Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[Chef99]

So I think we can all agree that Miguel Cabrera is not the best hitter ever? :rollseyes:

 

[soxfan1468927]

What does this really mean? Rice hit .308 w/RISP and Brett hit .307 w/ RISP. Given their career averages, Rice's performance is a little more impressive. Can Rice help it if Yaz couldn't score from second on a single?

It means exactly what I wrote if you don't understand that, it's your problem, it isn't very difficult. You claim Rice is a run producer without an understanding of what exactly produces a run.

Run producers aren't just the guys who drive in runs. Here's a classic example:

Player A walks
Player B hits a double, Player A goes to third
Player C grounds out, Player A scores

Player A gets a run
Player C gets an RBI

Player B gets neither, yet who contributed most to that run being scored? If you watch baseball, you'll notice plays like this happen all the time.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Please present these "WOW" seasons of Murray and Winfield. I have a feeling they are going to look a lot like Rice's "ho-hum" seasons. They had a lot of very good seasons. I have never disputed that.

Murray:
1981: .294/.360/.534, 156 OPS+ in the strike-shortened season.
1982: .316/.391/.549, 156 OPS+
1983: .306/.393/.538, 156 OPS+
1984: .306/.410/.509, 157 OPS+
1985: .297/.383/.523, 149 OPS+
1990: .330/.414/.520, 159 OPS+

Winfield:
1978: .308/.367/.499, 151 OPS+ (in the Murph, these are great numbers)
1979: .308/.395/.558, 166 OPS+ (in the Murph, these are insane numbers)
1984: .340/.393/.515, 154 OPS+
1988: .322/.398/.530, 159 OPS+

Rice:
1977: .320/.376/.593, 147 OPS+
1978: .315/.370/.600, 157 OPS+
1979: .325/.381/.596, 154 OPS+
1983: .305/.361/.550, 141 OPS+
1986: .324/.384/.490, 137 OPS+

I'm actually being generous to Rice, especially in 1986.

I know production is not drawing a walk when there is a man on 3rd and 2 outs and I have an inferior hitting coming up behind me. My job as a #3 or #4 hitter is to get that run home, not leave it for the next guy and increase my OPS.

Actually, that is production. Swinging at bad pitches to futility try and get that run in is the opposite of production, though it may occasionally pay off. And again, there's more to production than just driving in runs. The guy getting the RBI often does little to produce the run.

You denigrate "Triple Crown" stats, but all you really offer in addition is OBP. Rice had his fair share of doubles and triples, and as I said, he hit them at a better pace than Winfield, and an equal or better pace than Murray. Brett had more doubles, but consequently fewer Hr's.

Throw all of that out, and it comes down to walks.

I don't denigrate them, I just note that that's all you're bringing to the table. I also recognize them for what they are: flawed (at least AVG & RBI). Batting average treats all hits the same (they're not), and ignores other methods of getting on base. A HR is the single best thing a hitter can do in a plate appearance, but HR can be skewed by factors such as park. RBI are a product of opportunity and are really a team statistic. They're important in individual games, but over the course of a whole season, they're not a good indicator of a quality hitter. The triple slash line and OPS+ (and wOBA and wRC+ and some other advanced metrics) are the best way to evaluate a hitter's overall skill.

This is hilarious. Please enlighten me. If we don't score runs, how do we produce them? If we lose a game 2-1, I see that we produced 1 run. Probably because a cleanup hitter drew a walk on a close 3-2 pitch and the #5 hitter grounded out to end the game. You know better, obviously.

Player A walks.
Player B doubles, Player A to 3rd.
Player C grounds out to 2nd, Player A scores.

Player A gets a run, Player C gets a RBI. Player B did the most to "produce" that run but gets nothing but a pat on the back when he reaches the dugout. Runs are produced through all positive offensive events to varying degrees. Some events are more likely to lead to a run than others. There are statistics that weight the linear probability that a certain event will lead to a run to give a better indication of how certain hitters produce runs. They're not convoluted. They're not subjective. They're not based on assumed variables. They're based on real, actual events in a given season. It's a lot more than just the guy scoring the run and the guy driving it in. These stats are far more accurate depictions of "run production" than R & RBI.

I didn't tout my own physical superiority. I just made an obsevation that I commonly see of people that were never between the lines, on the grid, or in the rink.

You suggested that I don't understand the game because you assumed (incorrectly) that I never played it, and that your opinion was more valid because your playing experience is more prevalent than my understanding of probabilities and statistics (it's not). So you were wrong to go there on two counts. Those people you put down more likely are just fans who are willing to think progressively and outside the box and are accepting of new forms of information. Information is our friend. The Earth is round. Accept it.

You are the one that has chosen the name calling, profanity, etc. Do ya think?

Do you really care about profanity? Get a grip, Mother Teresa. And have I directly insulted you? I can't remember and don't feel like combing through every post. And sometimes, there's just no other option when you're talking to the wall than to insult it.

 

[DragonfromTO]

What does this really mean? Rice hit .308 w/RISP and Brett hit .307 w/ RISP. Given their career averages, Rice's performance is a little more impressive. Can Rice help it if Yaz couldn't score from second on a single?

Similarly, can Brett help it that he didn't spend his decline years hitting behind the AL leader in OBP?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Similarly, can Brett help it that he didn't spend his decline years hitting behind the AL leader in OBP?

Come on, Dragon. Boggs was just clogging the bases!

 

[Brahmsian]

No. I didn't say Rice was a better performer in those situations. You really have to keep up.

Also, playing in Fenway didn't help Rice's Hr's. Fenway is typically one of the more difficult park to hit a HR. Rice was a line drive hitter. He lost many HR's to the Green Monster. The other dimensions of Fenway were not beneficial to lefties or righties.

As I said, Brett was the better pure hitter. That has never been disputed and I even said as much in my original post. I said Rice possessed much more power, and i value that power. Do I need to re-post it for you?

People actually familiar with Fenway Park know that the "Green Monster" is 30+ (37 if memory serves)feet high. Line drives that would be homers in most parks can hit it, ricochet off it and allow a smart fielder to turn the hit into a mere single. or throw out an over-ambitious base-runner. I've seen the former happen countless times.

Long story short, the Monster doesn't help RH dead pull hitters anywhere near as much as most non-Bostonians think it does. Nor does it hurt LH pitchers as much as popular mythology says. It's just a quirk of a very quirky ballpark.

 

[rokketmn]

Run producers aren't just the guys who drive in runs. Here's a classic example:

Player A walks
Player B hits a double, Player A goes to third
Player C grounds out, Player A scores

Player A gets a run
Player C gets an RBI

Player B gets neither, yet who contributed most to that run being scored? If you watch baseball, you'll notice plays like this happen all the time.

I never said I was against walks, though that makes it easier for you and your buddies to try to ridicule and make yourselves look smart. You have to look into the context of the game and the situation. Most situations I have talked about (if not all), have involved a #3 or #4 hitter being up with a man on 3rd and 2 outs. What I want from my top run producers is for them to get that run in, and not always take the walk leaving it to a potentially inferior hitter.

I find it interesting that the main point in a post gets lost when people try to make themselves look smart by reading stats from a website, and take the topic off the track.

The main point of my post was that I said I thought Rice was the best hitter I saw in the '70's, and admitted that was up to debate.

It has been debated, and other evidence suggests there were hitters equivalent, less than and better than Rice, yet nobody on here has conceded that Rice was a great hitter even though he falls in line with all of those other players considered great hitters.

If you need a refresher on the point of my post, I can re-post for you all. It seems that few on here can comprehend and start to go off topic. Instead they just throw stats out without really understanding that there are different situations in a game that sometimes require being handled differently each time they occur, depending on who is up, on base, etc.

A walk in some situations is not as good as a hit. Sometimes a strikeout is better than putting the ball in play. It all depends on the context of the situation. Statistics don't always show that. That is why I am not a huge fan of strictly looking at OPS. I agree that it is more important than strictly batting average, but the situations aren't always black and white and statistics don't capture that. That can only be understood by watching, and even playing the game.

This is why there are managers, otherwise anybody can fill out a lineup card with your best 9 (or 10) players. The manager manages to the current situation with the people involved. He may manage it differently later in the game or another game simply because there are different people involved, including the opposing pitcher, and possibly the score of the game.

A hitter takes the same approach. Maybe a hitter is more inclined to work the count and take the walk earlier in the game, but when presented with an at bat later in the game he will approach it differently, depending if runners are on base or not. Maybe he cuts down his swing with 2 strikes with men on, but lets it loose with nobody on.

I don't suppose anybody else understands that.

 

[rokketmn]

Actually, that is production. Swinging at bad pitches to futility try and get that run in is the opposite of production, though it may occasionally pay off

I never said this either. Why do you keep changing words and context? I explicitly said that taking a close pitch for a walk on a 3-2 count is not necessarily productive. Sometimes you have to swing at that pitch to get the run in. Again...depending on the situation and who is coming up behind you. I can find the post for you if you like.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I never said I was against walks, though that makes it easier for you and your buddies to try to ridicule and make yourselves look smart. You have to look into the context of the game and the situation. Most situations I have talked about (if not all), have involved a #3 or #4 hitter being up with a man on 3rd and 2 outs. What I want from my top run producers is for them to get that run in, and not always take the walk leaving it to a potentially inferior hitter.

And how do you think Jim Rice did in that exact situation in his career? He came to the plate 490 times with a runner on 3rd and 2 outs. He hit .259 and drove in 169 runs, driving in a run 34.08% of the time and he took an unintentional walk 9.80% of the time.

George Brett on the other hand had 538 plate appearances, hit .284, drove in a run 36.99% of the time, and took an unintentional walk 9.29% of the time.

So not only was George Brett better at driving in runs in the situation you provided, he also walked less than Rice in those situations. Difference being that Brett was intentionally walked 34 times while Rice only 11. I think you'll agree there's nothing you can do about an intentional walk.

 

[rokketmn]

And how do you think Jim Rice did in that exact situation in his career? He came to the plate 490 times with a runner on 3rd and 2 outs. He hit .259 and drove in 169 runs, driving in a run 34.08% of the time and he took an unintentional walk 9.80% of the time.

George Brett on the other hand had 538 plate appearances, hit .284, drove in a run 36.99% of the time, and took an unintentional walk 9.29% of the time.

So not only was George Brett better at driving in runs in the situation you provided, he also walked less than Rice in those situations. Difference being that Brett was intentionally walked 34 times while Rice only 11. I think you'll agree there's nothing you can do about an intentional walk.

Thanks.

It looks like what you've done is show that Rice and Brett were very similar for their careers. Brett has a slightly higher OPS and OPS+, which is pretty much made up for the difefrence in the overall career batting averages (Rice .298 and Brett .305).

Rice's 162 game line of .298/30/113/97/4/.854 compares to Brett's .305/19/96/95/12/.857. Brett averaged 40 doubles, while Rice averaged 29, helping to make up the difference in Hr's. Rice averaged 6 triples and Brett 8. Brett averaged 66 walks and Rice 52, which also accounts for the difference in OPS+.

It seems you have shown that George Brett was a great hitter, which is something I have never disputed. After all, the guy is in the HOF. Consequently, you all have shown that Jim Rice was also a GREAT hitter, which is something that some, if not all, would not admit.

 

[rokketmn]

I'm actually being generous to Rice, especially in 1986.

I know he really appreciates the love you've shown him with these stats and the endorsement of his 1978 MVP. It really means a lot to both of us.

Hmmm...the numbers you've selected look pretty much like the seasons that I outlined when I talked about their MVP or near MVP type performances, but you summarily dismissed them as subjective. I find that both interesting and funny. It looks they were all great hitters.

As I mentioned to SoxFan, you both have proven my point that Rice was a great hitter, and I didn't have to do all of the work.

What you have not proven, is that any of these players were actually better hitters than Rice. They were all very close. Then the debate becomes subjective, which is what I said in my very first post.

Thank you for all being smarter than me.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I never said I was against walks, though that makes it easier for you and your buddies to try to ridicule and make yourselves look smart. You have to look into the context of the game and the situation. Most situations I have talked about (if not all), have involved a #3 or #4 hitter being up with a man on 3rd and 2 outs. What I want from my top run producers is for them to get that run in, and not always take the walk leaving it to a potentially inferior hitter.

I find it interesting that the main point in a post gets lost when people try to make themselves look smart by reading stats from a website, and take the topic off the track.

The main point of my post was that I said I thought Rice was the best hitter I saw in the '70's, and admitted that was up to debate.

It has been debated, and other evidence suggests there were hitters equivalent, less than and better than Rice, yet nobody on here has conceded that Rice was a great hitter even though he falls in line with all of those other players considered great hitters.

If you need a refresher on the point of my post, I can re-post for you all. It seems that few on here can comprehend and start to go off topic. Instead they just throw stats out without really understanding that there are different situations in a game that sometimes require being handled differently each time they occur, depending on who is up, on base, etc.

A walk in some situations is not as good as a hit. Sometimes a strikeout is better than putting the ball in play. It all depends on the context of the situation. Statistics don't always show that. That is why I am not a huge fan of strictly looking at OPS. I agree that it is more important than strictly batting average, but the situations aren't always black and white and statistics don't capture that. That can only be understood by watching, and even playing the game.

This is why there are managers, otherwise anybody can fill out a lineup card with your best 9 (or 10) players. The manager manages to the current situation with the people involved. He may manage it differently later in the game or another game simply because there are different people involved, including the opposing pitcher, and possibly the score of the game.

A hitter takes the same approach. Maybe a hitter is more inclined to work the count and take the walk earlier in the game, but when presented with an at bat later in the game he will approach it differently, depending if runners are on base or not. Maybe he cuts down his swing with 2 strikes with men on, but lets it loose with nobody on.

I don't suppose anybody else understands that.

Thanks for stating the obvious, but the situations you're talking about are so specific and not altogether common. 3-2, 2 out, runner on 3rd. How often do you think that happens? You're going to take Jim Rice over George Brett based on a situation that might come up 2-3 times in a season?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Thanks.

It looks like what you've done is show that Rice and Brett were very similar for their careers. Brett has a slightly higher OPS and OPS+, which is pretty much made up for the difefrence in the overall career batting averages (Rice .298 and Brett .305).

Rice's 162 game line of .298/30/113/97/4/.854 compares to Brett's .305/19/96/95/12/.857. Brett averaged 40 doubles, while Rice averaged 29, helping to make up the difference in Hr's. Rice averaged 6 triples and Brett 8. Brett averaged 66 walks and Rice 52, which also accounts for the difference in OPS+.

It seems you have shown that George Brett was a great hitter, which is something I have never disputed. After all, the guy is in the HOF. Consequently, you all have shown that Jim Rice was also a GREAT hitter, which is something that some, if not all, would not admit.

You're ignoring the huge gap of 2500 plate appearances which brought Brett's numbers down.

Through the same number of plate appearances:
.310/.377/.501, 142 OPS+, 162 game averages of 40 2B, 10 3B, 20 HR, 100 RBI, 99 R, 14 SB. Through the same number of PAs, Brett has advantages of over .010 points of AVG, .025 points of OBP, a deficit of .001 in SLG, and an advantage of 14 points in OPS+. Over a sample of 9000 plate appearances, those gaps are much bigger than they appear. It's a decided advantage for Brett.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I know he really appreciates the love you've shown him with these stats and the endorsement of his 1978 MVP. It really means a lot to both of us.

Hmmm...the numbers you've selected look pretty much like the seasons that I outlined when I talked about their MVP or near MVP type performances, but you summarily dismissed them as subjective. I find that both interesting and funny. It looks they were all great hitters.

As I mentioned to SoxFan, you both have proven my point that Rice was a great hitter, and I didn't have to do all of the work.

What you have not proven, is that any of these players were actually better hitters than Rice. They were all very close. Then the debate becomes subjective, which is what I said in my very first post.

Thank you for all being smarter than me.

And as I stated, the voters make the subjective choice to place an inordinate amount of value on AVG/HR/RBI, when there are a wide variety of stats to be taken into account, some of which are much more helpful in determining who the better hitter/player was.

No, I've proven they're better. I provided their numbers over the same time period. They were all better than Rice, and a few who aren't even in the HOF were just as good. I would refer you back to post #151 for why he wasn't the best hitter of the 1970s, as you had asserted, and post #156 for the players who were better hitters during Rice's "peak" years.

 

[rokketmn]

And as I stated, the voters make the subjective choice to place an inordinate amount of value on AVG/HR/RBI, when there are a wide variety of stats to be taken into account, some of which are much more helpful in determining who the better hitter/player was

And you know exactly how and why they voted? That is amazing. You are quite a guy. It seems, though, that YOUR thinking might be subjective because somebody else didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

Botom line: you produced the same stats from the same years. Just because you don't like the results of a vote doesn't mean you have to whine and whine about it.

 

[rokketmn]

Through the same number of plate appearances:
.310/.377/.501, 142 OPS+, 162 game averages of 40 2B, 10 3B, 20 HR, 100 RBI, 99 R, 14 SB. Through the same number of PAs, Brett has advantages of over .010 points of AVG, .025 points of OBP, a deficit of .001 in SLG, and an advantage of 14 points in OPS+. Over a sample of 9000 plate appearances, those gaps are much bigger than they appear. It's a decided advantage for Brett

Sure. That's fine. Whatever makes you happy. Still, the difference in the 162 game averages doesn't change much. it adds 1 hr, 4 rbi, 3 or 4 runs, and 2 sb's.

The difference in the OPS because more explainable because Brett has a .310 to .298 advantage in average and still has the walk differential. By the way, that walk differential means that Brett walked 1 more time nearly every 2 weeks over Rice.

You still haven't admitted Rice was a great hitter. I don't really expect you to, because it makes you look pretty foolish after presenting all of these "facts". But we all know the answer by now.

Can you explain to me how the park factors are incorporated in OPS+?

 

[CakesW]

Without question he is the best hitter now...

However, as much as I like Cabrera...


He's not to the level that Albert Pujols was when he was in his prime (obviously, Pujols is no longer in his prime)

As GREAT as Cabrera's numbers are now... he still hasn't had the consistent unbelievable stretch that Pujols did a few years ago...


Not knocking Cabrera at all, it's more of a reminder of how great Pujols actually was... which gets lost now that he is pedestrian.

 

[rokketmn]

Through the same number of plate appearances:

Do you see the problem with using this data?

You drop off Brett's declining seasons, while including Rice's. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Some people break down earlier than others. Sometimes through no fault of their own. It doesn't diminish what they did. If I remember corerctly, Rice was experiencing some vision issues. I think he even tried glasses in 1987.

It doesn't matter, as I said in the above post, Rice still stacks up with George Brett, who was a great hitter.

Nobody held it against Sandy Koufax because he didn't play a long time. Would his carrer been less stellar if he had stayed around and had some poor seasons at the end of his career had he pitched, say ...18 seasons?

He went out on top of his game. Anything else negative wouldn't have changed the fact he was a great pitcher.

 

[Chef99]

Through the same number of plate appearances:

Do you see the problem with using this data?

You drop off Brett's declining seasons, while including Rice's. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Some people break down earlier than others. Sometimes through no fault of their own. It doesn't diminish what they did. If I remember corerctly, Rice was experiencing some vision issues. I think he even tried glasses in 1987.

It doesn't matter, as I said in the above post, Rice still stacks up with George Brett, who was a great hitter.

Nobody held it against Sandy Koufax because he didn't play a long time. Would his carrer been less stellar if he had stayed around and had some poor seasons at the end of his career had he pitched, say ...18 seasons?

He went out on top of his game. Anything else negative wouldn't have changed the fact he was a great pitcher.

Not gonna get in the middle of your argument, but I loved your Koufax comment. I don't care what anyone says about his longevity, he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Through the same number of plate appearances:

Do you see the problem with using this data?

You drop off Brett's declining seasons, while including Rice's. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Some people break down earlier than others. Sometimes through no fault of their own. It doesn't diminish what they did. If I remember corerctly, Rice was experiencing some vision issues. I think he even tried glasses in 1987.

It doesn't matter, as I said in the above post, Rice still stacks up with George Brett, who was a great hitter.

Nobody held it against Sandy Koufax because he didn't play a long time. Would his carrer been less stellar if he had stayed around and had some poor seasons at the end of his career had he pitched, say ...18 seasons?

He went out on top of his game. Anything else negative wouldn't have changed the fact he was a great pitcher.

Nonsense...plenty of people hold it against Koufax, and rightfully so. Koufax homers are the only one claiming he's a top 5 or so pitcher of all time. Those who realize that workload is an important factor in career value/skill don't mention him in the same class with the likes of Maddux, RJ, Seaver. Longevity/workload is a factor, especially when you're productive throughout those extra games and years.

Numbers are nothing unless you take them in context, and it's harder to keep up good rate stats with a longer workload. Koufax slightly better career rate stats than Seaver...is that because Koufax simply better, or moreso that he pitched only 1/2 the innings and didn't have a decline phase?

Back to Brett and Rice...is it Brett's fault that Rice declined relatively early and was done at age 36 and couldn't hack it into his late 30s?