OPS+ is not adjusted for era. It is adjusted against that player's league for that year.

 

Which is, of course, what I meant. If he has a 128 OPS+ for his career, he was 14% better, as a hitter, than the league he played in. That is, sort of, era adjusted.

 

If you don't like OPS+, you can use WARP3, which takes into account park, era, league, defense, speed, etc.

 

That has Rice at a 83.0

Dewey has a 120, and that only takes into account an extra 20 wins or so for his defense over Rice's.

It isn't.

 

You wanted to compare a player who played in the 70s OPS+ to those in the 90s and 00s when power and offensive numbers went through the roof. You can't do it.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

Pitchers have higher ERAs today not because they are inferior to pitchers in the 70s and 80s but because they are facing better hitters and the enviroment for pitching in the game is nowhere near pitcher-friendly as it was during that period.

 

Jim Rice is nowhere near the talent of Alex Rodriguez. Alex Rodriguez is in the same class with Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mantle, etc. He is ALL-TIME talent. A player who can seriously be considered one of the top 10 players of all-time. While Jim Rice was a generational run-of-the-mill top talent. A player who has a good chance of being on a list of top 10 players from the '70s and '80s.

 

Look at it this way. It's a simple explanation but it gets the job done. Lets say ARod retires after his 16th season like Rice did. If ARod continues to do what he is doing he will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 home runs. Are you telling me that the pitchers and the factors at play in his time period took away roughly 200 home runs from Jim Rice's career total? That's almost 14 home runs a year. Hell no.

Uhh Yes that is exactly what I am saying if Alex played in the days of Seaver, Palmer and Carlton he would lose between 10-15 homers perr season. Unfortunately

 

Arod played in the days of Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, and Schmoltz, all of whom are Hall of Fame and all time great pitchers. I would say top 3 of those match up exceedingly well with Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

OPS+ is not adjusted for era. It is adjusted against that player's league for that year.

 

Which is, of course, what I meant. If he has a 128 OPS+ for his career, he was 14% better, as a hitter, than the league he played in. That is, sort of, era adjusted.

 

If you don't like OPS+, you can use WARP3, which takes into account park, era, league, defense, speed, etc.

 

That has Rice at a 83.0

Dewey has a 120, and that only takes into account an extra 20 wins or so for his defense over Rice's.

It isn't.

 

You wanted to compare a player who played in the 70s OPS+ to those in the 90s and 00s when power and offensive numbers went through the roof. You can't do it.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

Pitchers have higher ERAs today not because they are inferior to pitchers in the 70s and 80s but because they are facing better hitters and the enviroment for pitching in the game is nowhere near pitcher-friendly as it was during that period.

 

Jim Rice is nowhere near the talent of Alex Rodriguez. Alex Rodriguez is in the same class with Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mantle, etc. He is ALL-TIME talent. A player who can seriously be considered one of the top 10 players of all-time. While Jim Rice was a generational run-of-the-mill top talent. A player who has a good chance of being on a list of top 10 players from the '70s and '80s.

 

Look at it this way. It's a simple explanation but it gets the job done. Lets say ARod retires after his 16th season like Rice did. If ARod continues to do what he is doing he will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 home runs. Are you telling me that the pitchers and the factors at play in his time period took away roughly 200 home runs from Jim Rice's career total? That's almost 14 home runs a year. Hell no.

Uhh Yes that is exactly what I am saying if Alex played in the days of Seaver, Palmer and Carlton he would lose between 10-15 homers perr season. Unfortunately

 

Arod played in the days of Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, and Schmoltz, all of whom are Hall of Fame and all time great pitchers. I would say top 3 of those match up exceedingly well with Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

This gotta be the funniest posting ever!

Why don't you back your statements up instead of being an ass?

This gotta be the funniest posting ever!

 

You are quickly moving up the list of dumbest posters on this board. Keep up the good work, what with the unsubstantiated claims and closeminded ness and what not.

 

I'll take Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro over Seaver, Palmer and Carlton. Pedro, Maddux, and Clemens are responsible for like 5 of the 10 best seasons of all time by pitchers. They dominated in retarded ways.

Thay is a tough list to climb up on Bob when it comes to this forum. I dont think that is a comment that needs to be even commented on in reference to pitching eras. I was referring more in matter of pitching depth and qualitiy of pitching rotations in general. In the 70's you saw a rotation that had 4 20 game winners, pitcher ERA's were microscopic. This past season only one pitcher won 20 games and the lowest ERA was .254, Palmer's career ERA is .286 which is bested by Pedro (.280), but Pedro does not have the longevity of Pamer, Carlton is the best LHP in history. Seaver was just a dominant pitcher with 3600 Ks also had a 2.86 ERA. Clemons and Pedro are the best Pitchers stats-wise of this ERA but of course they will never have to no fault of their own the complete games. Pedro may not even win 250 games (Injuries) but that doesnt make him less dominant, BTW Pedro only has 2 season in which he has won 20 games

I guess i can go deeper and be stats nerd and go into winning percentages WHIP but screw that I saw them all pitch and thats enough for me!

Bob how many of these pitcher have you seen pitching at their prime?

I won't even get involved, but its apples and oranges, having seen both era's the pitchers named above are all great and could have been great in either era......

 

altho in the 70s if you ERA was over 3.5 or so you really sucked........most pitchers were in the 2s or 3s.......

 

ballparks were bigger then and the hitters of today are stronger (either naturally or artifically)

 

Pedro, Maddox clemens would have been great back then and Seaver Carlton Gibson, Palmer would have been great now too...........

Bob how many of these pitcher have you seen pitching at their prime?

none

Bob how many of these pitcher have you seen pitching at their prime?

 

None. And I don't think it matters. Did you ever see Babe Ruth play?

 

The point is, the pitching wasn't that much better. There were numerous factors for the lack of offense, but none of them had to do with pitching being better. Either way, the difference isn't 15 home runs a year. I can garauntee that.

I guess i can go deeper and be stats nerd and go into winning percentages WHIP but screw that I saw them all pitch and thats enough for me!

 

Well then, excuse us objective thinkers while we point and laugh at you.

 

Unless you are a scout, manager or GM your opinion of "what your eyes tell you" will be taken with a grain of salt and mocked by all.

I guess i can go deeper and be stats nerd and go into winning percentages WHIP but screw that I saw them all pitch and thats enough for me!

 

Well then, excuse us objective thinkers while we point and laugh at you.

 

Unless you are a scout, manager or GM your opinion of "what your eyes tell you" will be taken with a grain of salt and mocked by all.

I like how using whip would make you a stat nerd :lol

I guess i can go deeper and be stats nerd and go into winning percentages WHIP but screw that I saw them all pitch and thats enough for me!

 

Well then, excuse us objective thinkers while we point and laugh at you.

 

Unless you are a scout, manager or GM your opinion of "what your eyes tell you" will be taken with a grain of salt and mocked by all.

I like how using whip would make you a stat nerd :lol

 

Winning percentages

 

I can't think of a single "stat nerd" that would ever use winning percentages.

Complete Game % is definitely the definitive stat.

I guess I am the whipping boy today. I never saw Bob Feller or Grover Cleveland and is to my belief they were great there is only the historical data and stats to indicate that, but sometimes the anecdotal evidence is what is of major weight. We can dissect number and crunch them as much as we like but sometimes the impact of the player's loses in translation. I have a favorate player that is not in Cooperstown and probably will never be because of the numbers. That being Dick Groat, most of those that have lashed out at me will have to check to even know who Dick Groat was, I'll make it easy on you...A very good hitting shortstop in his days with a very solid glove. You guys mention Ruth, he was great because at a time when other players were hitting 10 homers per season he was hitting 40-50. Sometimes the contrast is not that evident. I wanna clarify Ramp Whip and Winning are excellent indicators of performance, I do not say they are not, but if I threw out those numbers The superstar pitchers of the 70's and 80's will have eye poping numbers there as well, if any of you guys wanna do the legwork go ahead. I don't need to because i actually went to see these guys pitch. I filled out scorecards while they were breezing through lineups throwing 2-hitters. I saw several Seaver-Carlton, Seaver-Gibson, Seaver-Jenkins. Matlack-JR Richards, Hunter (Catfish)-Palmer, Hunter-Tanana, Guidrey-Ryan. These guys all could pitch, and damn could they pitch. 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 games were not a rarity. the game has changed. Oustanding pitching performance are not everyday occurences. Sure Clemons, Pedro and Maddux are great, it's most other pitchers that are really mediocre. There is a lot of sub-par pitchers in baseball no wonder the offensive stats are off the chart. I wanna finish by saying I love Arod, I wish he would get out of New York because he doesn't recieve the love he deserves there. He is the best player of today and is amongst the all-time greats, What I am saying is the game is a different game than the one played by George Brett, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt. I am convinced Arod would have big numbers just not as big

Carlton pitched 24 seasons Win% .574 WHIP 1.247

Palmer pitched 19 seasons Win% .638 WHIP 1.180

Seaver pitched 20 seasons Win% .603 WHIP 1.121

 

Clemons pitched 24 seasons Win% .658 WHIP 1.173

Pedro pitched 16 seasons Win% .692 WHIP 1.030

Maddux pitched 22 seasons Win% .619 WHIP 1.141

Winning percentage is essentially a meaningless stat.

Jumping into this thing a little late, but I've got a question for Fox. The 12 year stats that you cited from SoSH, doesn't it inherently favor someone who basically started at exactly the same time Rice did? Here are the stats:

 

1st in runs (1,098)

1st in hits (2,145)

1st in home runs (350)

1st in runs batted in (1,276)

1st in slugging percentage (.520)

1st in total bases (3,670)

1st in extra-base hits (752)

1st in go-ahead RBIs (325)

1st in multi-hit games (640)

4th in triples (73)

4th in batting average (.304)

1st in outfield assists (125)

 

In order for you to rank high on alot of these stats don't you have to have played in exactly these 12 seasons? Someone who played during only 10 seasons of that stretch or 8 seasons would be at a serious disadvantage, even if they were better. Or they perhaps had great seasons just outside of this time frame that are excluded from that list. So, alot of the stats on this list that arn't rate statistics (which is basically everything but SLG and BA) are really to Rice's advantage. I'd be curious to see how many other AL batters played during all 12 of these seasons.

 

I haven't put much thought into Rice's candidacy myself so I don't have a bias one way or the other, but I find myself questioning how convincing these stats are without knowing how many other people he's legitimately competing against (people that played all 12 seasons).

I want to be as smart as Crimson Cane in my next life.

Jumping into this thing a little late, but I've got a question for Fox. The 12 year stats that you cited from SoSH, doesn't it inherently favor someone who basically started at exactly the same time Rice did? Here are the stats:

 

1st in runs (1,098)

1st in hits (2,145)

1st in home runs (350)

1st in runs batted in (1,276)

1st in slugging percentage (.520)

1st in total bases (3,670)

1st in extra-base hits (752)

1st in go-ahead RBIs (325)

1st in multi-hit games (640)

4th in triples (73)

4th in batting average (.304)

1st in outfield assists (125)

 

In order for you to rank high on alot of these stats don't you have to have played in exactly these 12 seasons? Someone who played during only 10 seasons of that stretch or 8 seasons would be at a serious disadvantage, even if they were better. Or they perhaps had great seasons just outside of this time frame that are excluded from that list. So, alot of the stats on this list that arn't rate statistics (which is basically everything but SLG and BA) are really to Rice's advantage. I'd be curious to see how many other AL batters played during all 12 of these seasons.

 

I haven't put much thought into Rice's candidacy myself so I don't have a bias one way or the other, but I find myself questioning how convincing these stats are without knowing how many other people he's legitimately competing against (people that played all 12 seasons).

 

I'm not so sure I agree with the best hitter in the league for 12 years.

 

He lead his league in OPS+ once in his career. He was the best over a 12 year period, mostly because better players than him weren't around for those 12 years.

 

That was what I was going for, but you are much smarter than me, so it worked better when you said it.

met Jim Rice tonight at a New Hampshire Fisher Cats dinner that featured my cousin, Chris Carpenter, the Pesky man himself, Don Orsillo and many others...and irregardless of how i feel about Rice(i dont think he should be in)...it was awesome when Orsillo was talking about some of the ballplayers there tonight...he started listing Rice's credentials and everyone...(about 900) people started in on a standing ovation for Rice and Don had to yell into the mic JIM RICE to try to be louder than the clapping...it was an awesome sight and just thought i would share...hopefully i can get some pics up here sometime soon

Carlton pitched 24 seasons Win% .574 WHIP 1.247

Palmer pitched 19 seasons Win% .638 WHIP 1.180

Seaver pitched 20 seasons Win% .603 WHIP 1.121

 

Clemons pitched 24 seasons Win% .658 WHIP 1.173

Pedro pitched 16 seasons Win% .692 WHIP 1.030

Maddux pitched 22 seasons Win% .619 WHIP 1.141

Ignoring the validity of using Win% as a stat, these numbers are only a small piece of a MUCH larger picture. The fact that the later three were dominating the sport at a time when offense was at an all time high is clearly being neglected in these numbers.

 

I did get to see Carlton, Seaver, and Palmer pitch. I also watched Griffey Sr and Winfield tee off on Palmer back to back in the bottom of the third sending him to the bench after giving up 5 runs in 2 1/3 innings of work. I've got similar stories for Seaver and Palmer [cough - Phil Garner - cough].

 

Here's what you are missing:

 

In 2000, Pedro had an era of 1.74. Sure, that's a pretty sick stat. Here's what makes it even sicker - he did that against a league that slugged an average of .443!!! In Seaver's 1975 2.09 ERA season, the AL slugged a markedly lower .379.

 

Here's another little factoid; the dimensions of Camden Yards in 2000:

333' [7' fence], 400' [7' fence], 318' [25' fence]

the dimensions of Memorial Stadium 1975 [seaver's best season]:

375' [14' fence], 410' [14' fence], 375' [14' fence]

 

I'm sorry but if you have been a baseball fan long enough to remember Dick Groat, you should be knowledgable enough to know that this is a vastly different game with far superior offense and far smaller parks. Sure, pitching IN GENERAL has been watered down some through expansion, but there is no denying that good defensive players have been losing out to great offensive players. That puts even more pressure on a pitcher these days and makes the accomplishments of Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Smoltz, RJ, etc that much more astounding and impressive.

 

There is no question in my mind that Seaver, Carlton, and Palmer would have been very good in this day and age but no way would they have dominated like they did back in the day [well - maybe Carlton].

Jumping into this thing a little late, but I've got a question for Fox. The 12 year stats that you cited from SoSH, doesn't it inherently favor someone who basically started at exactly the same time Rice did? Here are the stats:

 

1st in runs (1,098)

1st in hits (2,145)

1st in home runs (350)

1st in runs batted in (1,276)

1st in slugging percentage (.520)

1st in total bases (3,670)

1st in extra-base hits (752)

1st in go-ahead RBIs (325)

1st in multi-hit games (640)

4th in triples (73)

4th in batting average (.304)

1st in outfield assists (125)

 

In order for you to rank high on alot of these stats don't you have to have played in exactly these 12 seasons? Someone who played during only 10 seasons of that stretch or 8 seasons would be at a serious disadvantage, even if they were better. Or they perhaps had great seasons just outside of this time frame that are excluded from that list. So, alot of the stats on this list that arn't rate statistics (which is basically everything but SLG and BA) are really to Rice's advantage. I'd be curious to see how many other AL batters played during all 12 of these seasons.

 

I haven't put much thought into Rice's candidacy myself so I don't have a bias one way or the other, but I find myself questioning how convincing these stats are without knowing how many other people he's legitimately competing against (people that played all 12 seasons).

Of course, I'm not trying to mask that either.

 

For a 12 year period, and a decent chunk of two decades, he led in all those stats.

 

They are what they are.

 

The fact that only Schmidt was beating him in a lot of those is telling to me.

Jim Palmer also knew how to use that Brylcream.

Jumping into this thing a little late, but I've got a question for Fox. The 12 year stats that you cited from SoSH, doesn't it inherently favor someone who basically started at exactly the same time Rice did? Here are the stats:

 

1st in runs (1,098)

1st in hits (2,145)

1st in home runs (350)

1st in runs batted in (1,276)

1st in slugging percentage (.520)

1st in total bases (3,670)

1st in extra-base hits (752)

1st in go-ahead RBIs (325)

1st in multi-hit games (640)

4th in triples (73)

4th in batting average (.304)

1st in outfield assists (125)

 

In order for you to rank high on alot of these stats don't you have to have played in exactly these 12 seasons? Someone who played during only 10 seasons of that stretch or 8 seasons would be at a serious disadvantage, even if they were better. Or they perhaps had great seasons just outside of this time frame that are excluded from that list. So, alot of the stats on this list that arn't rate statistics (which is basically everything but SLG and BA) are really to Rice's advantage. I'd be curious to see how many other AL batters played during all 12 of these seasons.

 

I haven't put much thought into Rice's candidacy myself so I don't have a bias one way or the other, but I find myself questioning how convincing these stats are without knowing how many other people he's legitimately competing against (people that played all 12 seasons).

Of course, I'm not trying to mask that either.

 

For a 12 year period, and a decent chunk of two decades, he led in all those stats.

 

They are what they are.

 

The fact that only Schmidt was beating him in a lot of those is telling to me.

 

Last night I ended up looking this up on Baseballreference because I was bored.

 

I looked for all players who had at least 6,000 at bats between 1975 and 1986 in the AL. Rice did in fact lead many of these categories, but he was 4th in OPS, behind the last 12 years of Reggie Jackson's career and the first 12 years of George Brett's and Eddie Murray's.

 

That isn't taking the NL into account.

 

He was one of the 10 best players in the majors for that 12 year period, probably. If you count defense, he might slide even further. So I'm not sure if he is a hall of famer. Like I've been saying, he's the very definition of borderline (if you don't count counting stats, which I generally don't, especially when talking about a guy who only played for basically 12 seasons). Especially if you count the fact that most of the players he is up against had great years before or after that 12 year period, whereas he basically did nothing outside of those 12 years.

 

Like I said, if he gets in that's ok. I don't think he should be in, but I won't think it's a travesty if he does. Unlike many of his supporters (most of whom are Sox fans) who think it is the ultimate travesty if he doesn't get in.