant" or not? No. He's an excellent player. Arguing over the classification between "dominant", "not dominant", "good", "not good" is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by dickay
    and BTW....questioning Ichiro is relevant here HGM, because you've spent nearly two pages arguing with my claim that Rice had a ten year stretch that was dominant, and then waver and state that in 5 of those ten years he was amongst the best in the game while the other 5 years (in the middle of the ten year stretch) were good but not amongst the very best!?!? How is it possible you could pick 5 out of ten years and claim ones amongst the best, and then claim while the other 5 years were good, he wasn't a dominant player during a ten year window?

    It always appears you are just looking to argue?
    I don't know what you're talking about here. I'm not "looking to argue." I also don't know what's so confusing about what I said. He was an excellent, top-of-the-league hitter in 5 years. In the other 7 years (75-86 is 12 years total not 10), he was a good player. I don't think that qualifies as "dominant over a ten year stretch". And I'm not "wavering", as you claim, nor do I see how you even mistake what I'm saying as me "wavering." In my opinion, in order to be "dominant over a 10 year period" you have to have been at or near the top of the league for every year or nearly every year of that period, and that's not Jim Rice.

    For this 12 year period we're discussing, Jim Rice is 9th in OPS+ (min. 5,000 plate appearances), behind Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Jack Clark, Rod Carew, Ken Singleton, and Fred Lynn, and tied with Reggie Jackson and Greg Luzinski.

    And I don't know why you still insist on arguing over the semantics of classifying players as "dominant" or not. Clearly, you have a lower standard of dominance than me, which is exactly as I've stated in other threads. Arguing with me that my opinion is somehow wrong isn't going to get anybody anywhere. How about we stick with more quantifiable evaluations, instead of the semantics of a word?

    Let's see. I'm going to ignore the fact that arbitrarily setting endpoints and evaluating players from that period instead of going year by year basically only accurately evaluates players that played full-time for the whole selected time period. It'll take a little, but I'm going to rank the players that had 6,000 or more plate appearances in the 1975-1986 time period, taking everything into account - offense, defense, baserunning, position, etc.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    45,249

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    1) Mike Schmidt
    2) George Brett
    3) Gary Carter
    4) Dave Winfield
    5) Bobby Grich
    6) Keith Hernandez
    7) Eddie Murray
    8) Dwight Evans
    9) George Foster
    10) Jim Rice
    11) Jose Cruz
    12) Rod Carew
    13) Ron Cey
    14) Andre Dawson
    15) Fred Lynn
    16) Ken Singleton
    17) Dave Parker
    18) Reggie Jackson
    19) Cecil Cooper
    20) Ted Simmons
    21) George Hendrick
    22) Ken Griffey
    23) Don Baylor
    24) Bill Madlock
    25) Al Oliver
    26) Hal McRae

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    And I don't know why you still insist on arguing over the semantics of classifying players as "dominant" or not. Clearly, you have a lower standard of dominance than me, which is exactly as I've stated in other threads.
    While it surely takes two to argue, it is you that initially begun arguing over something as silly as dominant. Even when I stated I believed Ichiro has been a dominant player, you go out of your way to argue that hes not and then over two pages in that thread and this one try to prove why he/they weren't dominant. At the same time you agree its semantics and a different definition. Why then argue in the first place? Unless of course that's your goal.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    45,249

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    K. Anyway, any thoughts on Jim Rice?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,189

    Re: Rice good, but not Hall good

    Here's some. Of the players you listed, only Schmidt, Brett and Murray were clearly better hitters than Rice. And those 3 were GREAT players, in their prime (like Rice). Ok, maybe Winfield too. All 4 of them are in the HOF.

    There are others that were about as good as Rice with the bat....Carew, Jackson, Lynn and Singleton, I guess. 2 in the HOF, 2 not.

    I know that you are ranking the players overall, not just hitting-wise. Thats not what I'm doing. I stated that Rice was a "dominant hitter". I also pointed out his shortcomings, previously.

    Even as a Sox fan, I have never believed that Rice should be in the Hall. Looking more closely now, I am convinced, more than ever, that he does NOT belong in the Hall. In fact, I am more convinced than ever that Dwight Evans would be a much better choice.

    A couple of other notes....

    I was reminded of Murray's amazing consistency. In fact, he had an OPS+ of 156 for FOUR consecutive seasons, from age 25-28. Very interesting.

    Also, I found another study done on clutch hitting.....this guy reviewed the top 75 RBI guys (career) and discovered that Rice was the worst clutch hitter in history (among this select group). Another interesting discovery.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •