Comments on: Jim Rice http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523 This and that about baseball stats. Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:02:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Stat of the Day » 5-year home run leaders http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3584 Stat of the Day » 5-year home run leaders Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:43:26 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3584 [...] the talk on this post about Jim Rice’s peak years, and the general value of having a high peak to a player’s [...] [...] the talk on this post about Jim Rice’s peak years, and the general value of having a high peak to a player’s [...]

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3579 Andy Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:56:51 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3579 Well, I don't know if that's a conscious problem in the minds of the voters, but I do think it might have a subconscious effect. A couple of recent entrants come to mind: Gossage and Sutter. Each had a period of a few years where they were THE MARQUIS PLAYER at their position (both happen to be closers.) I think that sort of definitive streak of being a dominant player really helps. SO I think that Rice, being more spread out, hurts him a little bit. If by chance he had happened to bunch those 6 years all together, he'd probably be in the HOF already. (Mind you, this "peak effect" is not present all the time. Lots of HOFers--Gwynn and Ripken come to mind right away--didn't have a specific peak where they were dominant.) Well, I don't know if that's a conscious problem in the minds of the voters, but I do think it might have a subconscious effect. A couple of recent entrants come to mind: Gossage and Sutter. Each had a period of a few years where they were THE MARQUIS PLAYER at their position (both happen to be closers.) I think that sort of definitive streak of being a dominant player really helps. SO I think that Rice, being more spread out, hurts him a little bit. If by chance he had happened to bunch those 6 years all together, he'd probably be in the HOF already. (Mind you, this "peak effect" is not present all the time. Lots of HOFers--Gwynn and Ripken come to mind right away--didn't have a specific peak where they were dominant.)

]]> By: OscarAzocar http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3578 OscarAzocar Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:43:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3578 Andy in #5 you write "One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball–best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder–something like that." Is Rice's problem that he spread his best years out? He finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting 6 times, just not consecutively. Andy in #5 you write "One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball–best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder–something like that."

Is Rice's problem that he spread his best years out? He finished in the top 5 in the MVP voting 6 times, just not consecutively.

]]> By: David in Toledo http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3562 David in Toledo Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:08:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3562 After age 33, Jim Rice's OPS+ were 101, 102, and 70. Perhaps he was overworked within individual seasons. In any case, he was the only player to be in 163 games in 1978. That's one factor in the "most feared" reputation, endurance. When the pitcher looked up, that @#$#% Rice was always there, waiting. Factor two: if you don't take many walks, you put more balls in play, and the more you put in play, the more likely you are to have high total bases. Ted Williams is 4th in career walks, 19th in career total bases. Barry Bonds led the league 12 times in walks, once in total bases. And Jim Rice clearly ran hard out of the box at ages 24 and 25, because in each season he turned 15 of what might have been doubles into triples. If George Foster had hit 15 triples the year before (1977), Foster would have had 400 total bases. A five-year summary of 300+ total bases for the AL: 1976, nobody; 1977, 8 players; 1978, Rice; 1979, 8; 1980, 7. These things can go up and down, depending on who's hot or healthy that year. Another factor: George Brett played in only 128 games in 1978. In 1980, Brett's 298 TB in 449 AB is a % of .657, compared to Jim Rice's .600 in 1978. No knock on Jim Rice here. Going out there every day is good. After age 33, Jim Rice's OPS+ were 101, 102, and 70. Perhaps he was overworked within individual seasons. In any case, he was the only player to be in 163 games in 1978. That's one factor in the "most feared" reputation, endurance. When the pitcher looked up, that @#$#% Rice was always there, waiting.

Factor two: if you don't take many walks, you put more balls in play, and the more you put in play, the more likely you are to have high total bases. Ted Williams is 4th in career walks, 19th in career total bases. Barry Bonds led the league 12 times in walks, once in total bases.

And Jim Rice clearly ran hard out of the box at ages 24 and 25, because in each season he turned 15 of what might have been doubles into triples. If George Foster had hit 15 triples the year before (1977), Foster would have had 400 total bases.

A five-year summary of 300+ total bases for the AL: 1976, nobody; 1977, 8 players; 1978, Rice; 1979, 8; 1980, 7. These things can go up and down, depending on who's hot or healthy that year.

Another factor: George Brett played in only 128 games in 1978. In 1980, Brett's 298 TB in 449 AB is a % of .657, compared to Jim Rice's .600 in 1978. No knock on Jim Rice here. Going out there every day is good.

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3561 Andy Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:04:10 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3561 No argument from me, David. By the way, in 1978 Rice led all of MLB with 406 total bases. The leader in the NL was Dave Parker, with just 340. And, get this, nobody else in the AL had even 300 total bases. That is totally crazy and whacked out to me. Does anybody have an explanation? No argument from me, David.

By the way, in 1978 Rice led all of MLB with 406 total bases. The leader in the NL was Dave Parker, with just 340. And, get this, nobody else in the AL had even 300 total bases. That is totally crazy and whacked out to me. Does anybody have an explanation?

]]> By: David in Toledo http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3560 David in Toledo Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:50:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3560 And to your last point, Andy, the metric of total bases is impressive, but total bases advanced (or whatever someone wants to call a more comprehensive measure) should be more impressive. We pay more attention now to total bases because it's easy to find or to compute, whereas factoring in walks and steals and hitting into double plays and the number of plate appearances takes more effort. Once upon a time, nobody knew what an on-base percentage was. And to your last point, Andy, the metric of total bases is impressive, but total bases advanced (or whatever someone wants to call a more comprehensive measure) should be more impressive. We pay more attention now to total bases because it's easy to find or to compute, whereas factoring in walks and steals and hitting into double plays and the number of plate appearances takes more effort. Once upon a time, nobody knew what an on-base percentage was.

]]> By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3557 Andy Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:08:46 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3557 jrpaul is actually getting to my point. This entire post was written sarcastically on my part. Is it somewhat impressive that Rice leads all of baseball in these stats over this time period? Yes. But it's not very meaningful, actually. The period is arbitrarily well-suited to Rice's career, just like saying that Jack Morris was the Wins leader for MLB in the 1980s. Nobody bothers to mention that Morris was also 3rd in losses in that decade, or that if you instead look at 1981 to 1990, then Mike Moore is tied for the lead with Morris. The problem with these arbitrary periods is that it confuses the issue when it comes to HOF voting. One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball--best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder--something like that. This argument that Rice lead MLB in certain stats over a 10-year period is a mirage trying to argue that Rice was the dominant player for those 10 years. Now, no doubt Rice was great, but he wasn't dominant for 10 years. While it's true that he led MLB in total bases from 1975 to 1984, he led MLB in total bases just 3 out of those 10 years. (Not that leading MLB in TB 3 times is not impressive, but 3 is a lot less than 10.) jrpaul is actually getting to my point. This entire post was written sarcastically on my part. Is it somewhat impressive that Rice leads all of baseball in these stats over this time period? Yes. But it's not very meaningful, actually. The period is arbitrarily well-suited to Rice's career, just like saying that Jack Morris was the Wins leader for MLB in the 1980s. Nobody bothers to mention that Morris was also 3rd in losses in that decade, or that if you instead look at 1981 to 1990, then Mike Moore is tied for the lead with Morris.
The problem with these arbitrary periods is that it confuses the issue when it comes to HOF voting. One of the key things that HOF voters look for is that the player had a dominant stretch, usually a 4-5 year period where they were one of the best in baseball--best pitcher, best HR-hitter, best corner outfielder--something like that. This argument that Rice lead MLB in certain stats over a 10-year period is a mirage trying to argue that Rice was the dominant player for those 10 years. Now, no doubt Rice was great, but he wasn't dominant for 10 years.
While it's true that he led MLB in total bases from 1975 to 1984, he led MLB in total bases just 3 out of those 10 years. (Not that leading MLB in TB 3 times is not impressive, but 3 is a lot less than 10.)

]]> By: jrpaul http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3554 jrpaul Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:39:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3554 Even though these stats are hand picked to emphasize Rice's strengths and ignore his weaknesses, and the 10 year period is likewise a selection with no significance other than to maximize Rice's accomplishment; I find it funny that he falls from the top of these lists when you take Fenway out of the mix. Away games only: RBI 1 Mike Schmidt 502 2 George Foster 479 3 Dave Winfield 470 4 Jim Rice 465 5 Steve Garvey 427 6 Greg Luzinski 386 Total Bases 1 Mike Schmidt 1462 2 Dave Winfield 1461 3 Jim Rice 1426 4 Cecil Cooper 1372 5 George Foster 1344 6 Steve Garvey 1327 7 George Brett 1266 Even though these stats are hand picked to emphasize Rice's strengths and ignore his weaknesses, and the 10 year period is likewise a selection with no significance other than to maximize Rice's accomplishment; I find it funny that he falls from the top of these lists when you take Fenway out of the mix.

Away games only:
RBI
1 Mike Schmidt 502
2 George Foster 479
3 Dave Winfield 470
4 Jim Rice 465
5 Steve Garvey 427
6 Greg Luzinski 386

Total Bases
1 Mike Schmidt 1462
2 Dave Winfield 1461
3 Jim Rice 1426
4 Cecil Cooper 1372
5 George Foster 1344
6 Steve Garvey 1327
7 George Brett 1266

]]> By: OscarAzocar http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3553 OscarAzocar Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:29:22 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3553 Its not just '75-'84. You can take any 10 consecutive seasons from '75-'87 and Rice will be the total base leader. In fact if you compare Rice from '75-'87 with George Brett who is the same age, their numbers are pretty similar. (With the exception of Rice's jaw dropping GIDP totals.) Of course Brett was an infielder .... http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/vST9 Its not just '75-'84. You can take any 10 consecutive seasons from '75-'87 and Rice will be the total base leader. In fact if you compare Rice from '75-'87 with George Brett who is the same age, their numbers are pretty similar. (With the exception of Rice's jaw dropping GIDP totals.) Of course Brett was an infielder ....

http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/vST9

]]> By: David in Toledo http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/523/comment-page-1#comment-3549 David in Toledo Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:14:05 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/523#comment-3549 Absolutely adding BB & HBP would be more useful than just TB alone! It increases your total bases and your RBI's if you're less selective, but a batting profile of many official at-bats and few walks may not aid your team. Conversely, how many "outs" do you make over a season (second section of a B-R individual batter page) and what is their percentage to your plate appearances? Mike Schmidt's 558 additional walks on the above report may not be quite as good as 558 additional singles (and, therefore, total bases). But those 558 times not swinging at the final pitch may have helped Schmidt to ground into 123 fewer double plays than Jim Rice, and that's worth something, too. Absolutely adding BB & HBP would be more useful than just TB alone! It increases your total bases and your RBI's if you're less selective, but a batting profile of many official at-bats and few walks may not aid your team. Conversely, how many "outs" do you make over a season (second section of a B-R individual batter page) and what is their percentage to your plate appearances?

Mike Schmidt's 558 additional walks on the above report may not be quite as good as 558 additional singles (and, therefore, total bases). But those 558 times not swinging at the final pitch may have helped Schmidt to ground into 123 fewer double plays than Jim Rice, and that's worth something, too.

]]>