HOF RULES

HOF RULES

Post by Roger Lust » Fri, 22 Jul 1994 02:30:29


Quote:

>Actually, didn't Ted Williams lose a bit of time to the military;)
>He didn't walk all that much either <grin>.

You're right, of course; Greenberg holds the record for losing the
most time in one stretch.  Actually Hammerin' Hank I was discharged
from the Army--on Dec. 6, 1941.

And re-upped two days later, of course.

Roger

 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by Roger Lust » Fri, 22 Jul 1994 04:04:44


Quote:


>>>... kindly name a few players
>>>whose careers started that late (or lost the equivalent number of years
>>>to military service) who put up those kinds of career numbers and aren't
>>>in the HOF.  (And please, don't respond with players who've had
>>>700 walks;  I think you know what I mean.)
>>I don't have the stats in front of me, so this may be a little off base
>>but I think Minnie Minoso would fit this catagory very well.  He got a
>>late start because of the color of his skin, and his career numbers are
>>probably comperable to Rice's when you take era into account.  
>Minoso's a great example.  He had his first full season in the majors
>at age 28 after 3 or 4 years in the Negro Leagues.  I'm not equipped to do
>any adjustments, but Minoso's career numbers are .298/.391/.459, 1963 hits,
>336 2B, 83 3B, 186 HR, 814 W, 6579 AB, 205/335 SB/Attempts.

That works out to 298 Adjusted Batting Runs, or 1204 RC in 4746 outs.

Quote:
>Rice's were .322/.374/.427, 2987 hits, 498 2B, 184 3B, 34 HR, 708 W, 9269 AB,
>351/494 SB/Attempts.

163 ABR (140 unajusted--Griffith!); 1495 RC in 7127+ outs (no CS before 1920).

Quote:
>Again, ignoring adjustments, Minoso was a slightly better offensive player for
>a much shorter period of time.  

*Making* adjustments, there's no contest.  Minoso was a power at the plate
for a decade.  One of the top five hitters in the league four different
times.

When was Rice one of the top five *outfielders*, let alone one of the top
ten hitters in the league?  Answer: never.

Minoso's seventh-best season at the plate was better than Rice's best.

As for "much shorter," Minoso was a regular for eleven years, Rice for 14.
Both had a platoon year at the end; Rice had one at the beginning.

Quote:
>(Roger referred "some" or "a few" doubles
>and triples.  Rice is I think 31st in career doubles, 14th in career
>triples, 20th in hits.  Again, not too shabby for the late start.)

Anyone who plays that long is going to rack up some numbers.  So far,
all you've told us is that he was a line drive hitter who played for
a long time.  His longevity and his mightabeens are all that make
him remarkable.

Quote:
>Minoso was washed after age 38, Rice had several great years from
>that point on.

No.

Rice *never* had a great year.  Ever.  

He had many good years, but no great ones, certainly not the way
we think of great years.

Want to see a great year?  Try Minoso in 51, 52, 54, or 56.  
(Three triples titles!)

For his whole career, Minoso produced offense at about 30% above
the league rate.  Rice was 13% above that rate.  

IN Minoso's league, OBP was around .333.  
In Rice's, it was over .350.  

In Minoso's AL, SLG was around .384.
In Rice's, it was around .398.

(Eyeball averages for 1951-60 and 1921-30.)

Yes, Rice played a long time.
Yes, he racked up impressive totals.
Yes, they're more impressive because of his late start.

But the numbers just don't mean as much.  A run in Minoso's
league was worth more.  

Minoso made far more runs per out, and fora decent period of time,
too.  He was a key to the White Sox being a perennial contender,
and more of one than Fox or anyone else, except maybe Billy
Pierce, and he deserves more recognition, too.

Quote:
>Nonetheless, I wouldn't gnash my teeth too much if Minoso were put in the HOF.

Me either!  He certainly was twice the ballplayer that some other HOFers
were.  He did more to help his team win than many HOFers did.  

Including Sam Rice.

Roger

 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by Roger Lust » Fri, 22 Jul 1994 05:41:00


Quote:


>>>You haven't refuted (1) except to say that Cobb was better before and
>>>after 1920, which is irrelevant.  As for (2), kindly name a few players
>>>whose careers started that late (or lost the equivalent number of years
>>>to military service) who put up those kinds of career numbers and aren't
>>>in the HOF.  (And please, don't respond with players who've had
>>>700 walks;  I think you know what I mean.)
>>That's silly; only one player ever lost that much military time,
>>and that was Hank Greenberg.  (I won't bring up how much *he* walked.)
>Don't be ridiculous.  There have been plenty of players whose careers
>began at age 27 or 28.

*sigh* read what you wrote.  You were looking for players who lost
as much time to the military as Rice lost to personal problems.
There are only two of them, and you don't want to compare them to
Rice.

I'll concede your point that among players who started that late,
and played that long, there are few who performed the way Rice did.  
But is that a worthwhile group to look at?  Just because you can
create a cell in which Rice is the best/only player, does that mean
that he belongs in the HOF?  We can create arbitrarily many cells.

Quote:
>>Yes, Rice had a freak career.  Yes, he was an offensive plus for a
>>long time.  
>>Oh, and what other players ever *did* put up such career numbers?  
>>Vada Pinson comes to mind.  
>Again, ridiculous.  Pinson started at age 22, and had an OBP of .330.

Pinson put up career numbers that were not unlike Rice's.  Pinson
played in an era where OBP varied between .302 and .325.  Rice
played in an era where OBP was in the .350's.  Pinson's overall
batting numbers, adjusted for park and league norms, are very much
like Rice's.

Now, if you want to put Rice in the HOFFGWHLCMAA30 (Hall of Fame
for guys who had long careers mainly after age 30), that's fine.  
But the plain old HOF has many outfielders, almost all of whom
contributed far more than Rice did.

Quote:
>>Well, they involve focusing on what the player *did*, not what
>>he was up against in his life.
>Well, I think you also have a narrow view of what players *do*.  Look,
>I'd agree with you if I thought a player's value was reflected entirely
>by his marginal effect on runs scored  (or prevented, in the case of
>a pitcher or defense).  I do not think this, and any reasonable
>analysis of player value (in the broader economic sense) would blow
>that view out of the water.

How so?  Blow away.  I want to see this.  Specifically, analyze
Rice's and Joe Judge's relative value.

Quote:
>Your method of valuation, for example, would put a much lower
>value on players like Nolan Ryan or Sandy Koufax, than would mine.

Perhaps.  My method rates Ryan pretty high, I might add.  It also
notes that both pitchers *at their best* were stupendous players.

Rice at his best was the seventh-best outfielder in the AL.

Quote:
>(I'm not saying you'd necessary conclude they aren't HOF'ers, just
>that you'd rank them lower than I would.)  I do put value on other
>criteria.  So do most fans, and that's where value is ultimately determined.

Not in the HoF!  What fans would have admitted Chick Hafey or...Sam Rice?

Note that the sportswriters never felt the least urge to induct Rice until
someone started campaigning for him in the late 50's; and that failed too.
Once he'd fizzled from 143 votes to 80, the Veterans Committee took a
shine to him.

As for "where value is ultimately determined," I had no idea that there
*was* one system of valuation.  Seems to me there are many, none of them
ultimate.

Quote:
>(In economic terms, what you're doing is measuring the quantity of
>production;  I'm trying to measure the *value*, in terms of what
>people pay for.  Your way went out with the Soviets, I'm afraid.)

I can see you don't want to discuss this seriously.  Comparing my
analyses to Soviet economics is sleazy, not to mention wrong.

Here in this country we still do measure productivity, I believe.
And we consider it to be significant.  Do you know of places
where the more productive workers aren't rewarded?

Now, tell me: what did people pay for Sam Rice?  Did he boost
attendance?  Was his salary especially high?  

(Incidentally, it's *you* who's approaching a labor theory of
value: he played so much, and worked so hard until so late in
his career, and overcame so many obstacles that he *must* have
had great value, or so your argument has run so far.  If you
wish to argue the Western approach, use *utility*.  What was
Rice's *utility*, and to whom?  His teammates?  Clark Griffith?
The Washington fans?)

I'd like to see you explain your sytem of valuation.  I hope
it involves more than a lot of gee-whiz stats.  

And I *really* hope you cut the ***about Soviet economics.
That's beneath you.  

Roger

PS: for a different sort of comparison of value theories,
check out Adolph Lowe's article on the topic in (I think)
_Social Research_ about 10 years ago.

 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by Charles W Saeg » Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:42:00

Quote:
>Minoso didn't play as long, but he was a better hitter by far.
>Higher OBP in a lower OBP era; above-average power, too.

Minoso has terrific hitting stats when you take into account that he
played his entire career after age 29 (Bill James, in his new book,
compares him to Goslin, Manush, Medwick, and Billy Williams, and Minnie
comes out very favourably).  Also, he might be the best defensive left
fielder ever (remembering that most good outfielders played right or centre).
 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by Charles W Saeg » Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:53:35

Quote:
>That's silly; only one player ever lost that much military time,
>and that was Hank Greenberg.  (I won't bring up how much *he* walked.)

Ted Williams missed 43-44-45 to WWII and 52-53 to Korea.  Greenberg missed
half of 41, 42-43-44, and half of 45.  Williams missed more.
 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by James Ka » Sat, 23 Jul 1994 00:15:56


[much deleted]

Quote:
>When was Rice one of the top five *outfielders*, let alone one of the top
>ten hitters in the league?  Answer: never.
[much deleted]
>Rice *never* had a great year.  Ever.

Again, I think you put too much weight on this type of thing.  Similar
comments could be made about Al Kaline, for example.  I don't think
he ever led even the AL in any statistic you care about, and there were
always many better hitters than he around the majors.  

[Please don't respond with a Kaline-Rice comparison.  I'm making
drawing an analogy, not an explicit comparison.  Of course Kaline was
much better.  But looking at rankings penalizes the year-in-year-out
consistent players like Kaline and Rice.]

--Jim
--


(215) 898-4254               |
                             |

 
 
 

HOF RULES

Post by James Ka » Sat, 23 Jul 1994 00:50:38


Quote:



>>>>You haven't refuted (1) except to say that Cobb was better before and
>>>>after 1920, which is irrelevant.  As for (2), kindly name a few players
>>>>whose careers started that late (or lost the equivalent number of years
                                     ^^
>>>>to military service) who put up those kinds of career numbers and aren't
>>>>in the HOF.  (And please, don't respond with players who've had
>>>>700 walks;  I think you know what I mean.)
>>>That's silly; only one player ever lost that much military time,
>>>and that was Hank Greenberg.  (I won't bring up how much *he* walked.)
>>Don't be ridiculous.  There have been plenty of players whose careers
>>began at age 27 or 28.
>*sigh* read what you wrote.  You were looking for players who lost
>as much time to the military as Rice lost to personal problems.
>There are only two of them, and you don't want to compare them to
>Rice.

*sigh* I think you'd better read what I wrote.  And kindly note in particular
my use of the word "or", which I've emphasized.
[snip]

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>>Well, I think you also have a narrow view of what players *do*.  Look,
>>I'd agree with you if I thought a player's value was reflected entirely
>>by his marginal effect on runs scored  (or prevented, in the case of
>>a pitcher or defense).  I do not think this, and any reasonable
>>analysis of player value (in the broader economic sense) would blow
>>that view out of the water.
>How so?  Blow away.  I want to see this.  Specifically, analyze
>Rice's and Joe Judge's relative value.
>>Your method of valuation, for example, would put a much lower
>>value on players like Nolan Ryan or Sandy Koufax, than would mine.
>Perhaps.  My method rates Ryan pretty high, I might add.  It also
>notes that both pitchers *at their best* were stupendous players.
>Rice at his best was the seventh-best outfielder in the AL.
>>(I'm not saying you'd necessary conclude they aren't HOF'ers, just
>>that you'd rank them lower than I would.)  I do put value on other
>>criteria.  So do most fans, and that's where value is ultimately determined.
[snip]
>As for "where value is ultimately determined," I had no idea that there
>*was* one system of valuation.  Seems to me there are many, none of them
>ultimate.

I'm very glad to hear you say that.  I wasn't getting that impression
from the rest of your writing.

Quote:
>>(In economic terms, what you're doing is measuring the quantity of
>>production;  I'm trying to measure the *value*, in terms of what
>>people pay for.  Your way went out with the Soviets, I'm afraid.)
>I can see you don't want to discuss this seriously.  Comparing my
>analyses to Soviet economics is sleazy, not to mention wrong.

I stand by the analogy, but I hadn't intended it to be insulting,
only illuminating.  Sorry if it offended.

Quote:
>Here in this country we still do measure productivity, I believe.
>And we consider it to be significant.  Do you know of places
>where the more productive workers aren't rewarded?

The way we measure productivity takes account of value, as reflected
in prices, which in turn reflect (surprise!) consumer's willingness
to pay.  In any case, I'm not saying your measures of productivity
are irrelevant, only that there are other factors as well.  

Quote:
>Do you know of places where the more productive workers aren't rewarded?

Certainly, if by productive you mean in the more narrow sense you've
been stressing.  Major League Baseball.  It's clear that salaries
take into account fan appeal not reflected in RC.  Was Nolan
Ryan as "productive" in your sense as his salary indicated in his
last few seasons?  No, but he brought fans into the parks and to their
TVs in part because of his "freak" career and "gee-whiz" statistics.

Quote:
>Now, tell me: what did people pay for Sam Rice?  Did he boost
>attendance?  Was his salary especially high?  

I don't know.  He played in a small market, which I would agree
is one aspect of value that should be ignored.  Evaluating
salaries in the absence of free agency is a dicey matter.

Quote:
>I'd like to see you explain your sytem of valuation.  I hope
>it involves more than a lot of gee-whiz stats.  
>And I *really* hope you cut the ***about Soviet economics.
>That's beneath you.  

I think there's a backhanded compliment in there :), so I appreciate it.
I hope I've made it a little clearer, and again, there was no
intent to insult by conjuring up the Soviets.  

--Jim

--


(215) 898-4254               |
                             |