Roy White/Jim Rice compared by Bill James

[danfergis]

Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

Here's what Bill James wrote circa 2001:
White never hit .300 but hit .290 four times, never drew 100 walks but
drew 95 and 99, never drove in a hundred runs but drove in 94. He did
everything well. Still, while acknowledging that he was a good player,
I may be the only person who rates Roy White ahead of Jim Rice, George
Foster, Joe Carter, and several Hall of Famers, so I suppose I should
tackle this rating head on. Let's do Jim Rice ... let's compare Roy
White, 1968-1972, to Jim Rice, 1975-1979; those are each player's five
best years.
Over the five seasons, Rice played a few more games than White
(778-753) and had a few more plate appearances (3381-3215). Rice had
far more hits per season (192-153), and had more hits of each type,
more singles (118-107), more doubles (29-26), more triples (10-5), and
more home runs (34-15), more than twice as many taters. Rice scored
more runs per year (102-83), drove in more (114-74), and hit for a
higher average (.311 to .283). Thus, it is easy to see why people would
assume that Rice is more valuable; we are comparing a player whose
typical triple-crown stats are 34, 114, .311 to one whose trio is 15,
74, .283.
However, White is not without his advantages; he drew almost twice as
many walks as Rice (87 per season to 46), struck out less than half as
often (58 to 118), and stole more bases (20 to 8) with a better stolen
base percentage. White grounded into 10 double plays per season; Rice,
into 18. White also had more sacrifice hits and, perhaps surprisingly,
more sacrifice flies. These things narrow the gap, but over the five
seasons Rice created about 577 runs (115 per season), while White
created about 471 (94 per season).
So Rice is well ahead, 106 runs ahead. There are three other offensive
factors which have to be considered, to convert "Run Value" into "Win
Value," which is the bottom line. Those three things are:
1. League context.
2. Park context.
3. Outs used.

From 1968 through 1972 the American League average was 3.80 runs per

team per game. From 1975 through 1979 the average was 4.34.
White played in a park, Yankee Stadium, which reduced runs scored at
that time by about 9%, meaning that there were fewer runs there, which
means that each run was more valuable. Rice played in a park which
increased run scoring by almost twenty percent; the relevant park
adjustments are .96 for White, 1.09 for Rice. Making that adjustment,
White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team
offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24
games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73).
Roy White, in context, was actually a more productive hitter than Jim
Rice. We haven't dealt with outs used. White made 419 outs per season;
Rice made 456. We haven't dealt with defense. Jim Rice wasn't a bad
outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.
Roy White has been a tremendously underrated player, for three reasons:
1. His skills were subtle, and not easily summarized into two or three
statistics.
2. Like Ralph Kiner, he was blamed for the failures of his teams.
3. He was measured, for much of his career, against a standard of
Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio. Bobby Murcer couldn't meet that
standard, Tom Tresh couldn't, Roy White couldn't-and Jim Rice couldn't.
There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream. I agree that Jim
Rice's best season, 1978, is better than White's best season, 1970-but
White's second- and third-best seasons are better than any other Jim
Rice campaign. Rice,
in 1977 and again in 1979, hit 39 home runs: 12 on the road, 27 in
Fenway Park. Roy White: in his best years would hit 10 home runs home,
10 on the road. If Jim Rice had played Yankee Stadium, how many home
runs we he have hit? If Jim Rice had been compared: Mickey Mantle and
asked to drag Ron Woods (WHO?) and Jake Gibbs and Jerry Kinney and
Stick Michael to the pennant, how would he have fared? I think if you
put both players in same park in the same years, a lot of people would
be able to see that White was a better all-around player.

[G***@mindspring.com]

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?
White never hit .300 but hit .290 four times, never drew 100 walks but
drew 95 and 99, never drove in a hundred runs but drove in 94. He did
everything well. Still, while acknowledging that he was a good player,
I may be the only person who rates Roy White ahead of Jim Rice, George
Foster, Joe Carter, and several Hall of Famers, so I suppose I should
tackle this rating head on. Let's do Jim Rice ... let's compare Roy
White, 1968-1972, to Jim Rice, 1975-1979; those are each player's five
best years.
Over the five seasons, Rice played a few more games than White
(778-753) and had a few more plate appearances (3381-3215). Rice had
far more hits per season (192-153), and had more hits of each type,
more singles (118-107), more doubles (29-26), more triples (10-5), and
more home runs (34-15), more than twice as many taters. Rice scored
more runs per year (102-83), drove in more (114-74), and hit for a
higher average (.311 to .283). Thus, it is easy to see why people would
assume that Rice is more valuable; we are comparing a player whose
typical triple-crown stats are 34, 114, .311 to one whose trio is 15,
74, .283.
However, White is not without his advantages; he drew almost twice as
many walks as Rice (87 per season to 46), struck out less than half as
often (58 to 118), and stole more bases (20 to 8) with a better stolen
base percentage. White grounded into 10 double plays per season; Rice,
into 18. White also had more sacrifice hits and, perhaps surprisingly,
more sacrifice flies. These things narrow the gap, but over the five
seasons Rice created about 577 runs (115 per season), while White
created about 471 (94 per season).
So Rice is well ahead, 106 runs ahead. There are three other offensive
factors which have to be considered, to convert "Run Value" into "Win
1. League context.
2. Park context.
3. Outs used.

From 1968 through 1972 the American League average was 3.80 runs per

team per game. From 1975 through 1979 the average was 4.34.
White played in a park, Yankee Stadium, which reduced runs scored at
that time by about 9%, meaning that there were fewer runs there, which
means that each run was more valuable. Rice played in a park which
increased run scoring by almost twenty percent; the relevant park
adjustments are .96 for White, 1.09 for Rice. Making that adjustment,
White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team
offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24
games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73).
Roy White, in context, was actually a more productive hitter than Jim
Rice. We haven't dealt with outs used. White made 419 outs per season;
Rice made 456. We haven't dealt with defense. Jim Rice wasn't a bad
outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.
1. His skills were subtle, and not easily summarized into two or three
statistics.
2. Like Ralph Kiner, he was blamed for the failures of his teams.
3. He was measured, for much of his career, against a standard of
Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio. Bobby Murcer couldn't meet that
standard, Tom Tresh couldn't, Roy White couldn't-and Jim Rice couldn't.
There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream. I agree that Jim
Rice's best season, 1978, is better than White's best season, 1970-but
White's second- and third-best seasons are better than any other Jim
Rice campaign. Rice,
in 1977 and again in 1979, hit 39 home runs: 12 on the road, 27 in
Fenway Park. Roy White: in his best years would hit 10 home runs home,
10 on the road. If Jim Rice had played Yankee Stadium, how many home
runs we he have hit? If Jim Rice had been compared: Mickey Mantle and
asked to drag Ron Woods (WHO?) and Jake Gibbs and Jerry Kinney and
Stick Michael to the pennant, how would he have fared? I think if you
put both players in same park in the same years, a lot of people would
be able to see that White was a better all-around player.

On the small point: I was a big fan of White. I never blamed him for
the Yankees losing. But I only started rooting for the Yanks in 1973.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

Post by danfergis
White never hit .300 but hit .290 four times, never drew 100 walks but
drew 95 and 99, never drove in a hundred runs but drove in 94. He did
everything well. Still, while acknowledging that he was a good player,
I may be the only person who rates Roy White ahead of Jim Rice, George
Foster, Joe Carter, and several Hall of Famers, so I suppose I should
tackle this rating head on. Let's do Jim Rice ... let's compare Roy
White, 1968-1972, to Jim Rice, 1975-1979; those are each player's five
best years.
Over the five seasons, Rice played a few more games than White
(778-753) and had a few more plate appearances (3381-3215). Rice had
far more hits per season (192-153), and had more hits of each type,
more singles (118-107), more doubles (29-26), more triples (10-5), and
more home runs (34-15), more than twice as many taters. Rice scored
more runs per year (102-83), drove in more (114-74), and hit for a
higher average (.311 to .283). Thus, it is easy to see why people would
assume that Rice is more valuable; we are comparing a player whose
typical triple-crown stats are 34, 114, .311 to one whose trio is 15,
74, .283.
However, White is not without his advantages; he drew almost twice as
many walks as Rice (87 per season to 46), struck out less than half as
often (58 to 118), and stole more bases (20 to 8) with a better stolen
base percentage. White grounded into 10 double plays per season; Rice,
into 18. White also had more sacrifice hits and, perhaps surprisingly,
more sacrifice flies. These things narrow the gap, but over the five
seasons Rice created about 577 runs (115 per season), while White
created about 471 (94 per season).
So Rice is well ahead, 106 runs ahead. There are three other offensive
factors which have to be considered, to convert "Run Value" into "Win
1. League context.
2. Park context.
3. Outs used.

From 1968 through 1972 the American League average was 3.80 runs per

team per game. From 1975 through 1979 the average was 4.34.
White played in a park, Yankee Stadium, which reduced runs scored at
that time by about 9%, meaning that there were fewer runs there, which
means that each run was more valuable. Rice played in a park which
increased run scoring by almost twenty percent; the relevant park
adjustments are .96 for White, 1.09 for Rice. Making that adjustment,
White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team
offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24
games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73).
Roy White, in context, was actually a more productive hitter than Jim
Rice. We haven't dealt with outs used. White made 419 outs per season;
Rice made 456. We haven't dealt with defense. Jim Rice wasn't a bad
outfielder, but Roy White obviously was better.
1. His skills were subtle, and not easily summarized into two or three
statistics.
2. Like Ralph Kiner, he was blamed for the failures of his teams.
3. He was measured, for much of his career, against a standard of
Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMaggio. Bobby Murcer couldn't meet that
standard, Tom Tresh couldn't, Roy White couldn't-and Jim Rice couldn't.
There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream. I agree that Jim
Rice's best season, 1978, is better than White's best season, 1970-but
White's second- and third-best seasons are better than any other Jim
Rice campaign. Rice,
in 1977 and again in 1979, hit 39 home runs: 12 on the road, 27 in
Fenway Park. Roy White: in his best years would hit 10 home runs home,
10 on the road. If Jim Rice had played Yankee Stadium, how many home
runs we he have hit? If Jim Rice had been compared: Mickey Mantle and
asked to drag Ron Woods (WHO?) and Jake Gibbs and Jerry Kinney and
Stick Michael to the pennant, how would he have fared? I think if you
put both players in same park in the same years, a lot of people would
be able to see that White was a better all-around player.

Vinnie S.

[wunnuy]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

[wunnuy]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by wunnuy
A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his

scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

Then in the next post you write "Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as
a Yankees fan."
Interesting.

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by wunnuy
A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his

scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

Then in the next post you write "Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as
a Yankees fan."
Interesting.

He did. I'm not suggesting he stunk. Is intellectual honesty really that interesting?
Is that how dumb our society has become over the last couple of presidential terms?

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by wunnuy
A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his

scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading
as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

Then in the next post you write "Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as
a Yankees fan."
Interesting.

He did. I'm not suggesting he stunk. Is intellectual honesty really that interesting?
Is that how dumb our society has become over the last couple of presidential terms?

Why did he miss the 1975 post season?

Vinnie S.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Thermos
He did. I'm not suggesting he stunk. Is intellectual honesty really that interesting?
Is that how dumb our society has become over the last couple of presidential terms?

Why did he miss the 1975 post season?

Never mind:

"Rice missed the entire post-season in 1975 due to broken hand suffered from a
Vern Ruhle fastball"


That might have made a difference in the curse in 1975.

Vinnie S.

[wunnuy]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos
Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading
as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

Then in the next post you write "Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as
a Yankees fan."
Interesting.

He did. I'm not suggesting he stunk. Is intellectual honesty really that interesting?
Is that how dumb our society has become over the last couple of presidential terms?

But how could you come to the conclusion that Rice scared you without
your Bill James book or did you carry it to the ballpark with you?

This is what I'm talking about. There isn't a person in the world
outside of you handful of James worshipers who would think Rice and
White are equals. When someone points it out sans any stupid obscure
statistics, they're wrong and you're right, simply because Bill James
says it's so. I've said it before, I'll say it again, you're the
scientologists of baseball.

What does out society's intelligence have to do with White and Rice and
Bill James worship? It's getting old and I'm tired of reading this.
Everytime someone sees something they don't like or deem below their
intelligence, it's always "these kids today and their rap music..."

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos
Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions,
masquerading
as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

Then in the next post you write "Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as
a Yankees fan."
Interesting.

He did. I'm not suggesting he stunk. Is intellectual honesty really that interesting?
Is that how dumb our society has become over the last couple of presidential terms?

But how could you come to the conclusion that Rice scared you without
your Bill James book or did you carry it to the ballpark with you?

I see. That's supposed to be funny. Yet, it isn't. Maybe if I smash my head with a
hammer, or if my parents were cousins, it would come close to being amusing. Or, maybe
then it would still be just a steaming pile of crap spewed out of some jackasses worthless
brain. I'll opt for the latter.

Post by wunnuy
This is what I'm talking about. There isn't a person in the world
outside of you handful of James worshipers who would think Rice and
White are equals. When someone points it out sans any stupid obscure
statistics, they're wrong and you're right, simply because Bill James
says it's so. I've said it before, I'll say it again, you're the
scientologists of baseball.

Say it as many times as you choose, it still won't be clever.

Post by wunnuy
What does out society's intelligence have to do with White and Rice and
Bill James worship? It's getting old and I'm tired of reading this.
Everytime someone sees something they don't like or deem below their
intelligence, it's always "these kids today and their rap music..."

Is this a complete thought? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're
still working on it. Keep trying. Someday you'll have a complete cogent thought.

[ray o'hara]

Post by Thermos
Is this a complete thought? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're
still working on it. Keep trying. Someday you'll have a complete cogent thought.

face it. wunny tooled you in your mini debate. stop whinning and tske it
like a man.

[wunnuy]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by wunnuy
But how could you come to the conclusion that Rice scared you without

your Bill James book or did you carry it to the ballpark with you?

I see. That's supposed to be funny. Yet, it isn't. Maybe if I smash my head with a
hammer, or if my parents were cousins, it would come close to being amusing. Or, maybe
then it would still be just a steaming pile of crap spewed out of some jackasses worthless
brain. I'll opt for the latter.

Wow. Sure got me there. Good use of the old stock "parents are cousins"
line too.
I guess my point really stung because you seem to be pissed. Guess the
truth hurts, huh?

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy
This is what I'm talking about. There isn't a person in the world
outside of you handful of James worshipers who would think Rice and
White are equals. When someone points it out sans any stupid obscure
statistics, they're wrong and you're right, simply because Bill James
says it's so. I've said it before, I'll say it again, you're the
scientologists of baseball.

Say it as many times as you choose, it still won't be clever.

Clever? I never said anything about it being clever. Simply making a
point that's as true as the sky is blue. Again, it seems to be painful
to you. Sorry about that, didn't mean to make you cry, may I suggest
you actually watch a ballgame without jacking off to Bill James at the
same time? You might actually find a baseball game is entertaining on
its own merits. (yes, yes, we know, "it's still not clever. boo hoo.
It's not funny. I can't take it..." get a new line).

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy
What does out society's intelligence have to do with White and Rice and
Bill James worship? It's getting old and I'm tired of reading this.
Everytime someone sees something they don't like or deem below their
intelligence, it's always "these kids today and their rap music..."

Is this a complete thought? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're
still working on it. Keep trying. Someday you'll have a complete cogent thought.

Wow. Zing! Pow! You sure got me! You came back at me with the vigor and
cleverness of the smartest second grader. No wonder you have to rely on
someone else's ideas of what makes baseball good, since you can't seem
to come up with an intelligent thought on you're own unless "still not
clever" or "keep trying" is considered clever now. Well, by the other
second graders it is. I think we *all* know the big time "clever"
predictable responses you're going to come up with here, maybe you
might want to save yourself the embarrassment.

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by wunnuy
But how could you come to the conclusion that Rice scared you without

your Bill James book or did you carry it to the ballpark with you?

I see. That's supposed to be funny. Yet, it isn't. Maybe if I smash my head with a
hammer, or if my parents were cousins, it would come close to being amusing. Or, maybe
then it would still be just a steaming pile of crap spewed out of some jackasses
worthless
brain. I'll opt for the latter.

Wow. Sure got me there. Good use of the old stock "parents are cousins"
line too.
I guess my point really stung because you seem to be pissed. Guess the
truth hurts, huh?

Your powers of perception are as faulty as your reasoning skills. I'm not even slightly
unnerved by your nonsensical ramblings. The rhetorical rantings of the uninformed don't
sway me or anyone else who is smart enough to think for themselves.

Post by wunnuy

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy
This is what I'm talking about. There isn't a person in the world
outside of you handful of James worshipers who would think Rice and
White are equals. When someone points it out sans any stupid obscure
statistics, they're wrong and you're right, simply because Bill James
says it's so. I've said it before, I'll say it again, you're the
scientologists of baseball.

Say it as many times as you choose, it still won't be clever.

Clever? I never said anything about it being clever. Simply making a
point that's as true as the sky is blue.

Its neither true nor clever.

Post by wunnuy
Again, it seems to be painful
to you.

Swing and a miss.

Post by wunnuy
Sorry about that, didn't mean to make you cry, may I suggest
you actually watch a ballgame without jacking off to Bill James at the
same time?

Hey, there's a suggestion. Do you even know who Bill James is? Start there.

Post by wunnuy
You might actually find a baseball game is entertaining on
its own merits. (yes, yes, we know, "it's still not clever. boo hoo.
It's not funny. I can't take it..." get a new line).

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy
What does out society's intelligence have to do with White and Rice and
Bill James worship? It's getting old and I'm tired of reading this.
Everytime someone sees something they don't like or deem below their
intelligence, it's always "these kids today and their rap music..."

Is this a complete thought? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're
still working on it. Keep trying. Someday you'll have a complete cogent thought.

Wow. Zing! Pow! You sure got me! You came back at me with the vigor and
cleverness of the smartest second grader. No wonder you have to rely on
someone else's ideas of what makes baseball good, since you can't seem
to come up with an intelligent thought on you're own unless "still not
clever" or "keep trying" is considered clever now. Well, by the other
second graders it is. I think we *all* know the big time "clever"
predictable responses you're going to come up with here, maybe you
might want to save yourself the embarrassment.

You don't have the slightest idea about what I think of Bill James. This is the rallying
cry of the dumbest of quasi-sporstfans, that anyone who's not terrified of numbers, or who
might even consider that the conventional wisdom that the average quasi-sportsfan accepts
as dogma might be horseshit must therefore only look at statistics and have no
appreciation for the sport on any other level. Beyond dishonest, its a smarmy pile of
anti-intellectual crap. That's what you've offered us here. Its neither true, nor
original, nor clever.

[wunnuy]

Post by Thermos
Your powers of perception are as faulty as your reasoning skills. I'm not even slightly
unnerved by your nonsensical ramblings. The rhetorical rantings of the uninformed don't
sway me or anyone else who is smart enough to think for themselves.

I get it. You're whining like a baby because you're happy.

Post by Thermos
You don't have the slightest idea about what I think of Bill James. This is the rallying
cry of the dumbest of quasi-sporstfans, that anyone who's not terrified of numbers, or who
might even consider that the conventional wisdom that the average quasi-sportsfan accepts
as dogma might be horseshit must therefore only look at statistics and have no
appreciation for the sport on any other level. Beyond dishonest, its a smarmy pile of
anti-intellectual crap. That's what you've offered us here. Its neither true, nor
original, nor clever.

This is what I mean "dumbest of quasi-sporstfans," a typical comment by
a James worshipper. If someone doesn't follow the teachings of L. Ron
James, they are a "dumbest of quasi-sporstfan."
Interestingly, I know more about baseball than you'll ever know. I've
been to more games than you will been in your whole life (which is zero
for you, you don't go in public) and I don't judge people by their
knowlege of a sport like you do, ya pompous ass. I don't knock James, I
knock the morons who follow him and act like his word is the last word
and those who don't agree are idiots. I'm guessing you're probably a
racist too (yes, yes, we know, strike two, not clever - get a new line,
dumbass)

[Seth Jackson]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy
Wow. Zing! Pow! You sure got me! You came back at me with the vigor and
cleverness of the smartest second grader. No wonder you have to rely on
someone else's ideas of what makes baseball good, since you can't seem
to come up with an intelligent thought on you're own unless "still not
clever" or "keep trying" is considered clever now. Well, by the other
second graders it is. I think we *all* know the big time "clever"
predictable responses you're going to come up with here, maybe you
might want to save yourself the embarrassment.

You don't have the slightest idea about what I think of Bill James. This is the rallying
cry of the dumbest of quasi-sporstfans, that anyone who's not terrified of numbers, or who
might even consider that the conventional wisdom that the average quasi-sportsfan accepts
as dogma might be horseshit must therefore only look at statistics and have no
appreciation for the sport on any other level. Beyond dishonest, its a smarmy pile of
anti-intellectual crap. That's what you've offered us here. Its neither true, nor
original, nor clever.

Hey, Thermos, you stathead - baseball isn't played by computers, you
know!

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by Thermos

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology. Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

Your response is a perfect example of why the sport needs someone like Bill James -
conclusions, devoid of any analysis, based mostly on random impressions, masquerading as
fact. Conventional Wisdom bites big, fat ass.

1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?
2) I hope the CoS sues wunnuy's ass for copyright infringement.

[ray o'hara]

"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" <***@mofo.com> wrote in message
news:C2rlf.3313> >

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

it was an analogy, these bill james worshipers and also the money ball
freaks and the sabermaticians are loons like the scientologists. they invent
oddball statistical cults.

[danfergis]

Post by ray o'hara
news:C2rlf.3313> >

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

it was an analogy, these bill james worshipers and also the money ball
freaks and the sabermaticians are loons like the scientologists. they invent
oddball statistical cults.

God help us! You get plonked also.

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by danfergis

Post by ray o'hara
news:C2rlf.3313> >

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

it was an analogy, these bill james worshipers and also the money ball
freaks and the sabermaticians are loons like the scientologists. they invent
oddball statistical cults.

God help us! You get plonked also.

Translation: people like winnuw and ray are too dim-witted to follow the
discussion, so they just dismiss the arguments out of hand.

[wunnuy]

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Translation: people like winnuw and ray are too dim-witted to follow the
discussion, so they just dismiss the arguments out of hand.

No, apparently you're a little dimwitted since you can't follow the
argument.

My point is the fucking egghead James followers act like someone who
doesn't follow his bullshit is a complete idiot. Now I say because
someone doesn't care about obscure stats, doesn't make them any less of
a baseball fan or an idiot in any manner (especially since 99% of
baseball fans in America hve never heard of him). It's the assholes who
follow him that consider themselves superior who are the dimwits. Maybe
the stats are the greatest thing in the world to you. Because someone
else doesn't follow them doesn't make them bad. That is the point. Now
I know the stock response that will follow, please, save it, okay. Just
read this paragraph a couple times so it'll sink into your dimwitted
brain. We don't need to push this topic into the ground. You're not
going to convince me to follow him and your third grade putdowns will
have no effect other than to make you look more stupid than you are.
Thanks!

[Seth Jackson]

Post by wunnuy
doesn't follow his bullshit is a complete idiot. Now I say because
someone doesn't care about obscure stats,

OPS+ is an obscure stat?

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
Translation: people like winnuw and ray are too dim-witted to follow the
discussion, so they just dismiss the arguments out of hand.

No, apparently you're a little dimwitted since you can't follow the
argument.
My point is the fucking egghead James followers act like someone who
doesn't follow his bullshit is a complete idiot.

Don't lump yourself in with anyone else. Maybe we just think you're a complete idiot, not
anyone else.

[ray o'hara]

Post by ray o'hara

Post by danfergis

Post by ray o'hara
news:C2rlf.3313> >

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

it was an analogy, these bill james worshipers and also the money ball
freaks and the sabermaticians are loons like the scientologists. they

invent

Post by danfergis

Post by ray o'hara
oddball statistical cults.

God help us! You get plonked also.

Translation: people like winnuw and ray are too dim-witted to follow the
discussion, so they just dismiss the arguments out of hand.

how many championships has billy beane won? all they do is compete in the
regular season and then its foldo time when it counts.
we get the same from the bruins, fortunately i'mold enough to remember the
bobby orr days, since then its just good enough to be competitive and ever
year gone in the first round while the owners count the profits, thats all
moneyball gets you.

[Keith Willoughby]

Post by ray o'hara
how many championships has billy beane won? all they do is compete in the
regular season and then its foldo time when it counts.

That's a *huge* achievement on his budget.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by ray o'hara
how many championships has billy beane won? all they do is compete in the
regular season and then its foldo time when it counts.

Is that all? With the payroll he's working with? The horror!

Post by ray o'hara
we get the same from the bruins, fortunately i'mold enough to remember the
bobby orr days, since then its just good enough to be competitive and ever
year gone in the first round while the owners count the profits, thats all
moneyball gets you.

How many other GMs you think would do as well with the resources he
has to work with?

[ray o'hara]

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
how many championships has billy beane won? all they do is compete in the
regular season and then its foldo time when it counts.

Is that all? With the payroll he's working with? The horror!

Post by ray o'hara
we get the same from the bruins, fortunately i'mold enough to remember the
bobby orr days, since then its just good enough to be competitive and ever
year gone in the first round while the owners count the profits, thats all
moneyball gets you.

How many other GMs you think would do as well with the resources he
has to work with?

thats the point, cut the budget, try to be cosmeticly competitive and rake
in the profits, the sox and yanks make big bucks but they spend too. these
teams with small budgets are just keeping every dime they can squeeze out of
them. the boss is right when he bitches that the lux tax he pays goes into
owner pockets and not into the team.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by ray o'hara

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
how many championships has billy beane won? all they do is compete in

the

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
regular season and then its foldo time when it counts.

Is that all? With the payroll he's working with? The horror!

Post by ray o'hara
we get the same from the bruins, fortunately i'mold enough to remember

the

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
bobby orr days, since then its just good enough to be competitive and

ever

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
year gone in the first round while the owners count the profits, thats

all

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
moneyball gets you.

How many other GMs you think would do as well with the resources he
has to work with?

thats the point, cut the budget, try to be cosmeticly competitive and rake
in the profits, the sox and yanks make big bucks but they spend too. these
teams with small budgets are just keeping every dime they can squeeze out of
them. the boss is right when he bitches that the lux tax he pays goes into
owner pockets and not into the team.

And you think Beane is the one who decides on the budget?

[wunnuy]

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

2) I hope the CoS sues wunnuy's ass for copyright infringement.

The majority of the Bill James followers are exactly like
scientologists. They cannot follow a game just for the sake of the
game, they must believe in all these extra statistics that distort it
and then those who do not buy into those same stats are condemned and
insulted because they will not worship James. You are the
scientologists of baseball pure and simple.

Who's CoS?

[honder]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

2) I hope the CoS sues wunnuy's ass for copyright infringement.

The majority of the Bill James followers are exactly like
scientologists. They cannot follow a game just for the sake of the
game, they must believe in all these extra statistics that distort it
and then those who do not buy into those same stats are condemned and
insulted because they will not worship James. You are the
scientologists of baseball pure and simple.

Thanks for straightening me out about what scientologists do. Now let
me get this right, they don't follow a game for the sake of the game?
Do they allow bigamy like some whacko mormons, too?

Post by wunnuy
Who's CoS?

I believe it's a new statistic that measures how insulted non-Jamsian
worshipers get.

Or not. Maybe Bill Cosby?

honder

[wunnuy]

Post by honder

Post by honder
Thanks for straightening me out about what scientologists do. Now let

me get this right, they don't follow a game for the sake of the game?
Do they allow bigamy like some whacko mormons, too?

I don't know exactly what scientologists do, but they're judgemental of
people who don't follow their believes, you know, like how you're doing
with your bullshit James crap.

Post by honder

Post by honder
Who's CoS?

I believe it's a new statistic that measures how insulted non-Jamsian
worshipers get.

Really? I think your FL4 and TxN+ ratings may have went up.

Post by honder
Or not. Maybe Bill Cosby?

Oh, and James followers are also staters of the most obvious gag too, I
see. Thanks!

Post by honder
honder

[Thermos]

Post by honder

Post by wunnuy

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

2) I hope the CoS sues wunnuy's ass for copyright infringement.

The majority of the Bill James followers are exactly like
scientologists. They cannot follow a game just for the sake of the
game, they must believe in all these extra statistics that distort it
and then those who do not buy into those same stats are condemned and
insulted because they will not worship James. You are the
scientologists of baseball pure and simple.

Thanks for straightening me out about what scientologists do. Now let
me get this right, they don't follow a game for the sake of the game?

Bastards. I knew I didn't like Tom Cruise for a reason.

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
1) What the fuck does Bill James have to do with Scientology?

2) I hope the CoS sues wunnuy's ass for copyright infringement.

The majority of the Bill James followers are exactly like
scientologists. They cannot follow a game just for the sake of the
game, they must believe in all these extra statistics that distort it
and then those who do not buy into those same stats are condemned and
insulted because they will not worship James. You are the
scientologists of baseball pure and simple.
Who's CoS?

Well done. If you're going to make up a lie, stick with it. If anyone here resembles a
cult, its you.

[wunnuy]

Post by Thermos

Post by Thermos
Well done. If you're going to make up a lie, stick with it. If anyone here resembles a

cult, its you.

For someone who considers himself my and everyone else's superior, you
sure do come up with a lot of third grade-esque comebacks. This "You're
are but what am I?" response may be one of your best. I'm sure the
other third graders worship you. ("you and what army" is next I assume)

[Seth Jackson]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology.

Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology.

Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Vinnie S.

[Thermos]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology.

Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Would he have been done at an early age if he took more walks?

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Thermos

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Would he have been done at an early age if he took more walks?

Don't know.


Vinnie S.

[danfergis]

Thermos wrote:

Would he have been done at an early age if he took more walks?

Now you've done it!

[ray o'hara]

"Thermos" > > I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest.
Rice wins hands

Post by Thermos

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Would he have been done at an early age if he took more walks?

his eyes went on him and he was unable to adjust to wearing glasses.
rice was considered one of the best hitters of his day, top 3, if sandy
koufax can get in on five good years then saying anybody else has to do it
foe over ten is cheap.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by ray o'hara
his eyes went on him and he was unable to adjust to wearing glasses.
rice was considered one of the best hitters of his day, top 3, if sandy
koufax can get in on five good years then saying anybody else has to do it
foe over ten is cheap.

Koufax didn't get in on five good years. He got in on five incredible
years. Rice's 5 best years were not in the same universe.

[ray o'hara]

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
his eyes went on him and he was unable to adjust to wearing glasses.
rice was considered one of the best hitters of his day, top 3, if sandy
koufax can get in on five good years then saying anybody else has to do it
foe over ten is cheap.

Koufax didn't get in on five good years. He got in on five incredible
years. Rice's 5 best years were not in the same universe

and he had 5 mediocr /average years.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by ray o'hara

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
his eyes went on him and he was unable to adjust to wearing glasses.
rice was considered one of the best hitters of his day, top 3, if sandy
koufax can get in on five good years then saying anybody else has to do

it

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by ray o'hara
foe over ten is cheap.

Koufax didn't get in on five good years. He got in on five incredible
years. Rice's 5 best years were not in the same universe

and he had 5 mediocr /average years.

Yes, but that's not the point. His 5 peak years were among the
all-time greatest. You can't compare him to a guy like Rice.

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by wunnuy

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

A perfect example of why Bill James is so overrated with his
scientology.

Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

[Vinnie S.]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.

Vinnie S.

[Thermos]

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.

Me, too. The point is that the idea that its beyond thought is...well....thoughtless.

[GaryFL]

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

I like my stats as much as anyone. This is a no brainer.

Vinnie S.

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

I like my stats as much as anyone. This is a no brainer.
Vinnie S.

I'm not saying Rice wasn't necessarily a better player, but that the
difference isn't as big as it appears. Rice had a great amount of help from
his park, grounded into a lot of double plays, didn't walk a lot, and hit in
a better hitter's era than did White. Why doesn't any of that matter?

I also don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[ray o'hara]

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and,

hence,

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
made

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better

defense,

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

I like my stats as much as anyone. This is a no brainer.
Vinnie S.

I'm not saying Rice wasn't necessarily a better player, but that the
difference isn't as big as it appears. Rice had a great amount of help from
his park, grounded into a lot of double plays, didn't walk a lot, and hit in
a better hitter's era than did White. Why doesn't any of that matter?
I also don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

he hit into a lot of DPs because he hit the ball hard and the runners ahead
of him were slow, when they had tony perez he he lead the league in DPs.

[Vinnie S.]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:24:18 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL
If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

I like my stats as much as anyone. This is a no brainer.
Vinnie S.

I'm not saying Rice wasn't necessarily a better player, but that the
difference isn't as big as it appears. Rice had a great amount of help from
his park, grounded into a lot of double plays, didn't walk a lot, and hit in
a better hitter's era than did White. Why doesn't any of that matter?

Because he was not a feared hitter. He had a career SLG 100 lower than Rice.

If the players reversed eras, teams, parks, I highly doubt that White would put
up Rice's numbers. I find it more realistic that Rice would put up comparable
numbers to his own.

This is one of those situations that James is relying more on his reputation to
sell this as reality. I am not biting. There is no way in hell I would take
White over Rice. I don't give any shits about the numbers.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
I also don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Vinnie S.

[GaryFL]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

I like my stats as much as anyone. This is a no brainer.
Vinnie S.

I agree 100%.

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further.

Yeah, there are a lot of stupid people in the world.

[danfergis]

Erasmus The Mannequin Brown wrote:

Yeah, there are a lot of stupid people in the world.

Quite a few of them gathered together here this evening it seems. :)

[Thermos]

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

He was, for a couple of years. Then he wasn't.

[GaryFL]

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

He was, for a couple of years. Then he wasn't.

If he was for an hour it was an hour more then Roy White ever was.
This is nonsense.

[Thermos]

Post by GaryFL

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

He was, for a couple of years. Then he wasn't.

If he was for an hour it was an hour more then Roy White ever was.
This is nonsense.

I'm not making the argument, Gary. I agree that Rice was the better player. Over their
whole careers, he just wasn't as much better than White as most think, though, and that's
mostly because Rice was so much better at his peak. Its not unlike the Randolph
discussion we had here a couple of years ago. Willie is no hall of famer, but most don't
realize how good he was as compared to some hall of famers or - like Rice - "near hall of
famers". It makes for an interesting discussion, that's all.

[GaryFL]

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL

Post by Vinnie S.
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:43:07 -0500, "Erasmus \"The Mannequin\" Brown"

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
Bill James is a Scientologist? This is news!

Post by wunnuy
Rice and White aren't even in the same league. Rice is a
boarderline HOFer while White wouldn't even make the Hall of Good (Hall
of Average at best - he did make the AS game twice, so he's got that
going for him).

In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying

that, he

Post by Vinnie S.
didn't score many runs. If both were in their primes, I would take Rice

hands

Post by Vinnie S.
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.
Vinnie S.

But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

Don't care. I'll take Rice.
Vinnie S.

If anyone was ever looking for an example of why so many people think
that sabermetrics is a bunch of crap look no further. Anyone who ever
saw the two of play is laughing his ass off. Roy White was an above
average player. Nothing more. Jim Rice was one of the very top players
of his era.

He was, for a couple of years. Then he wasn't.

If he was for an hour it was an hour more then Roy White ever was.
This is nonsense.

I'm not making the argument, Gary. I agree that Rice was the better player. Over their
whole careers, he just wasn't as much better than White as most think, though, and that's
mostly because Rice was so much better at his peak. Its not unlike the Randolph
discussion we had here a couple of years ago. Willie is no hall of famer, but most don't
realize how good he was as compared to some hall of famers or - like Rice - "near hall of
famers". It makes for an interesting discussion, that's all.

Rice is the Red Sox Mattingly. I'm sure James could find some above
average 1st basemen from the 80's and make the same case vs.
Mattingly. But anyone who saw them play would know that Mattingly was
a hall of fame player that had his career shortened. Rice was the same
thing.

[Thermos]

Post by GaryFL
Rice is the Red Sox Mattingly. I'm sure James could find some above
average 1st basemen from the 80's and make the same case vs.
Mattingly. But anyone who saw them play would know that Mattingly was
a hall of fame player that had his career shortened. Rice was the same
thing.

Not a bad analogy. I agree that despite how I and many other Yankees fans feel about
Donnie, there probably are many 1st basemen who we don't think of nearly as highly who
were almost or just as good. I've read discussions along those lines before, and as much
as I'd like not to believe it, I am usually convinced.

[Stefan Backstrom]

Post by GaryFL
Rice is the Red Sox Mattingly. I'm sure James could find some above
average 1st basemen from the 80's and make the same case vs.
Mattingly. But anyone who saw them play would know that Mattingly was
a hall of fame player that had his career shortened. Rice was the same
thing.

I think that's probably a fair assessment. But Mattingly is not in
the HoF, and nor is Rice. I do think Jim Rice is comparable to Roy
White, in the sense that both of them fail certain minimum standards
with regards the HoF. Both players also, IMO, fail to meet the
standards by such a margin that it isn't ludicrous to compare them as
players, if only to temper the Rice advocates. I do think Rice has an
edge over White, but it isn't huge, and it isn't enough of an edge to
put him in the Hall.

Also, some people have argued that even though Rice's career wasn't
very long, neither was Sandy Koufax's, so since Rice was very good at
his peak, his off-peak years shouldn't count against him. Well, peak
schmeak. Take a look at King Kong Keller's career, and see who would
be more deserving if you follow the peak-over-career argument.

-- Stefan.

[wunnuy]

Post by Stefan Backstrom
I think that's probably a fair assessment. But Mattingly is not in
the HoF, and nor is Rice. I do think Jim Rice is comparable to Roy
White, in the sense that both of them fail certain minimum standards
with regards the HoF. Both players also, IMO, fail to meet the
standards by such a margin that it isn't ludicrous to compare them as
players, if only to temper the Rice advocates. I do think Rice has an
edge over White, but it isn't huge, and it isn't enough of an edge to
put him in the Hall.

Thank God the voters don't read Bill James stuff. Let's look at the
very basic stats that the voters look at:

name. Hr RBI Ave AS games MVP
Rice 382 1451 .298 8 1
White 160 758 .271 2 0

Besides being one of the most feared hitters of his day, Rice is better
than White in every catagory. White's not even in the same league as
Rice, as evident by White's longetivity on the HOF ballot (which was
what? one year?) Now quote all the Bill James stats you like. Not one
player was ever elected to the Hall based on a James stat. And there
isn't a player today who's worried about his Win shares unless it's
World Series win shares.

[Stefan Backstrom]

Post by wunnuy
Thank God the voters don't read Bill James stuff. Let's look at the
name. Hr RBI Ave AS games MVP
Rice 382 1451 .298 8 1
White 160 758 .271 2 0
Besides being one of the most feared hitters of his day, Rice is better
than White in every catagory. White's not even in the same league as
Rice, as evident by White's longetivity on the HOF ballot (which was
what? one year?) Now quote all the Bill James stats you like. Not one
player was ever elected to the Hall based on a James stat. And there
isn't a player today who's worried about his Win shares unless it's
World Series win shares.

Well, the point of the whole discussion is the notion that Rice is
overrated and White is underrated. In other words, using the argument
that Rice was rated more highly than White by MVP voters, while
certainly true, is not really relevant IMO. It's like:

Bill James: "Mel Ott wouldn't have hit that many homers if he hadn't
played in the Polo Grounds."

You: "Yes he would. Just look at how many homers he hit in the Polo
Grounds."

-- Stefan.

[Thermos]

Post by Stefan Backstrom

Post by wunnuy
Thank God the voters don't read Bill James stuff. Let's look at the
name. Hr RBI Ave AS games MVP
Rice 382 1451 .298 8 1
White 160 758 .271 2 0
Besides being one of the most feared hitters of his day, Rice is better
than White in every catagory. White's not even in the same league as
Rice, as evident by White's longetivity on the HOF ballot (which was
what? one year?) Now quote all the Bill James stats you like. Not one
player was ever elected to the Hall based on a James stat. And there
isn't a player today who's worried about his Win shares unless it's
World Series win shares.

Well, the point of the whole discussion is the notion that Rice is
overrated and White is underrated. In other words, using the argument
that Rice was rated more highly than White by MVP voters, while
Bill James: "Mel Ott wouldn't have hit that many homers if he hadn't
played in the Polo Grounds."
You: "Yes he would. Just look at how many homers he hit in the Polo
Grounds."

You've forgotten that Roy White was not "feared". Surely that absence of fear cost his
teams wins.

[wunnuy]

Post by Stefan Backstrom

Post by Stefan Backstrom
Well, the point of the whole discussion is the notion that Rice is

overrated and White is underrated. In other words, using the argument
that Rice was rated more highly than White by MVP voters, while
Bill James: "Mel Ott wouldn't have hit that many homers if he hadn't
played in the Polo Grounds."
You: "Yes he would. Just look at how many homers he hit in the Polo
Grounds."

But where is the proof that Rice is overrated (outside the James
stats)?

One of my pet peeves is the whole "so and so's stats are inflated
becuase he played in a stadium where he hit more home runs thatn he
could have in another ballpark." If that's the case then don't call it
a Major League stadium. If Rice (or Otts) totals are considered
"inflated" because they didn't play in a park where home runs don't go
out as frequently, then requalify what is considered Major leagues and
what isn't. Penalizing a player because he played in a hitters park is
stupid IMO.

[Stefan Backstrom]

Post by wunnuy
But where is the proof that Rice is overrated (outside the James
stats)?

Well, I can't really prove that Rice was overrated by conventional
stats if I'm only allowed to use conventional stats to prove my point,
no more than I can paint a house red with a bucket full of blue paint.

Post by wunnuy
One of my pet peeves is the whole "so and so's stats are inflated
becuase he played in a stadium where he hit more home runs thatn he
could have in another ballpark." If that's the case then don't call it
a Major League stadium. If Rice (or Otts) totals are considered
"inflated" because they didn't play in a park where home runs don't go
out as frequently, then requalify what is considered Major leagues and
what isn't. Penalizing a player because he played in a hitters park is
stupid IMO.

Then our opinions differ. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how you can
say that someone who hits .300 in Coors Stadium is as good as someone
who hits .300 in Chavez Ravine, all else equal. Sometimes the
penalization goes a bit too far -- you can't simply discount
everything they do in their home parks by only looking at away stats
-- but if you don't look at park effects, you might as well say that
Bill Mazeroski was a better power hitter than Ty Cobb. I mean, just
look at their home run totals.

-- Stefan.

[wunnuy]

Post by Stefan Backstrom

Post by wunnuy
But where is the proof that Rice is overrated (outside the James
stats)?

Well, I can't really prove that Rice was overrated by conventional
stats if I'm only allowed to use conventional stats to prove my point,
no more than I can paint a house red with a bucket full of blue paint.

This is what I mean. Those same set of stats you want to use have Jim
Wynn in the HOF and there's not a single writer in the world that would
vote for Wynn in the hall.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by wunnuy

Post by Stefan Backstrom
Bill James: "Mel Ott wouldn't have hit that many homers if he hadn't
played in the Polo Grounds."
You: "Yes he would. Just look at how many homers he hit in the Polo
Grounds."

But where is the proof that Rice is overrated (outside the James
stats)?

Translation: But where is the proof (outside of the proof)?

Post by wunnuy
One of my pet peeves is the whole "so and so's stats are inflated
becuase he played in a stadium where he hit more home runs thatn he
could have in another ballpark." If that's the case then don't call it
a Major League stadium. If Rice (or Otts) totals are considered
"inflated" because they didn't play in a park where home runs don't go
out as frequently, then requalify what is considered Major leagues and
what isn't. Penalizing a player because he played in a hitters park is
stupid IMO.

When you're comparing two players, you need to compare them on a level
playing field, so to speak.

[danfergis]

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

[Vinnie S.]

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

James has his flaws. He wasn't big on the closer being used in the 9th. That
changed fast.

Vinnie S.

[Kenny1111]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

James has his flaws. He wasn't big on the closer being used in the 9th. That
changed fast.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

James has his flaws. He wasn't big on the closer being used in the 9th. That
changed fast.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

Well, if he didn't understand it, why did they get Foulke, and make a play at
Wagner? After he was gone.


Vinnie S.

[Kenny1111]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

James has his flaws. He wasn't big on the closer being used in the 9th. That
changed fast.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

Well, if he didn't understand it, why did they get Foulke, and make a play at
Wagner? After he was gone.
Vinnie S.

Getting Foulke (or Wagner) can work perfectly well within the philosophy
of using your best pitcher at the most important time. Foulke is your
"relief ace," not your closer, and he comes in when it matters, not in
save situations at the beginning of the 9th inning.

There are a few different philosophies here that have to be separated:
(1) You should use your best relievers at the most important times; (2)
There is nothing special (i.e., mentally) about pitching the 9th inning;
and (3) You can build a bullpen cheaply / top relievers aren't worth
what they are getting. Implementing (1) often will require you to
believe in (2). The reverse is not true, since you can decide to use a
closer in the traditional (i.e., post-Eckersley) sense and still believe
in (2) - i.e., any good reliever can close. (3) is a whole different
issue from the first two. It seemed the Red Sox attempted to implement
(3) at the same time as (1) (and (2)), and it there that they
failed--not that they really even gave it enough time. Other teams have
been more successful doing this (Angels, A's). But even if we are to
conclude that the Red Sox failed at (3), it does nothing to discount (1)
or (2).

And who are you referring to when you said "After he was gone"? Isn't
James still with the team? Or do you mean Little? If so, Little never
bought into the bullpen concept in the first place, from what I
understand, so him leaving doesn't mean anything.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

Well, if he didn't understand it, why did they get Foulke, and make a play at
Wagner? After he was gone.
Vinnie S.

Getting Foulke (or Wagner) can work perfectly well within the philosophy
of using your best pitcher at the most important time. Foulke is your
"relief ace," not your closer, and he comes in when it matters, not in
save situations at the beginning of the 9th inning.

I don't buy this one bit. If you bring him hin with 2 outs in the eighth, it's
not his phylosophy. Every manager does that. His theory was that if you need an
important out in the 7th, use you best reliever. I don't recall once when this
phylosophy was used with Foulke. Hell, in many cases, the Sox never used their
best reliever if they needed to get an out in the 7th. In many cases, they just
matched up. So I am not buying this. The theory blew up in his face in 2003, and
they went to the normal closer and 2004. As many times as I saw Foulke against
the Yankees, he always closed. He never came in the 7th inning to get a big out,
and had someone else close. I can only imagine if we used Rivera in this fashion
in 2005, and had someone else close out the 9th. It would be a disaster.

Sometimes, James just tried to be different, for the sake that someone notices
it.

Post by Kenny1111
(1) You should use your best relievers at the most important times;

This is plain stupid, as I stated above. If you have a 1 run game, at anytime
you have a runner in scoring position last, like the 6-9th innings, is an
important time. No one is bring in the closer in the 7th, and have someone else
close the game. In fact, I don't recall any team do this. This theory is simply
non-existent in baseball today.

Post by Kenny1111
(2)
There is nothing special (i.e., mentally) about pitching the 9th inning;
and

In the last 2 post seasons, I saw Rivera blow game 4 of the ALCS, and Lidge blow
2 games in the 9th.

Post by Kenny1111
(3) You can build a bullpen cheaply / top relievers aren't worth
what they are getting.

That is why his team spent big money on relievers.

Post by Kenny1111
Implementing (1) often will require you to
believe in (2). The reverse is not true, since you can decide to use a
closer in the traditional (i.e., post-Eckersley) sense and still believe
in (2) - i.e., any good reliever can close. (3) is a whole different
issue from the first two. It seemed the Red Sox attempted to implement
(3) at the same time as (1) (and (2)), and it there that they
failed--not that they really even gave it enough time.

They also had the greatest pitcher since Koufax on the mound with 5 outs to go.

Post by Kenny1111
Other teams have
been more successful doing this (Angels, A's).

The Angels have used a traditional close since Percival. The A's have also gone
that route.

Post by Kenny1111
But even if we are to
conclude that the Red Sox failed at (3), it does nothing to discount (1)
or (2).

Absolutely is does. James theory effectively discounts matching up. It says to
use your best reliever, regardless of L-R situations. The Sox match up like
crazy. The Sox I have not seen in 2004 and 2005, do anything but the James
theory.

Post by Kenny1111
And who are you referring to when you said "After he was gone"? Isn't
James still with the team? Or do you mean Little? If so, Little never
bought into the bullpen concept in the first place, from what I
understand, so him leaving doesn't mean anything.

I have always been with Little. When the best pitcher on your team, who is the
best pitcher since Koufax, is 5 outs away and dominating, I stay with him. He
was by far, the best pitcher of the ones that followed him. If he pulled Pedro
and the Pen blew up, he would have been vilified for "pulling the best pitcher
since Koufax".


Vinnie S.

[GaryFL]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

Well, if he didn't understand it, why did they get Foulke, and make a play at
Wagner? After he was gone.
Vinnie S.

Getting Foulke (or Wagner) can work perfectly well within the philosophy
of using your best pitcher at the most important time. Foulke is your
"relief ace," not your closer, and he comes in when it matters, not in
save situations at the beginning of the 9th inning.

I don't buy this one bit. If you bring him hin with 2 outs in the eighth, it's
not his phylosophy. Every manager does that. His theory was that if you need an
important out in the 7th, use you best reliever. I don't recall once when this
phylosophy was used with Foulke. Hell, in many cases, the Sox never used their
best reliever if they needed to get an out in the 7th. In many cases, they just
matched up. So I am not buying this. The theory blew up in his face in 2003, and
they went to the normal closer and 2004. As many times as I saw Foulke against
the Yankees, he always closed. He never came in the 7th inning to get a big out,
and had someone else close. I can only imagine if we used Rivera in this fashion
in 2005, and had someone else close out the 9th. It would be a disaster.
Sometimes, James just tried to be different, for the sake that someone notices
it.

Post by Kenny1111
(1) You should use your best relievers at the most important times;

This is plain stupid, as I stated above. If you have a 1 run game, at anytime
you have a runner in scoring position last, like the 6-9th innings, is an
important time. No one is bring in the closer in the 7th, and have someone else
close the game. In fact, I don't recall any team do this. This theory is simply
non-existent in baseball today.

Post by Kenny1111
(2)
There is nothing special (i.e., mentally) about pitching the 9th inning;
and

In the last 2 post seasons, I saw Rivera blow game 4 of the ALCS, and Lidge blow
2 games in the 9th.

Post by Kenny1111
(3) You can build a bullpen cheaply / top relievers aren't worth
what they are getting.

That is why his team spent big money on relievers.

Post by Kenny1111
Implementing (1) often will require you to
believe in (2). The reverse is not true, since you can decide to use a
closer in the traditional (i.e., post-Eckersley) sense and still believe
in (2) - i.e., any good reliever can close. (3) is a whole different
issue from the first two. It seemed the Red Sox attempted to implement
(3) at the same time as (1) (and (2)), and it there that they
failed--not that they really even gave it enough time.

They also had the greatest pitcher since Koufax on the mound with 5 outs to go.

Post by Kenny1111
Other teams have
been more successful doing this (Angels, A's).

The Angels have used a traditional close since Percival. The A's have also gone
that route.

Post by Kenny1111
But even if we are to
conclude that the Red Sox failed at (3), it does nothing to discount (1)
or (2).

Absolutely is does. James theory effectively discounts matching up. It says to
use your best reliever, regardless of L-R situations. The Sox match up like
crazy. The Sox I have not seen in 2004 and 2005, do anything but the James
theory.

Post by Kenny1111
And who are you referring to when you said "After he was gone"? Isn't
James still with the team? Or do you mean Little? If so, Little never
bought into the bullpen concept in the first place, from what I
understand, so him leaving doesn't mean anything.

I have always been with Little. When the best pitcher on your team, who is the
best pitcher since Koufax, is 5 outs away and dominating, I stay with him. He
was by far, the best pitcher of the ones that followed him. If he pulled Pedro
and the Pen blew up, he would have been vilified for "pulling the best pitcher
since Koufax".
Vinnie S.

There's even more to it then that. Matsui hit a rope but Posada who
has horrid numbers against Pedro blooped a single into short center.
The ball went about 150 feet. There's some luck involved in baseball.
See Gonzalez and Mariano game 7 2001.

[Thermos]

Post by GaryFL
There's even more to it then that. Matsui hit a rope but Posada who
has horrid numbers against Pedro blooped a single into short center.
The ball went about 150 feet.

Those were good times.

[GaryFL]

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL
There's even more to it then that. Matsui hit a rope but Posada who
has horrid numbers against Pedro blooped a single into short center.
The ball went about 150 feet.

Those were good times.

Sort of. Didn't matter in the end. They didn't finish.

[Thermos]

Post by GaryFL

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL
There's even more to it then that. Matsui hit a rope but Posada who
has horrid numbers against Pedro blooped a single into short center.
The ball went about 150 feet.

Those were good times.

Sort of. Didn't matter in the end. They didn't finish.

I enjoyed that postseason. They don't have to win it all for me to be satisfied. The
last two seasons, I was surprised they did any damage at all. Barring meaningful changes
to the roster, or something interesting happening in spring training or during the year
(like some kid coming up and making noise), I'll probably feel the same about this year's
model.

[GaryFL]

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL

Post by Thermos

Post by GaryFL
There's even more to it then that. Matsui hit a rope but Posada who
has horrid numbers against Pedro blooped a single into short center.
The ball went about 150 feet.

Those were good times.

Sort of. Didn't matter in the end. They didn't finish.

I enjoyed that postseason. They don't have to win it all for me to be satisfied. The
last two seasons, I was surprised they did any damage at all. Barring meaningful changes
to the roster, or something interesting happening in spring training or during the year
(like some kid coming up and making noise), I'll probably feel the same about this year's
model.

They lost the World Series to the Freakin Marlins and had a 2-1 lead
in the series. Torre left Weaver in a tied game to lose it. They got
shutout at home in the final game. You can keep that kind of enjoyment
:-).

[Kenny1111]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Vinnie S.
Vinnie S.

I'm not sure that it changed. I don't know what James's person view is,
but almost anyone interested in sabermetrics will still say that
mechanically using your best reliever in the 9th inning in save
situations is a huge waste of resources. The problem with the Red Sox
was not the strategy, but the implementation. They didn't have quality
enough pitchers in the pen, making it a question of who they had more
than when they used them. Additionally, Little didn't understand that
the goal wasn't to mix and match, but to use your best relievers in the
most important situations.

Well, if he didn't understand it, why did they get Foulke, and make a play at
Wagner? After he was gone.
Vinnie S.

Getting Foulke (or Wagner) can work perfectly well within the philosophy
of using your best pitcher at the most important time. Foulke is your
"relief ace," not your closer, and he comes in when it matters, not in
save situations at the beginning of the 9th inning.

I don't buy this one bit. If you bring him hin with 2 outs in the eighth, it's
not his phylosophy. Every manager does that. His theory was that if you need an
important out in the 7th, use you best reliever. I don't recall once when this
phylosophy was used with Foulke. Hell, in many cases, the Sox never used their

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean they used Foulke according to the
sabermetric theory, I meant that under that theory, Foulke would be
acting as a relief ace. I was speaking in the hypothetical. You said
getting Foulke shows they abandoned the theory. I was saying that
getting Foulke has nothing to do with the theory about when you use your
best reliever.

<snipped>

Post by Vinnie S.
and had someone else close. I can only imagine if we used Rivera in this fashion
in 2005, and had someone else close out the 9th. It would be a disaster.

No, it probably would have improved things.

Post by Vinnie S.
Sometimes, James just tried to be different, for the sake that someone notices
it.

Post by Kenny1111
(1) You should use your best relievers at the most important times;

This is plain stupid, as I stated above. If you have a 1 run game, at anytime
you have a runner in scoring position last, like the 6-9th innings, is an
important time. No one is bring in the closer in the 7th, and have someone else

There would be no such thing as a closer.

Post by Vinnie S.
close the game. In fact, I don't recall any team do this. This theory is simply
non-existent in baseball today.

Where did I say teams are doing it? What teams are doing doesn't make
sense.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
(2)
There is nothing special (i.e., mentally) about pitching the 9th inning;
and

In the last 2 post seasons, I saw Rivera blow game 4 of the ALCS, and Lidge blow
2 games in the 9th.

Incredible small sample size. Almost every year we see guys who have no
history of closing perform well in a closer type role. Take Jenks, for
instance.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
(3) You can build a bullpen cheaply / top relievers aren't worth
what they are getting.

That is why his team spent big money on relievers.

I was talking generally about the theories that often seem to be
confused with one another, explaining why it makes sense to get top
relievers yet still not have a traditional closer.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
Implementing (1) often will require you to
believe in (2). The reverse is not true, since you can decide to use a
closer in the traditional (i.e., post-Eckersley) sense and still believe
in (2) - i.e., any good reliever can close. (3) is a whole different
issue from the first two. It seemed the Red Sox attempted to implement
(3) at the same time as (1) (and (2)), and it there that they
failed--not that they really even gave it enough time.

They also had the greatest pitcher since Koufax on the mound with 5 outs to go.

What does this have to do with anything? It's completely off topic.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
Other teams have
been more successful doing this (Angels, A's).

The Angels have used a traditional close since Percival. The A's have also gone
that route.

You are confusing the three theories I mentioned, which is exactly the
thing I was trying to prevent by listing them separately. I was
referring only to (3) when I spoke of the Angels and A's -- i.e., that
they have built good bullpens cheaply. That make change when KRod gets
his big pay day, but for now, they have build pens cheaply. That was my
only point with the Angels and A's here.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
But even if we are to
conclude that the Red Sox failed at (3), it does nothing to discount (1)
or (2).

Absolutely is does. James theory effectively discounts matching up. It says to

Absolutely it doesn't. They are separate theories.
(1) Use your best relievers at the most important times
(2) Anyone can pitch the 9th inning
(3) You can build a good pen cheaply

(1) does not have to go along with (3). They are exclusive viewpoints.
You can try to follow (1) and not (3); you can try to follow (3) and
not (1).

Post by Vinnie S.
use your best reliever, regardless of L-R situations. The Sox match up like

That's not really true. i.e., theory (1) never says not to use a lefty
specialist. It's possible that given a particular situation your best
reliever will be a LOOGY-type reliever. It's more convenient to have
pitchers who are more versatile, but theory (1) does not require that.

Post by Vinnie S.
crazy. The Sox I have not seen in 2004 and 2005, do anything but the James
theory.

Please tell me where I said that the Sox tried to implement any of the
above theories in 2004 or 2005. It's not relevant to the discussion.

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Kenny1111
And who are you referring to when you said "After he was gone"? Isn't
James still with the team? Or do you mean Little? If so, Little never
bought into the bullpen concept in the first place, from what I
understand, so him leaving doesn't mean anything.

I have always been with Little. When the best pitcher on your team, who is the
best pitcher since Koufax, is 5 outs away and dominating, I stay with him. He
was by far, the best pitcher of the ones that followed him. If he pulled Pedro
and the Pen blew up, he would have been vilified for "pulling the best pitcher
since Koufax".
Vinnie S.

[danfergis]

Post by Vinnie S.
James has his flaws.

Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.
I occasionally question his consistency when crossing time lines to
rate teams.
Face it though, he gave us something other then Triple Crown type stats
to go by when rating players offensively. This is what upset most
folks. Most all of us were raised on Triple Crown stats as being THE
offensive measure.
Bill James made us look at things different. He's done it with defense,
he's done it with pitching too.
Most people that would discredit him think they are independent
thinkers. Not true. They simply follow guys like Morgan, McCarver,
Kruk, Reynolds, the guys on TV or the guys in the booth.

[wunnuy]

Post by danfergis

Post by Vinnie S.
James has his flaws.

Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.

By what statistics did he use to rate Negro League players and what is
his "method" for this? This I gotta see.

[Thermos]

Post by wunnuy

Post by danfergis

Post by Vinnie S.
James has his flaws.

Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.

By what statistics did he use to rate Negro League players and what is
his "method" for this? This I gotta see.

Then buy a book and ask someone to help you with the big words and numbers.

[Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown]

Post by danfergis

Post by Vinnie S.
James has his flaws.

Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.

He didn't think that there was concrete evidence. Obvious, there is now.
That has nothing to do with his baseball analysis.

Post by danfergis
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.

What are his methods?

Post by danfergis
I occasionally question his consistency when crossing time lines to
rate teams.

He does change his methods of measurement from time to time.

Post by danfergis
Face it though, he gave us something other then Triple Crown type stats
to go by when rating players offensively. This is what upset most
folks. Most all of us were raised on Triple Crown stats as being THE
offensive measure.
Bill James made us look at things different. He's done it with defense,
he's done it with pitching too.
Most people that would discredit him think they are independent
thinkers. Not true. They simply follow guys like Morgan, McCarver,
Kruk, Reynolds, the guys on TV or the guys in the booth.

[danfergis]

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.

He didn't think that there was concrete evidence. Obvious, there is now.
That has nothing to do with his baseball analysis.

And I didn't say it did have anything to do with his baseball analysis.
I was simply stating that I disagreed with him.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.

What are his methods?

If you look in the 2001 baseball abstract you'll see he pretty much
goes by quotes, newspaper articles, a lot of word of mouth or word of
print stuff. Pretty flimsy evidence and inconsistent with the cold hard
stats he uses for everyone else.
Of course it's the only information anyone has. It's just that I don't
think that Satchel Paige's word, John McGraw's or anyones word, (or
humanly flawed memory) is prooof that Oscar Charleton or Josh Gibson
was the greatest Outfielder, Catcher or anything.
That is why there is a separate section in the Hall for those guys, yet
Bill still rates them right along with the MLB players with legit
stats.
Face it; Many of the Negro league records were compiled against high
school, college, factory, or pick up teams during barnstorming tours.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
I occasionally question his consistency when crossing time lines to
rate teams.

He does change his methods of measurement from time to time.

Again, I agree the bulk of his stuff is sound. I guess I was trying to
prove I did view him as the second coming.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
Face it though, he gave us something other then Triple Crown type stats
to go by when rating players offensively. This is what upset most
folks. Most all of us were raised on Triple Crown stats as being THE
offensive measure.
Bill James made us look at things different. He's done it with defense,
he's done it with pitching too.
Most people that would discredit him think they are independent
thinkers. Not true. They simply follow guys like Morgan, McCarver,
Kruk, Reynolds, the guys on TV or the guys in the booth.

[danfergis]

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
Of course he does. Who doesn't? Never agreed with his stand on Pete
Rose in his 2001 abstract.

He didn't think that there was concrete evidence. Obvious, there is now.
That has nothing to do with his baseball analysis.

And I didn't say it did have anything to do with his baseball analysis.
I was simply stating that I disagreed with him.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
I've never thought his method of rating players from the Negro leagues
to be very consistent with his method of rating other players.

What are his methods?

If you look in the 2001 baseball abstract you'll see he pretty much
goes by quotes, newspaper articles, a lot of word of mouth or word of
print stuff. Pretty flimsy evidence and inconsistent with the cold hard
stats he uses for everyone else.
Of course it's the only information anyone has. It's just that I don't
think that Satchel Paige's word, John McGraw's or anyones word, (or
humanly flawed memory) is prooof that Oscar Charleston or Josh Gibson
was the greatest Outfielder, Catcher or anything.
That is why there is a separate section in the Hall for those guys, yet
Bill still rates them right along with the MLB players with legit
stats.
Face it; Many of the Negro league records were compiled against high
school, college, factory, or pick up teams during barnstorming tours.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
I occasionally question his consistency when crossing time lines to
rate teams.

He does change his methods of measurement from time to time.

Again, I agree the bulk of his stuff is sound. I guess I was trying to
prove I did not view him as the second coming.

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown

Post by danfergis
Face it though, he gave us something other then Triple Crown type stats
to go by when rating players offensively. This is what upset most
folks. Most all of us were raised on Triple Crown stats as being THE
offensive measure.
Bill James made us look at things different. He's done it with defense,
he's done it with pitching too.
Most people that would discredit him think they are independent
thinkers. Not true. They simply follow guys like Morgan, McCarver,
Kruk, Reynolds, the guys on TV or the guys in the booth.

[Tom K]

Post by Vinnie S.
James has his flaws. He wasn't big on the closer being used in the 9th. That
changed fast.

He's not perfect - and he'll probably tell you he's not perfect.

The closer thing didn't work in Boston - whether or not it would work
if a team committed a few full seasons to the system is still open to
debate.

For some reason, people think that if you read Bill James' work and
agree with a lot of what he is saying, that means you agree with
everything Bill James has ever done. It's like saying that just
because you love "Cujo" must mean you love every piece of work Stephen
King has ever done; or liked every movie that was ever made out of one
of his books.

But to not accept anything he does is just naive. As I have said in
the past, judge baseball however you like - if you want to use home
runs and rbi, go for it. That's your right to judge the players how
you see fit....but that does not mean that the way you are judging them
is the right way.

[Thermos]

Post by danfergis

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
But look at the other things James said. White walked more (and, hence, made
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered
following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

It doesn't matter - see the anti-intellectual rantings elsewhere here. I've disagreed
with more that Bill James has written than I've agreed with him. That's besides the
point. If you agree with anything he ever wrote, or even just appreciate his commentary,
you're a lemming to the meatheaded masses. For that matter, you can disagree with
absolutely everything he ever said, but simply know what OPS means, and you'll be branded
a Bill James Worshipper by some of the morons here and told that you should "try to watch
a game sometime". Its shorthand for some of these jackasses.

[danfergis]

Post by Thermos

Post by danfergis

Post by danfergis
At what point should I profess not to be one of Bill's tattered

following and claim I've actually disagreed with him at least 3 times?

If you agree with anything he ever wrote, or even just appreciate his
commentary,

Post by Thermos
you're a lemming to the meatheaded masses. For that matter, you can disagree with
absolutely everything he ever said, but simply know what OPS means, and you'll be branded
a Bill James Worshipper by some of the morons here and told that you should "try to watch
a game sometime".

I can see that's true. Funny thing is I understand very little of what
he has done. I just know he revolutionized how I look at player ratings
and baseball in general. The first thing I read by him, "The Politics
of Glory" (Now titled "What Ever Happened to the Hall of Fame?")
Convinced me that neither the Veterans Committee or the Baseball
Writers Association had a clear idea of who actually beloged in the
Hall.
With relation to the verterans committee, past committee heads like
Frank Frisch and Ted Williams strongly influeneced who got it.
Of course by now we know that many baseball writers haven't a clue
about the very sport they write about.
Although this is a pure anecdote I was told by a writer, who has a Hall
ballott, that in a discusssion he had with a group of other baseball
writers in 2002, the name Mickey Mantle DID NOT come up when rating the
greatest switch hitters of all time. (Maybe because he was the
greatest?)
I guess they stuck to Willie McGee, Pete Rose and Eddie Murray?
BTW even the guy with the Hall Ballot did not think of Mantle. That
might be an isolated incident, however read Baseball America one time
and after you've waded through Stark, Gammons, Ringolsby, King, and
Crasnick you'll wonder how any of them cal call themselves writers, let
alone Baseball Writers.

[ray o'hara]

"Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown" > But look at the other things James said.
White walked more (and, hence, made

Post by Erasmus "The Mannequin" Brown
fewer outs), stole more bases, had more sac flies, played better defense,
and played in a much tougher hitter's park in a more run-scarce era.

how many of those walks ended up with him getting doubled up at second?
when you go down the oddball stat path you can really start reaching some
strange conclusions.

[danfergis]

Post by ray o'hara

Post by ray o'hara
how many of those walks ended up with him getting doubled up at second?

when you go down the oddball stat path you can really start reaching some
strange conclusions.

WTF!!!???? Somebody clue me in!

[Seth Jackson]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down.

Yeah, but he played in Fenway in a hitter's era, while White played in
the old Yankee Stadium, complete with the real Death Valley, in a
pitcher's era.

Post by Vinnie S.
White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs.

Of course he didn't score runs. Look at the rest of the Yankee lineup
from his era! There was nobody on the team who could drive him in!

Post by Vinnie S.
If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Their career OPS+ were nearly identical.

[Vinnie S.]

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by Seth Jackson
In other words, you completely ignored what was written. James made
some very good points.

I don't agree with James on this. SLG wise, it's no contest. Rice wins hands
down.

Yeah, but he played in Fenway in a hitter's era, while White played in
the old Yankee Stadium, complete with the real Death Valley, in a
pitcher's era.

White was also a switch hitter who played in Yankees stadium when the FL line
were 300 feet.

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by Vinnie S.
White was very good at making contact and talking walks. Saying that, he
didn't score many runs.

Of course he didn't score runs. Look at the rest of the Yankee lineup
from his era! There was nobody on the team who could drive him in!

Post by Vinnie S.
If both were in their primes, I would take Rice hands
down. What killed Rice was he was done that at an early age.

Their career OPS+ were nearly identical.

Vinnie S.

[Vinnie S.]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:00:58 -0500, Vinnie S. <***@coldmail.com> wrote:
at an early age.

Post by Seth Jackson
Their career OPS+ were nearly identical.

White's best years were 135, 134, 142, 149 (age 24-27)

Rice's best years were 148, 158, 154, 123. (Age 24-27)

Those don't appear identical. Rice was better with the exception of the last
year. And that year, Rice only had 504 AB/ 542 PA, and was clearly injured.

What I would like to see is the split stats of home and away for both, and white
L-R splits in Yankee Stadium. But I cannot find them anywhere.




Vinnie S.

[Stefan Backstrom]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:16:11 -0500, Vinnie S. <***@coldmail.com>
wrote:

[snip]

Post by Vinnie S.
What I would like to see is the split stats of home and away for both, and white
L-R splits in Yankee Stadium. But I cannot find them anywhere.

Retrosheet is your friend.

Jim Rice, career

Home .320/.374/.546
Away .277/.330/.459

Roy White, career

Home .272/.358/.418
Away .270/.361/.391

They don't have combined splits, so no L/R in a certain ballpark. And
you'll have to do the run context adjustments yourself. But it's
free, so I'm not going to complain.

-- Stefan.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by Vinnie S.
at an early age.

Post by Seth Jackson
Their career OPS+ were nearly identical.

White's best years were 135, 134, 142, 149 (age 24-27)
Rice's best years were 148, 158, 154, 123. (Age 24-27)
Those don't appear identical. Rice was better with the exception of the last
year. And that year, Rice only had 504 AB/ 542 PA, and was clearly injured.

Rice's peak years were better, but their career totals were nearly the
same. Rice had a 6-point edge.

Post by Vinnie S.
What I would like to see is the split stats of home and away for both, and white
L-R splits in Yankee Stadium. But I cannot find them anywhere.
Vinnie S.

[Thermos]

Post by Vinnie S.

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

I saw White well past his prime, and Rice in his prime. Rice a a masher. White
could not hold a candle to him. But he wasn't the scariest guy. That title
belonged to Brett. He was the David Ortiz of his time.

Jim Rice scared the crap out of me, as a Yankees fan.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

Of course he has. Every player who retires after 10 years in MLB is
put on the ballot.

[Kenny1111]

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

Of course he has. Every player who retires after 10 years in MLB is
put on the ballot.

That's not actually the case. There is a committee that performs a
prescreening before the ballot is released. The details were in a
rec.sport.baseball post in the past week, I can't recall exactly how it
works, but I think you need 3 of 5 committee member votes to be listed
on the ballot.

[wunnuy]

There were quite a few guys who didn't make this ballot. Morandini was
one I remember off hand. I used to think eveyrone after their 5 year
period made it, but they don't.They have to pass a screening, as if
Gregg Jefferies and Walt Weiss somehow have a chance but Morandini
wouldn't.

[Seth Jackson]

Post by Kenny1111

Post by Seth Jackson

Post by danfergis
Decided to post this in response to some of what has been said about
Jim Rice and his being on the Hall ballot. BTW: Has Roy White ever even
been on the ballot?

Of course he has. Every player who retires after 10 years in MLB is
put on the ballot.

That's not actually the case. There is a committee that performs a
prescreening before the ballot is released. The details were in a
rec.sport.baseball post in the past week, I can't recall exactly how it
works, but I think you need 3 of 5 committee member votes to be listed
on the ballot.

You learn something every day.