Quick Comparison Time.
by Matthew on Jan 12, 2009 7:26 PM PST
in The More You Know
99 comments
Jim Rice got elected to the Hall of Fame today.
For FanGraphs tonight, I took a look at his worth. I began by manually calculating his wOBA and comparing it to the league average for his 15 year career, adjusting it for Fenway and ended up getting the exact same result as the Batting Runs number listed for Rice on B-R.
So I feel pretty good about that measurement (it's been noted before by others, even Tango I believe, that the Batting Runs is a fairly good measure as it's linear weights-based and park and league adjusted using B-R's factors).
Jim Rice played 3/4 of his games in an OF corner spot and 1/4 at DH. Using Tango's positional adjustments [granted they're aren't intended for that time period, they should still be a good proxy], Jim Rice incurred a ten run penalty per season for his position.
So let's compare Jim Rice to our old friend, Player X.
Jim Rice: 9,058 PAs
Player X: 8,672 PAs
Jim Rice: 20 RAA per 600 PA with his bat
Player X: 40 RAA per 600 PA with his bat
Jim Rice: 10 run penalty for his position
Player X: 12 run penalty for his position
So you have Player X pretty much kicking Jim Rice's ass in terms of value here over what amounts to essentially the same career length. If Jim Rice played defense like Mike Cameron, then they might be about equal. Might.
Jim Rice got elected to the Hall of Fame today.
0 recs |
99 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I was just thinking about this
Rice >>> Lynn ~= Player X
by JI on Jan 12, 2009 7:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i agree "player x" should most certaintly be in the HOF
but could you tell me what the analysis of rice would be minus rice’s last 1000 plate appearances? in that time he had vastly deteriorated and was out frequently, but kept playing past the time he probably should have stopped.
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany - Ron Burgundy
by zotsi on Jan 12, 2009 7:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Even then not much
Jim Edmonds was a better hitter than Jim Rice.
by JI on Jan 12, 2009 7:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice didn't have a terribly long career to begin with
If you chop off his last 1,000 PA, you’re taking another ~250 games off of his career, and he’s only got 2089 GP to begin with. Setting aside Puckett (relatively freak career-ending injury) and Larry Doby (got deserved extra credit for breaking the color barrier in the AL), the last time that an outfielder with that few games played has been inducted was Chuck Klein back in 1980.
I mean, if you “should have stopped” playing after your age 33 season, chances are you’re not a Hall of Famer unless something extraordinary happened.
by ubelmann on Jan 12, 2009 8:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
STILL GIVES ME CHILLS!
Thank you for posting that video link. And when it comes to winning a World Series someday, I don’t think I will feel as much joy as I did then. Every day starting from early August kept building up to that moment. 2001 had the same thing going for it because it was such a special season. But I wouldn’t trade the 1995 season for a World Series victory today, and I am dead honest when saying that.
by Wilder. on Jan 12, 2009 9:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
However, I want Dave Niehaus to have his World Series victory more than anything.
More so than me.
by Wilder. on Jan 12, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like how you can tell exactly what video it is from the first frame.
I felt like the M’s have overplayed that clip a little bit, but I don’t know, it still works.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Jan 13, 2009 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rice's MVP Shares
3.15 MVP Shares (including 1 MVP). Player X had 1.01 shares.
Player X may need another few years to make the HOF.
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
by JJ on Jan 13, 2009 7:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Anything with 'Shares' in it is totally illegitimate.
by Graham on Jan 13, 2009 7:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
MVP Shares are a really really really really really poor metric to measure people by.
Especially in the face of vastly superior measurements already provided.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Does Jim Rice getting in help Edgars case? Especially with all the “Roid” bias.
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 8:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's fair to count Thomas' years as a firstbaseman and then call him the best "DH" in history
But that’s beside the point
Edgar Martinez was not a better player than Jim Thome, he was not a better player than Frank Thomas, and he certainly was not in the same league as Jeff Bagwell— and I suspect all three of those guys will have problems (at leas initially) getting elected.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think all three WILL get in eventually.
Still, I think it’s going to be the Veterans Committee that puts Edgar in, not the writers.
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well Edgar's resume destroys Jim Rice's...
…but if we set Rice as the floor then pretty much any minor star with longevity and/or a big fluke year deserves to be in.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Jeff Bagwell was an insanely good player
If he hadn’t spent his good years in the Astrodome he’d probably be a “lock” right now.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bagwell IS a lock
I’d be shocked if he didn’t get it. Maybe not on the first ballot (which he deserves), but he’ll get in. The only problem might be that people view him as a step behind Frank Thomas, but I don’t see why they won’t just take both. Thome is more borderline to people – Strikeouts! Lower BA! – but he has the magic 500HR talisman, so he’ll probably get in too.
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bagwell didn't hit .300, he didn't hit 500 homeruns, he didn't "win the big one"
he played in a bloated offensive era, his career was a bit too short, and his one MVP is tainted. There are reasons he could end up Blyleven’d.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He could, it's true
but the high BA, high SLG, the MVP and ROY make me think he’ll get in. Again, it may not be first ballot, but he’ll get in eventually once people go back and look at the kind of player he was.
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brady Anderson!
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jan 13, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To the numbers!
If Frank Thomas doesn’t get in quickly then the HOF is dumber than I thought.
Thomas: 10,074 PAs, 45 RAA per 600 PA, 15 run penalty for position, ~5 win player on average, ~84 total wins
But the other two? It’s actually pretty close if you ignore defensive skill (not position). Not sure how they rated as defenders.
Thome: 9,029 PAs, 38 RAA per 600 PA, 10 run penalty for position, ~4.8 win player on average, ~72 total wins
Bagwell: 9,431 PAs, 39 RAA per 600 PA, 12.5 run penalty for position, ~4.7 win player on average, ~74 total wins
Edgar: 8,672 PAs, 39 RAA per 600 PA, 12 run penalty for position, ~4.7 win player on average, ~68 total wins
Rice, meanwhile, ~45 total wins for his career.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Thomas was a better hitter than Albert Pujols
until his bad body caught up with him, and I think many sportswriters will remember TTO Thomas limping to 500 HRs in a Blue Jays uniform.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious to how defense is weighed
although we don’t have UZRs from the 1990s, Jeff Bagwell was regarded as great defender in his time— “a third baseman playing first” in a similar vein to Pujols.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, why does Bagwell have the biggest penalty?
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas does actually.
Bagwell played nothing but 1B while Thome and Edgar logged a decent amount of time at 3B.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's right
My brain forgets he went from 3B to DH without making a stop at first.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
Do you it would be safe to call Thome/Edgar like a -7 at third, Thome a few runs below average at first (for his entire career), and Bagwell comfortably above average at first (~+6), and Thomas as dreadful (-7 or so)?
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I feel it unsafe, given what I used to think about baseball compared to now,
to put any faith in my defensive perceptions from 10 years ago.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This totally fails to compare against era
Rice was one of the most feared hitters in his era, and he played in an era with a lot less power than Edgar did. I’m not saying anything about Edgar deserving the hall or not , but Rice should be in there.
by Smegmalicious on Jan 13, 2009 10:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
RTFA
it’s linear weights-based and park and league adjusted using B-R’s factors
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying is that Rice played in a different time
Halcyon days of sepia toned vigor where true men strove against each other in true sport without the interference of media, science or the cruel temperaments of man.
In all seriousness, what exact point are you trying to make? That Rice doesn’t deserve to be in the hall? That Edgar does? That induction into the hall doesn’t mean anything?
The hall of fame is the same as the gold glove or the MVP of the Cy Young award. Sure we’d all like them to be decided differently, or logically or whatever, but do you really think putting one of the best hitters of his era in there cheapens it somehow? Have you looked at some of the crappy players who are in there already?
For me, having Jim Rice in there is kind of cool because he was really good when he was around. He’s not going to be the reason that 95% of people go there, he’ll just blend in with the rest of the lower tier of great players that are in there and that’s that.
by Smegmalicious on Jan 13, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the point is that Jim Rice was half the hitter Edgar Martinez was
and draw whatever conclusions you think are appropriate.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty much that.
And that people holding the DH argument against Edgar without quantifying it (see the OP) are ignorant.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Meaning that, depending on his defense,
Rice wasn’t just half the hitter Edgar was, but most likely, half the player Edgar was.
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
However I’d love to see Rice compared to a Player X that was around in the 70’s and 80’s rather than someone who played when Edgar did. Ultimately Rice and Edgar are not peers.
by Smegmalicious on Jan 13, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Edgar was a better hitter compared to his peers than Rice was to his.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see data on that
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to see data. Also, I think Edgar will get into the hall, probably faster than Rice did.
by Smegmalicious on Jan 13, 2009 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My new holy grail is historical wOBA+
(and easily accessible historical wOBA league averages)
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Kinda crude, but:
Career numbers
Edgar: .312/.418/.515 vs. a park-adjusted league average of .267/.337/.420
Rice: .298/.352/.502 vs. a park-adjusted league average of .271/.337/.407
Yes, Edgar played in a time when SLG was more prevalent, but the league OBPs are identical, and Edgar swamps him.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think carrer numbers are a good indicator?
Given that lots of guys play long past their prime, or take a long time to develop?
I think that career numbers get bandied about too much. I’m not 100% convinced but i think something like 5 or ten years of dominance may be more important than someone racking up huge career numbers.
Just a thought.
by Smegmalicious on Jan 13, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Edgar's 5 best years destroy Rice's 5 best
as do his 10 best.
If anything Edgar’s career (offensive) numbers are a bit inflated, because if he was playing 3B in the big in 1987 he probably would have been a .300/.390/.430 kind of player, and that would drag his hitting numbers down a bit, but be a big positive towards his defensive value.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point, but I don't think it applies here.
In this example, I didn’t look at any counting stats, so “racking up huge career numbers” wasn’t a factor.
If anything, you would expect a player’s career numbers there to go down if he played until he was 41. Edgar’s remained awesome.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, here we go.
I neutralized their stats at B-R to translate both players’ hitting stats into the same run environment (715 runs per team per season). I then picked each player’s best consecutive five years and averaged out the slash stats. So this takes into account the fact that Rice played in a tougher time for hitters. Yet still:
Rice (1977-1981): .301/.353/.537
Edgar (1995-1999): .333/.450/.571
I think it’s pretty clear that whether you focus on career stats or just their primes, Edgar was a far superior hitter. And as Matthew points out in this post, Rice would have to be stunning in the field to overcome that. That OBP gap is absolutely massive.
I try not to get involved in HOF discussions, and I’m not going to argue whether or not Rice deserves to be in, because I simply don’t know enough to make a case, mostly because I don’t really care. But I’m 100% convinced that Edgar was better than Rice. And if Rice getting in helps Edgar get in, then that is fantastic.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No way. Edgar is really, really borderline to the writers. I think he'll fall off the ballot.
And if you’re looking for peers, JI’s mentioned Fred Lynn as more deserving. We’ve discussed Bobby Grich.
I think you could add Ken Singleton to that mix.
What separates Rice and Singleton is that ineffable measure of fear instilled in opponents. I mean, that’s what Rice is in the hall – it’s not because he was a truly great player, he was, in the minds of writers (and some players, to be sure), scary. Some people love that people like Rice get in for things like that, whereas others want the criteria to be a bit more objective, that’s all.
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Your wish is granted.
Rice: .298/.352/.502 over 9058 PAs
Player X: .272 /.370/.470 over 10569 PAs
Jim Rice was done as a > replacement-level ballplayer by age 34, and he had one really good year after age 30, 1986- the other years where he was hitting OK he was grounding into 35 DPs a year, which just completely DESTROY offensive value, plus he was a statue in LF. Basically, his HOF credentials are based around 3 years of peak performance (, and the halo from batting cleanup on the Red Sox as the heir to guys like WIlliams and Yaz.
Player X, meanwhile, had good offensive value through his year 39 season (when he retired), and played right field because he had a better arm than the guy who played LF on his team, and despite a career that was almost 3 full seasons longer, grounded into 88 less DPs.
Player X, by the way, is Dwight Evans, Rice’s teammate (that close enough to being a peer?) who is NEVER going to be inducted into the HOF, because unlike Jim Rice, he never led a league in HRs or RBIs and thus never significant MVP voting that was based on two stats that are routinely overrated by sportswriters.
I submit that Jim Rice isn’t even the best corner OF on his team, let alone a deserving HOF candidate, because if you take Jim Rice, you basically need to take Evans, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, and a whole HOST of other players (for instance, if Magglio Ordonez can stay in a lineup for about 3000 more plate appearances and not completely tank, he’s getting close). Hell, if Jay Buhner had stayed healthier for a few years during his career, HIS stats (.254/.359..494) are not that far out from where Rice is. The problem is “slugging OF with little defensive value” is a fairly common, and Rice’s perceived value over other guys largely comes from WHERE he played (Boston) and how he was used (cleanup).
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That should read
and
The problem is "slugging OF with little defensive value" is a fairly common skillset
Also, you can make arguments for the following players of the “If Rice went in, why not this guy?”
- Frank Howard (destroys Rice on career OPS+, 142 to 128, but played in the 1960’s AND in Dodger Stadium when the pitcher’s mound was approximately the size of Mt. Everest, so it doesn’t LOOK as impressive on face value)
- Dick Allen (mostly the same story, but not in HOF because he was a huge dick)
- Boog Powell (better OPS, part of some great Orioles teams)
- Ted Simmons (not QUITE as good OPS as Rice, but played CATCHER, so immensely more valuable defensively)
- Jack Clark (some really good numbers, hurt by SF)
- Gary Sheffield (yep, you can argue that Gary Sheffield has had a better career than Jim Rice. Think about that.)
- Ellis Burks (not as long a career, but played CF)
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This all makes me optimistic Edmonds will be in one day.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 10:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I love Jim Edmonds
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is...
HOF voters are like MVP voters: insanely focused on stupid things like HR and RBI totals, forgetting things like CF/2B played well >>> LF/1B played indifferently.
Not surprising in that the voting pool has pretty heavy overlap.
Basically, I see Edmond’s case being pretty close to that of Dale Murphy, if better. Murphy’s gotten completely screwed in the HOF voting, IMO- there’s just NO WAY Rice should go in before him. That would be my concern- that the voters go “oooh, SHINY!” when they see RBI totals and HR totals from guys like Frank Thomas and Jim Thome.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but Edmonds has things on his side
like highlight reel catches, his walkoff homerun in game 6, and being the “clubhouse leader” on a World Champion team, that may push him over the top eventually.
That and you can compare his offensive numbers to Jim Rice’s.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With Better Defense
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Murphy had multiple MVP awards and has led his league in some stats.
Neither is true for Edmonds.
I think there’s a good argument that Murphy > Edmonds. Both played the same position, but Murphy had more years at the top of his league in things like OPS, SLG, OBP. Both were probably a bit overrated defensively, but had great reps.
As such, the HOF voters would be making a mistake taking a lesser player first.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pradoxically, what makes Edmonds' chances better
is that ZOMG STEROIDS will zap a lot of guys in the corner OF/1B/DH bucket like McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Canseco, Giambi. So he has less of a crowd to fight through than Murphy does, even though it’s pretty easy to establish Murphy as the better player.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it’s pretty easy to establish Murphy as the better player.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true at all.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's pretty obvious that Edmonds was a better hitter
Murphy may have been a better defender than Edmonds, who knows. Edmonds played 700 more games in center, Murphy has more plate appearances over the span of his career. When it comes to their peaks they’re more or less equal: Edmonds put up superior numbers but only started 130-140 games a season, Murphy wasn’t quite as good but he played 160 games. My felling as that Edmonds gets the edge because he had more years where he was a star quality player.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This has nothing to do with a non-homosexual mancrush on Jim Edmonds, right?
Edmonds did manage to keep his career going longer as an effective player (Murphy was done at age 32), but Edmonds gets 3 years in top 10 on adjusted OPS+, Murphy gets 6. Murphy just has more years where he is a superior player w/r/t his league, Edmonds has more where he’s just plain good.
This is sort of a poster case for evaluating height/breadth of career as a standard for HOF, BTW.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 13, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but Edmonds' are better regardless so it doesn't matter.
First of all ten is an arbitrary number, and ranking people by top ten is even less of a good idea when, say, Bonds is in another solar system and 2-13 are bunched very close together.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So is being 1/2/2 in league OPS for 3 years of his career arbitrary, too?
Look, the point is I don’t think it’s going to be easy getting Edmonds in, if guys like Murphy are getting smoked by 60 percentage points by guys like Jim Rice. HOF voters are like MVP voters. They like their league leaders, HRs, RBIs, MVP awards, and media crap about “most feared hitter”, even though we know how absolutely garbage in/garbage out there is in all of that. Edmonds has considerably less of that stuff than even guys like Murphy do, and the HOF doesn’t generally buy “intangibles” like defense unless you’re a middle infielder (plus I suspect there will be a sizeable Yankee homer contingent who will think Bernie Williams > Jim Edmonds, given that Williams played in 46536435645 World Series games).
The problem is that bad choices (like Jim Rice) in the HOF mean EVERYONE gets to make an argument now: not just Edmonds or Murphy, but Dewey Evans, Dave Parker, and other people in that list I made up there. Putting bad jokes like Fred Lindstrom in the HOF did not help get Ron Santo in, in the end. I think you’re kind of missing the point- bad decisionmaking leads to MORE bad decisions, not better ones.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 14, 2009 12:01 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes ranking lists from year to year are pretty much irreverent
All first place finishes are created equal, nor or seconds place finishes etc. You wouldn’t tell me that Dale Murphy was as good as hitter from 84 to 85 as Pujols was from 2003-04 because they both finished second in adjusted OPS.
What matters is the final number is Edmonds is posting OPS+ numbers of 160 and 170 and Murphy was posting 140s and 150s you’d be hard pressed to tell me that Murphy was a better hitter regardless of where he was ranked. The numbers are already adjusted.
Base on the evidence at hand, as Edmonds is easily the superior hitter, I don’t see any way in the world you could conclude that Murphy was a better player, or that he had a better peak unless he ran circles around Edmonds defensively.
The whole point isn’t to say Edmonds isn’t a lock get in, or that it will be easy, or that if he’s put in it will be for the right reasons, the point is 7 years from now when some voter compares him to Rice they’re going to see someone with similar career numbers (average and homeruns), who has a trophy case full of gold gloves, who played in the post season nearly every year for a decade, who has a “clutch” playoff record, someone who was “the leader” on a world champion team and they just may say, “Hey this guy has just as good a resume as Rice, I voted for Rice, so I should vote for him.”
by JI on Jan 14, 2009 1:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
*irrelevant
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
by pdb on Jan 14, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Woddy Paige once said Mike Piazza shouldn't be a HOF
because positions don’t matter and he didn’t have the totals of a first basemen
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Woody Paige has the intelligence of a second grader.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet
he gets a vote for the HOF
YES YES YES YES YES
by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 13, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
PaigeBreak
The Hall of Fame isn’t.
No one likes a caveat, except an exceptional one.
The best second baseman in the world will never inspire the real, visceral fear that Rice did. Rice would bowl over opposing pitchers. They chop a bit with offspeed stuff, maybe stick an inside fastball off the plate, but Rice was all over the face, and in their head. If he’d been a shortstop, or a catcher, the point would remain. Rice was so ingrained in their psyche, they forgot what position he played when he was not positioned in front of them. Defense? Ask a pitcher if that’s any defense of Rice’s exclusion.
A one-game slice of Piazza never had the same effect. You can say that he was more valuable, and that maybe the statheads in your school lunchroom would trade that slice of Piazza for that bowl of Rice. But no pitcher would make that trade; they would trade you anything to be in the safety of the stands, where they could sit and watch someone ELSE try to eat up.
(I’ll stop now).
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 4:55 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I didn't even realise it wasn't a quote
by Graham on Jan 13, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I honestly think it's too close
I’m out of practice.
by marc w on Jan 13, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Does B-R have something along the lines of a “career gamelog” feature? If I want to, say, manually select a player’s 10 best years and see those numbers as a whole, is that an option? Subscriber-only?
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 11:46 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think they had something like that in the new beta
But as far as I know you’ll have to plug them into a spreadsheet manually.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. Thanks.
I am a complete idiot when it comes to spreadsheets. But I need a project today, so I’ll play around with this.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you're interested DL this, use "sheet2" (tab at the bottom)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pRFtTdFCfmkfbNle2lWr6aw
All you need to do is make a total column.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sweet.
I created a copy because I don’t trust myself to not ruin it.
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I'd like to know if there's a way to convert wOBA to teams runs scored
as in if team A posts a wOBA of X they should score Y runs.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing at first glance
Looking at wOBA and R/6000 PA for 2006-2008, I’m getting a best-fit equation of:
R/6000 PA = 4257.4 * wOBA – 648.11
It yields an R^2 of 0.83, but it’s off by at least 25 runs for 30 of the 90 teams in the sample.
by Jeff on Jan 13, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a fun tool.
What I’m going to do is normalize both players’ stats on B-R, pick out the players’ five or 10 best seasons, then plug those in and see what I get. But I have to work for now. Weak.
(And as I said, I’ve never in my life done anything on a spreadsheet beyond making picks in an NFL pool, so this is probably all basic stuff to you guys, but I’m learning just by dicking around on Google Docs.)
by Teej on Jan 13, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if you have league averages, you can.
[ (team wOBA – league wOBA) / 1.15 * team PA ] + league average runs scored
by Matthew on Jan 13, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Note that this is also not an exact science
Looking at the same 2006-2008 window, this misses the mark by at least 25 runs for 19 of the 90 teams, which an average error magnitude of 17 runs. It’s good, but treat it kind of like Pythagorean W/L.
by Jeff on Jan 13, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Edgar absolutely deserves to get in the HOF
He has basically become THE measuring stick for any career DH. He had a great career where he was among the 5-10 most productive hitters in the AL for much of his 18 years in MLB, and didn’t see much of a performance dropoff until his final 3 seasons.
by Gomez on Jan 13, 2009 8:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
While I don't disagree that he was a HOF quality hitter
Saying a guy deserves to get in because he was a great DH (or the greatest) is pointless because DH is not a position.
by JI on Jan 13, 2009 9:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Certaibnly not because of that
The man was just a great hitter over a long career, though, and that’s his primary qualifier.
by Gomez on Jan 14, 2009 11:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
