Oh my bad, misunderstood ya.Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Im watching you
Oh my bad, misunderstood ya.
o
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.
Im watching you
Now I understand you thanks.
Registered User
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.
Unregistered User
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?
<3 that dirty water
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
o
I would say neither goes in, as well, but what exactly separates Rice and Gonzalez, statistical or otherwise?
I'll get back to you.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.
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.
o
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.
Registered User
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.
o
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.
Registered User
this may sound like a cop out answer, but I would only vote them in if the other players available were not so great, i don't necessarily think they are either hall worthy, but on a slow year, i could see it. And I don't base anything on steriods, i just think it should be the elite of the elite of the elite that make it. neither really stand out as that elite to me.
o
I never understood this. Why would you vote for a player just because the rest of the candidates on the ballot are weak? Players shouldn't be compared just to those on the ballot with them. The way I see it, a player is a Hall of Famer or not. If you think he is, vote yes. If you think he's not, vote no. Obviously, one can change their mind in either direction, but I don't see the logic in "I'm undecided if he's a Hall of Famer, so it depends on who else is on the ballot."
And you're not the only one I've seen express that sentiment. It shows up in the overall BBWAA voting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote