Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[Chef99]

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?

Just to clarify, rokket never said Koufax was a top five or so pitcher of all time. He simply said that Koufax was a great pitcher. I guess I would be that Koufax homer.

 

[broncosmitty]

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

Yes. I think that is safe to say. But apparently we need 750 word essays to figure out 26-32.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Just to clarify, rokket never said Koufax was a top five or so pitcher of all time. He simply said that Koufax was a great pitcher. I guess I would be that Koufax homer.

No one ever said you can't be a great pitcher without longevity....I mean Pedro didn't have longevity but was an incredible pitcher (better than Koufax as well). But if you're comparing a guy like Koufax to Seaver, the fact that one played much longer than the other certainly needs to be taken into account when comparing rate stats.

I mean, a 2.95 ERA over 1,500 innings isn't the same as a 2.95 ERA over 3,500 innings. The latter is a lot more impressive (presuming similar run scoring environments).

So when we're comparing the rate stats of Rice to Brett, it certainly makes Brett's AVG/OBP/SLG more impressive that he had his numbers over that many more games.

 

[broncosmitty]

Does a great pitcher need to be a "power" pitcher, to be great?

 

[rokketmn]

I would refer you back to post #151 for why he wasn't the best hitter of the 1970s, as you had asserted

I never asserted anything. I merely said I thought he was the best and that it was subject to debate. Assert means to be forceful or to state strongly. I can go get the actual definition if you like, but I am confident in the meaning, and confident I didn't "assert" anything in my statement.

and post #156 for the players who were better hitters during Rice's "peak" years.

You showed a bunch of players and gave some stats, but aside from Schmidt, none of those players was better than Rice, or at least more than a little better. Of course, you gave your SUBJECTIVE views as to who you thought was better. And therein lies the debate. No proof.

Just admit Rice was a great hitter and you can end this for yourself. You keep digging deeper and deeper and still have not proven a thing other than more subjective data interpretation.

 

[Swangin]

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.

He is, but I don't think the comparison is fair at all. Koufax had consecutive seasons that were some of the most dominant in the league ever. Rice falls very short when it comes to that. Like night and day IMO. I haven't read everything in this thread, but seems Rice might be being overrated somewhat. I've seen best hitter of the 70's, as good as Brett, and now compared to Koufax and his dominance?

 

[rokketmn]

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?

Of course not. So why should Rice's declining years be looked at diferently? He didn't choose to break down. Was it Gehrig's fault he got sick? Extreme example, yes, but one that shows things are out of a person's control.

 

[rokketmn]

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.

I've only heard of glowing things said about Koufax in relation to the greats of the game. It must the the difference in the crowds we roll with.

 

[rokketmn]

Longevity/workload is a factor

Why was Kirby Puckett inducted in the HOF? Ralph Kiner?

One could argue that Koufax' career was all the more remarkable because he wasn't great until later in his career. He left on top of his game, winning a CY in his last season and 3 of his last 4. He may have gone on to further dominance.

It still doesn't change the fact he was a great pitcher, and he had enough longevity. My personal view is that 10 or so years is good enough.

 

[rokketmn]

He is, but I don't think the comparison is fair at all. Koufax had consecutive seasons that were some of the most dominant in the league ever. Rice falls very short when it comes to that. Like night and day IMO. I haven't read everything in this thread, but seems Rice might be being overrated somewhat. I've seen best hitter of the 70's, as good as Brett, and now compared to Koufax and his dominance?

I am not comparing Rice's career to Koufax'.

 

[rokketmn]

Does a great pitcher need to be a "power" pitcher, to be great?

I don't think so, but I am sure there are a bunch of people that want to inundate me with stats so I change to their opinion.

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't think so, but I am sure there are a bunch of people that want to inundate me with stats so I change to their opinion.

I don't believe they need to be either. Nor do I believe massive amounts of career homeruns are needed to achieve greatness as a hitter. But of course, enough stats would prove my opinion false I'm sure.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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+?

I wouldn't admit to that because Rice wasn't a great hitter for his career, just for a few select seasons in his career. Great hitters don't have a 128 OPS+ in 9000 plate appearances, or they have a much better peak than Rice had. Maybe if he had another 3000 plate appearances, that could be considered great. But he didn't.

Here is some info on park factors: Park Adjustments - Baseball-Reference.com

Here's more: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/park-factors/

 

[powerchord86]

He's good.

 

[Chef99]

He is, but I don't think the comparison is fair at all. Koufax had consecutive seasons that were some of the most dominant in the league ever. Rice falls very short when it comes to that. Like night and day IMO. I haven't read everything in this thread, but seems Rice might be being overrated somewhat. I've seen best hitter of the 70's, as good as Brett, and now compared to Koufax and his dominance?

You're right, I don't think it's a fair comparison either, I was just happy to see someone give Koufax some props. As far as Brett/Rice goes, I personally think Brett was the better hitter, but that's just my opinion. I don't think either one of them are in the running for the greatest hitter ever. I'd probably have to vote for Teddy Ballgame on that one.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Why was Kirby Puckett inducted in the HOF? Ralph Kiner?

One could argue that Koufax' career was all the more remarkable because he wasn't great until later in his career. He left on top of his game, winning a CY in his last season and 3 of his last 4. He may have gone on to further dominance.

It still doesn't change the fact he was a great pitcher, and he had enough longevity. My personal view is that 10 or so years is good enough.

There's a good amount of people who feel Puckett wasn't HOF worthy and got the sentimental vote.

Kiner at least had a great deal of dominance (7 year stretch with a 160 OPS+)....but even that brings out a hypocritical look at the voters, who never put in a guy like Dick Allen.

This says more about the voters and the hypocrisy than anything else.

 

[Chef99]

I mean, a 2.95 ERA over 1,500 innings isn't the same as a 2.95 ERA over 3,500 innings. The latter is a lot more impressive (presuming similar run scoring environments).

So when we're comparing the rate stats of Rice to Brett, it certainly makes Brett's AVG/OBP/SLG more impressive that he had his numbers over that many more games.

Can't argue with that at all. And I prefer Brett over Rice.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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.

Actually, in the one comparison I did of the player's of Rice's generation, I only included one of his three decline seasons. And Brett was still better over that span. Much better.

Analyzing them through a similar number of plate appearances is fair because as a player gets more plate appearances (or a pitcher gets more innings pitched), their numbers naturally trend downward. Sample size is always important when looking at rate stats, which are the most important stats for any player. It doesn't give an apples-to-apples comparison if you look at rate numbers when one had a much larger sample size. You have to look at them in a similar sample size, or you have to "give credit" for the player with the larger sample. Brett's numbers are still better in the full sample, but there is an even greater disparity when you make the samples similar. It's not Brett's fault that Rice fell apart, and it's a testament to Brett's greatness that he remained an effective hitter for so long.

I'm just trying to be accurate and objective here. I'm not sure you're able to separate your attachment to Rice and view this matter objectively. If you want to call Rice a great hitter based on the handful of great seasons he had or because you put an inappropriate amount of weight on outdated measures, you're perfectly entitled to do that.

 

[Chef99]

Yes. I think that is safe to say. But apparently we need 750 word essays to figure out 26-32.

 

[rokketmn]

Here is some info on park factors: Park Adjustments - Baseball-Reference.com

Thanks. This is exactly what I was expecting.

What these factors do (and they do a good job -it's just that it is really is impossible to calculate) is that they take an adjustment for a park that is good for hitters and pitchers, and then apply what the league average player would do.

What makes it impossible is that every hitter( just as every person) is different and wouldn't react in the same way in the same circumstance.

Take Fenway, for example. It is known as a good park for scoring runs, but it historically has not been a good park for Hr's. It also caters to different types of hitters. The high flyball, Mark McGwire types would love Fenway. The Jim Rice or Dave Winfield types that hit line drives would not. Sure, they get under a few and they go out, but it doesn't fit their profiles. If there are less hitters fitting a certain profile in the entire baseball league, the averages get skewed.

The dimensions of Fenway to CF, RC, and RF don't help any hitters really (especially righties to RF). Even at the shorter distance CF wall, you still have to hit about 17-20 feet high to get it out. Only straight down the RF line is great for hitters, and lefties in particular.

Lefties can pad their average by knocking balls off The Monster, but lose Hr's to both sides of the field.

The system is flawed, and not for lack of trying by looking at the calculations. If a player loses more Hr's in his home park, that also affects his RBI, runs, average, OBP, SLG and OPS. The park factors in OPS+ can't account for the Hr's. Only the runs. Maybe.

Rice led the league in triples in 1978 with 15 and was second in 1977 with 15. My guess is that many of these triples were hit in that RCF (I saw some as well) "triangle", an area to which the distance would have been a HR in many other parks.

In the end, Rice probably got some rbi because of balls hit off the monster, but he lost them on Hr's, whether it be to LF, CF, RC, or RF. Maybe those RBI's evened out. Maybe they didn't. No way of knowing, so I am not going to. What I do know is that Rice lost Hr's in Fenway and that would have affected his overall SLG and OPS. And OPS+ too, but as we can see that stat is flawed.