Another Comparison
Jim Rice, average career wins/season: 3.00 (assuming average defence).
Player X, average career wins/season: 4.55.
Player X is Adrian Beltre.
What the hell why is Rice in the Hall?
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Positional adjustments!
Rice’s defense was probably well below average too, so calling him a 3 win player is generous. You could come up with a list of dozens of minor stars from 1974 – who were better players than Rice.
Whoa.
Beltre’s 2004 was the best (in terms of wins) non-Bonds season in the last 7 years. A-Rod and Pujols’ best seasons in that time-span barely come within a win of it. Wow.
Because Beltre
has yet to go through the decline phase of his career that will dilute his career wins/seasons
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Yes his decline phase will make him 66% as valuable per season as he is now.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
It's part of it
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
"Because Beltre has yet to go through the decline phase of his career that will dilute his career wins/seasons"
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
I'm confused
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
To come down to Rice's level Beltre would have to see his career win value decline by 66%.
That would have to be one hell of a decline phase.
by Aaron Campeau on Jan 15, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
So what would Jim Rice's
average career wins/season through age 29 be?
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Yeah thats about what I was getting too
(you beat me)
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
I think that is a better comparison
I also think that if the Red Sox Nation had never emerged then Rice would not have made the hall. He was pretty stagnant in voting % until after the Red Sox won the World Series
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Are Beltre's numbers assuming average defense as well?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 2:23 PM PST reply actions
No, we actually have his defensive numbers
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
Why are you assuming average defense for Rice?
He played left field and DH, doesn’t that indicate below average at best? Or are you guessing average just to be as fair as possible?
Guessing average for his position in the absense of reliable data pointing either way
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Conservative is always best when arguing a position
Also ‘average defence for left field’ is the assumption
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Why do they matter though?
Defense has never been a qualification for Hall of Fame. If I were deciding between which guy to have on my team, I’d probably go for Beltre, but if I’m deciding who’s going into the Hall its gonna be Rice. Actually, if I’m deciding who’s going in the Hall of Fame it’d probably be someone like RA Dickey because I don’t really give a damn about the hall and it’d probably make him happy or something.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions
Defense has never been a qualification for Hall of Fame.
Wrong.
by JI on Jan 15, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions
really? well, OK
like I said I don’t care much about it, wouldn’t go there if I ever had the misfortune of ending up in Cooperstown and haven’t followed the induction process. Based on what I’d read here and elsewhere I thought it was all about players arbitrary milestones (20 wins, 3000 hits, 100rbi/season x times) with little regard for actual player impact on a team.
So yeah, whatever. If they care about defense bully for them and I stand corrected.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 16, 2009 6:07 AM PST up reply actions
Everytime you have a guy similar Ryne Sandberg or Gary Carter
he’s being elected in large part for his defense, because that player certainly does not have a the offensive resume to gain entry.
this was
mostly a special case no? other wise why isn’t this guy in?

It also occurred to me that
if you give Adrian 4 more seasons (to catch up to Rice’s total of 16) of his career average .270/.330/.460, then he would have very similar numbers offensively; more doubles and stolen bases, fewer homeruns, rbis, and runs. But then I think Adrian will play well beyond his age 33 season. Plus, he’s played most of the last 2 seasons with a bad thumb/shoulder and been unlucky BABIP-wise, so his offensive numbers could still improve over the next couple years. But does anybody think he’ll end up in the hall of fame unless he does something like end up in the top-10 in doubles? (30 per year through his age 39 season would give him 621, 3 behind Hank Aaron at 10th place)
Because he was feared, he was good and the writers thougth he deserved it
The hall is a joke anyway, we all know this.
Graham did you make a math error and then delete your post
Come on, I was about to prove you wrong for once.
Positonal adjustments and replacement level
from year to year and era to era would vary wouldn’t it?
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Well, yes.
Replacement level was worse when Rice played.
Then again, so was ‘average’.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
HOF voters are distracted by shiny objects
such as MVP award trophies and car keys.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 15, 2009 4:43 PM PST reply actions
Also:
Jim Rice going into the HOF is just par for the course, considering:
Fred Lindstrom
George Kelly
Chick Hafey
Jim Bottomley
Frank Chance
Basically, the HOF is kind of like Gold Glove voting- some good choices, and then every now and then they do the “WTF?!?!?” equivalent of giving Raffy Palmeiro a Gold Glove for playing mostly at DH.
by eponymous_coward on Jan 15, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
Morneau reminds me of a sort of modern-day Jim Rice
He’s a good hitter and has almost no defensive skills, but somehow the press has taken a liking to him, he’s gotten some ridiculous MVP voting finishes, and has a reputation that seems to outstrip his actual value. If Morneau manages to improve just a little at the plate, it seems like we could be looking at a similarly erroneous “most feared hitter” argument. Never mind that there are better hitters than Morneau, just chant “most feared, most feared, most feared” and then compare him to Jim Rice, Hall of Fame Inductee.
It's funny you say that
because I have Morneau pegged for a big year next year. Strikeouts were down, walks were up, hit a lot of doubles. I think he is going to hit next year like Teixiera did this year
Don't believe the lies Bill!!!! look at the sparkly ERA!!! Sparkly, Sparkly!!! - McCovey Chronicles
Fear
Number of intentional walks in Rice’s five best years: 29
Adrian Beltre in the last five years: 31
Doesn’t mean much (read: anything), I know, but I thought it was funny.
Which brings me to a question:
Is the intentional walk a bigger part of the game nowadays than it was in the ‘70s and ’80s? I would assume yes, but I’m sure Bonds throws all the numbers out of whack.
1980 vs. 2008
1980, PA per IBB: 112
2008, PA per IBB: 143
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
I must be said though
That Adrian Beltre acquired 10 walks last year while batting ahead of the likes of Brad Wilkerson, Jose Vidro, Jose Lopez, and Jeff Clement
by Malcontent1 on Jan 15, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
Spring Training can't start soon enough.
Formerly dpseadvr.
I'm assuming Graham and Jeff are English and would also spell Theater
Theatre
by Malcontent1 on Jan 15, 2009 11:16 PM PST up reply actions
That's actually the correct spelling no matter what nationality one claims.
by Aaron Campeau on Jan 15, 2009 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
As a common noun, theater is far more common in American English.
But many theaters spell it theatre in their names. So . . . it’s a clusterfuck.
Phonetics are for commoners and mongoloids.
by Aaron Campeau on Jan 15, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
I post homopohbic, sexist, and racist comments on a daily basis
and I’m happy most everyone understands the subtext.
In a proper name, I agree. I like having both spellings.
But I can’t help but laugh when someone (who isn’t from the UK) says that he went to watch “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry” at a “theatre.”



















