Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[StanMarsh51]

For Slugging, only Schmidt was better at .548. Rice was at .516. Reggie's adjusted (again) was .509. Winfield at .483; Murray at .506. Brett was at .518, but since I was averaging the SLG % over 12 seasons, his 1980 SLG of .664 carried more weight in the process, so it is not an accurate number.


.

Baseballreference does the work for you, where you can get an weighted average of rate stats between time spans (in addition to totals of cumulative stats)....Brett's average SLG during that span was .518, while Rice's was .520

In all fairness to Winfield, he played 6 of those 12 seasons in San Diego, and the splits give you an idea of how much that ballpark may have hurt him...park factors also show Qualcomm as an extreme pitchers' park those years

 

[True Lakers Fan]

NO

IT'S THAT SIMPLE

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I took some data from 1975-1986 and compared Rice to Murray, Winfield, Schmidt, Reggie, and Brett.
Here's how it turned out:

For Hr's, only Schmidt hit more in that time frame (Rice 350; Schmidt 440; Reggie 330; Murray 275, Brett 207). This is not fair to Reggie, as Reggie had many good seasons before 1975. If I take out Reggie's 2 worst HR seasons in that period and replace with his best from prior (1969 and 1973), he would have hit about 366. Murray also didn't break in until 1977. If I add his 2 best HR seasons, he would be up to 340.

Only Schmidt and Reggie had better HR/AB ratios.

For RBI, Rice led all of the group with 1276. If I do the same with Murray again and add his 2 best RBI seasons, he would total 1255. For Reggie, he would go from 1030 to 1158 taking out his 2 worst RBI totals in that period and replacing them with his best (1969 and 1973). Schmidt had 1221, Winfield 1147, and Brett 1004.

Only Reggie and Schmidt had better RBI/AB ratios.

For Slugging, only Schmidt was better at .548. Rice was at .516. Reggie's adjusted (again) was .509. Winfield at .483; Murray at .506. Brett was at .518, but since I was averaging the SLG % over 12 seasons, his 1980 SLG of .664 carried more weight in the process, so it is not an accurate number.

Rice led in total bases with 3670. Schmidt had 3448; Winfield 3221, Brett 3201, Murray had 3475 if I add his top 2 total bases seasons in again to get to 12 seasons. Even swapping his 2 worst with his 2 best (1973 and 1969), Reggie still only gets to 3128.

Over this span, only Brett hit higher at .317. Rice was at .303; Murray .299; Winfield .288; Schmidt .273, Reggie .259.

Rice also played in a similar amount of games than his counterparts. Rice 1766; Murray 1800 (assuming he played 150 games in the 2 years missing, which was his norm); Winfield 1763; Schmidt 1800; Reggie 1631; and Brett 1595.

Now, Rice did have more AB's and plate appearances in this period, but he still killed it in hits, accumulating 200 hits 4 times. Brett did it twice. No other player was close. Winfield did have 193 hits in his 1984 season in which he hit .340. Rice also had 191 hits in 1983.

As much is said about Rice's lack of longevity, not much is said about Brett's brittleness during his prime years. In these 12 seasons, Brett played at least 140 games only 5 times. All of the other players were very durable in comparison. Rice did have his wrist broken (again) in 1980, which is why he only appeared in 124 games.

The end result is that no matter how you want to look at it, Rice was at least on par or better than his counterparts during this 12 year period. Better in more instances than not.

The argument against his longevity seems like sour grapes by a lot of people that just want to benefit players who played longer but didn't necessarily have the league dominance.

I would rather be the best or among the best for 12 seasons, than considered very good over 18 seasons, but never dominating my league.

Just to qualify that, I think all of these guys were great hitters. Guys like Schmidt and Reggie dominated their time in the game and were very feared hitters. Murray didn't have that dominance, but was always among the best in his league. George Brett could hit not like many around during his time.

I just think Rice needs to be brought into the conversation with these players.

I think you are either a geat hitter or you are not. It doesn't matter how many years you played.

An example: I don't think Don Mattingly is HOF worthy, but I still have to admit the guy was a great hitter. He just didn't last long.

Wow, I totally left out Reggie in my 1975-1987 analysis.

Jackson: .259/.350/.483, 131 OPS+
Rice: .302/.356/.514, 132 OPS+

Looks like an edge to Rice until you realize that this timeframe contained Reggie's entire decline phase (he hit .227/.328/.411 with a 102 OPS+ over his last 5 seasons). So even a horribly declining Reggie was nearly as good as Jim Rice.

You're also horribly wrong about Murray. He was absolutely considered a dominant hitter during his prime.

As for the bolded statement, Mattingly is an excellent comparison. Mattingly had some great seasons, but was not a "great hitter" for his career. Just like Rice.

 

[rokketmn]

In all fairness to Winfield, he played 6 of those 12 seasons in San Diego, and the splits give you an idea of how much that ballpark may have hurt him...park factors also show Qualcomm as an extreme pitchers' park those years

His HR rates were not that much lower in the Murph vs Yankee Stadium (3.6% vs 4%). He also enjoyed his career high in RBI in SD as well as 2 of his 4 .300+ average seasons, and his highest OPS.

You could also see that though Winfield had a .312 average in Fenway, he only hit 7 Hr's in nearly 300 AB's there. His rates were higher to much higher in just about every other ballpark. Fenway did not suit his HR swing, much like Rice's, as they were both heavy line drive hitters.

 

[DragonfromTO]

His HR rates were not that much lower in the Murph vs Yankee Stadium (3.6% vs 4%). He also enjoyed his career high in RBI in SD as well as 2 of his 4 .300+ average seasons, and his highest OPS.

You could also see that though Winfield had a .312 average in Fenway, he only hit 7 Hr's in nearly 300 AB's there. His rates were higher to much higher in just about every other ballpark. Fenway did not suit his HR swing, much like Rice's, as they were both heavy line drive hitters.

But unlike Winfield Rice's HR rates weren't higher in other ballparks, they were higher in Fenway. Is it also not possible that Winfield's numbers are somewhat reflective of how he hit the Red Sox pitching staff rather than how the park suited him, since they were the only pitchers he faced at Fenway? Whereas Rice faced everyone in the AL there.

 

[rokketmn]

But unlike Winfield Rice's HR rates weren't higher in other ballparks, they were higher in Fenway. Is it also not possible that Winfield's numbers are somewhat reflective of how he hit the Red Sox pitching staff rather than how the park suited him, since they were the only pitchers he faced at Fenway? Whereas Rice faced everyone in the AL there.

I would expect a guy to hit more Hr's at a better rate in a place he is more comfortable. Nevertheless, these are Rice's HR rates at the other AL parks:

Fenway: 5.1%
Anaheim: 3.75
Arlington: 2.75
Memorial: 4.59
Comiskey: 2.64
Municipal: 5.14
Tiger Stadium: 4.59
Royals Stadium: 1.83
County: 2.25
Metropolitan: 2.92
Metrodome: 6.25
Yankee Stadium: 7.86
Oakland Col.:4.24
Kingdome: 5.08
Exhibition Stadium: 6.12


I would say Arlington, Comiskey, Royals Stadium, County, and Metropolitan gave him some trouble. He had good rates in every other ballpark.

His career HR rate was 4.66%, so he hit just above that at Fenway (5.1%).

 

[redseat]

right now.
He is the #1

who would you take over him in the game now??
if you say trout I will slap you....

don't forget . he is hurting right now. He has been clutch in the 2 games with the Yankees this weekend. been clutch all year.

they thing people who don't watch him play every day don't know..He hardly ever pulls the ball. he smashes his homers dead center or right center almost every time.

This could work against him in the "greatest hitter ever" scenerio. a Truly GREAT hitter can hit to ALL sides of the park. Currently in today's MLB YES I would consider him the best... But NOT the best ever

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I would expect a guy to hit more Hr's at a better rate in a place he is more comfortable. Nevertheless, these are Rice's HR rates at the other AL parks:

Fenway: 5.1%
Anaheim: 3.75
Arlington: 2.75
Memorial: 4.59
Comiskey: 2.64
Municipal: 5.14
Tiger Stadium: 4.59
Royals Stadium: 1.83
County: 2.25
Metropolitan: 2.92
Metrodome: 6.25
Yankee Stadium: 7.86
Oakland Col.:4.24
Kingdome: 5.08
Exhibition Stadium: 6.12


I would say Arlington, Comiskey, Royals Stadium, County, and Metropolitan gave him some trouble. He had good rates in every other ballpark.

His career HR rate was 4.66%, so he hit just above that at Fenway (5.1%).

That's not as close as it appears, considering he had half his career plate appearances at Fenway. It's the largest sample by over 4000 plate appearances.

Rice didn't hit an absurdly high percentage of his homers at Fenway or anything, but this comparison really isn't apples to apples.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

This could work against him in the "greatest hitter ever" scenerio. a Truly GREAT hitter can hit to ALL sides of the park. Currently in today's MLB YES I would consider him the best... But NOT the best ever

Is this a serious comment? You think Cabrera can't pull the ball? It's actually easier to pull the ball than hit it where it's pitched.

His spray chart is very balanced. Of the balls he's put in play this season, his distribution is: 106 pulled, 190 middle, 75 other way.

 

[rokketmn]

Looks like an edge to Rice until you realize that this timeframe contained Reggie's entire decline phase (he hit .227/.328/.411 with a 102 OPS+ over his last 5 seasons). So even a horribly declining Reggie was nearly as good as Jim Rice.

You're also horribly wrong about Murray. He was absolutely considered a dominant hitter during his prime.

For Reggie's 2 worst seasons in that time frame, I gave him his stats from 1969 and 1973, which were his 2 best seasons of his career. I think that more than makes up the difference. He barely edges Rice in Hr's, and falls short everywhere else. Battng average is not even close.

As for Murray, I said he was among the best players in the league for most or all of his seasons. I just didn't think he was the BEST player in any one of his seasons.

Also, for the purposes of my analysis, I gave Murray credit for his 2 best seasons of his prime to account for him not being in the league in 1975 and 1976. I think it is fair to use his rookie season of 1977, since I am using Rice's of 1975. That means I am double-counting his 2 best seasons in my 12 year comparison. Again, I think that is more than fair.

Using your own words, you say that Murray was a dominant hitter during his prime, but when everything is laid out for you, and Rice shows up better (and against other "greats), you don't extend Rice that same courtesy. Instead, you choose to hold his lack of longevity against him.

Even if you want to do that, it doesn't change the FACT that Rice was a great hitter during his prime. You can keep your argument against him being an "All Time Great Hitter", because he didn't do it long enough in your opinion, for whatever that's worth.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

For Reggie's 2 worst seasons in that time frame, I gave him his stats from 1969 and 1973, which were his 2 best seasons of his career. I think that more than makes up the difference. He barely edges Rice in Hr's, and falls short everywhere else. Battng average is not even close.

As for Murray, I said he was among the best players in the league for most or all of his seasons. I just didn't think he was the BEST player in any one of his seasons.

Also, for the purposes of my analysis, I gave Murray credit for his 2 best seasons of his prime to account for him not being in the league in 1975 and 1976. I think it is fair to use his rookie season of 1977, since I am using Rice's of 1975. That means I am double-counting his 2 best seasons in my 12 year comparison. Again, I think that is more than fair.

Using your own words, you say that Murray was a dominant hitter during his prime, but when everything is laid out for you, and Rice shows up better (and against other "greats), you don't extend Rice that same courtesy. Instead, you choose to hold his lack of longevity against him.

Even if you want to do that, it doesn't change the FACT that Rice was a great hitter during his prime. You can keep your argument against him being an "All Time Great Hitter", because he didn't do it long enough in your opinion, for whatever that's worth.

"Falls short everywhere else". Except, ya know, the most important stats, OBP, SLG, OPS+, etc.

Rice also doesn't "show up better" than Murray. During the entire span of Rice's peak, Murray was better, then continued to be better into his late 30s. Rice may have had a few individual seasons where he was better, but over the length of the time period, Murray was better. End of story.

Again, you keep acting as though I said Rice never had great years. He obviously did. But having 5 great seasons in your career doesn't make you a great hitter for your career. They weren't even lumped together. There were 3 great years in the late 70s, then another in 83 then another in 86. Maybe if they were clustered together more, I'd be more willing to call him a great hitter, but he had too many unspectacular seasons in between. A career is a sum of all the parts, not just the highlights. Great hitters aren't as inconsistent as Rice was.

 

[rokketmn]

That's not as close as it appears, considering he had half his career plate appearances at Fenway. It's the largest sample by over 4000 plate appearances.

Rice didn't hit an absurdly high percentage of his homers at Fenway or anything, but this comparison really isn't apples to apples.

Of course he had a large disparity of AB's in Fenway compared to everywhere else. The data just shows that he wasn't just a guy that was able to hit HR's in his home park.

I would expect his rates to drop in Yankee Stadium, Exhibition, etc with many more AB's, but maybe his numbers in Arlington, County, etc, go up with more exposure.

Anyway, the original point of all of this was StanMarsh's comment that Winfield was hurt by the Murph. He really wasn't.

I then made a comment about Winfield's rate in Fenway, and that it was low compared to the other stadiums, yet his average was as high or higher than anywhere else. My conclusion was that Winfield lost Hr's in Fenway because of his swing and padded his average, much like Rice.

This is all about Rice losing Hr's to the Green Monster. I think if Rice lost 3-5 Hr's per season in Fenway then he would add about 50-80 hr's to his career total. My guess is that if Rice finished his career with 430-450 Hr's at a time when players weren't juicing, he gets into the HOF a lot sooner than he did.

 

[soxfan1468927]

In 1961 Koufax broke Christy Mathewson's modern NL record. 61 to 66 is 6 years.

What record did he break? And yes I know how many years it is. I guess you can add '61 (top 5 in ERA+, top 4 in IP) but 1962 he finished 28th in the NL with only 184 IP and 1964 he finished 13th.

1963, 1965, and 1966 were his truly phenomenal/all-time great seasons.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Anyway, the original point of all of this was StanMarsh's comment that Winfield was hurt by the Murph. He really wasn't.

I then made a comment about Winfield's rate in Fenway, and that it was low compared to the other stadiums, yet his average was as high or higher than anywhere else. My conclusion was that Winfield lost Hr's in Fenway because of his swing and padded his average, much like Rice.

This is all about Rice losing Hr's to the Green Monster. I think if Rice lost 3-5 Hr's per season in Fenway then he would add about 50-80 hr's to his career total. My guess is that if Rice finished his career with 430-450 Hr's at a time when players weren't juicing, he gets into the HOF a lot sooner than he did.

He absolutely, irrefutably was. He was a .271/.346/.445 hitter at the Murph. He also hit at the Murph in 17.8% of his plate appearances (his second highest total to Yankee Stadium, where he had 20.5% of his plate appearances). His career numbers were .283/.353/.475. Somewhat luckily, Winfield moved around quite a bit, so he didn't accumulate a disproportionate number of at-bats at the Murph, so the damage could have been much worse had he stayed with the Padres. He actually never played in the NL again, which even spared him from having to return there on road trips (and to the Astrodome

Baseball-reference has a stat called tOPS+. This statistic weighs an individual hitter's performance against his own career averages relative to a particular park. Winfield's tOPS+ in the Murph was 92, which shows that the Murph dragged his career OPS down rather significantly once you account for the fact he had the 2nd most plate appearances at that park.

You clearly don't understand the concept of sample sizes and how they impact rate statistics. You can't compare sample sizes that vary by thousands of plate appearances.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Anyway, the original point of all of this was StanMarsh's comment that Winfield was hurt by the Murph. He really wasn't.

Sure he was.

His career SLG in San Diego was .445, and everywhere else it was .481. His HR rate was a HR every 27.4 at bats in SD, and 23.0 at bats elsewhere.

And that's with him playing some of his prime years in San Diego

 

[redseat]

Is this a serious comment? You think Cabrera can't pull the ball? It's actually easier to pull the ball than hit it where it's pitched.

His spray chart is very balanced. Of the balls he's put in play this season, his distribution is: 106 pulled, 190 middle, 75 other way.

I was just responding to the poster about who mentioned doesn't pull it much that's all. Of course he can pull it!

 

[rokketmn]

"Falls short everywhere else". Except, ya know, the most important stats, OBP, SLG, OPS+, etc.

Rice had a higher SLG in that period even when I substituted Reggie's 1973 and 1969 for his 2 worst SLG seasons.

Reggie comes out with a slightly higher OBP.

Reggie doesn't come close in batting average, but I know that stat is meaningless to you. It is just the rest of the world that is missing your point. Still, I get it. I just don't put as much emphasis on OBP as you do. It is also a stat that has its flaws, as I see it as more important for a top of the order guy than a middle of the order guy paid to drive runs in. It also has to be taken into the context of how a player performs in individual games and situations. A walk is not as good as a hit in every situation. You seem to think it is.

Also, what about Reggie's tremendous K rate?

You love this OPS+ stat even though it is very flawed, and I have thoroughly outlined that in another post.



You call Murray's prime seasons "dominant", and Murray himself, "great" over the "prime seasons" of his career, yet when Rice's numbers are proven better over their same "PRIME" years, you can't admit Rice was also dominant and great. Seems like a LOT of bias going on there.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Rice had a higher SLG in that period even when I substituted Reggie's 1973 and 1969 for his 2 worst SLG seasons.

Reggie comes out with a slightly higher OBP.

Reggie doesn't come close in batting average, but I know that stat is meaningless to you. It is just the rest of the world that is missing your point. Still, I get it. I just don't put as much emphasis on OBP as you do. It is also a stat that has its flaws, as I see it as more important for a top of the order guy than a middle of the order guy paid to drive runs in. It also has to be taken into the context of how a player performs in individual games and situations. A walk is not as good as a hit in every situation. You seem to think it is.

Also, what about Reggie's tremendous K rate?

You love this OPS+ stat even though it is very flawed, and I have thoroughly outlined that in another post.



You call Murray's prime seasons "dominant", and Murray himself, "great" over the "prime seasons" of his career, yet when Rice's numbers are proven better over their same "PRIME" years, you can't admit Rice was also dominant and great. Seems like a LOT of bias going on there.

How exactly did you substitute Reggie's slugging?

 

[nynasty]

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.

Rice hit more HR in Fenway than he did on the road in less career ABs. Seems his power stroke liked Fenway just fine.

He was a good hitter, but his overall career is largely propped up by what he did in Fenway (.920 career OPS)

On the road, he was pretty ordinary (.789 OPS)

 

[rokketmn]

You clearly don't understand the concept of sample sizes and how they impact rate statistics. You can't compare sample sizes that vary by thousands of plate appearances.

Oh, I do. As I said, Rice's rates could have dropped with more AB's in the stadiums he had better rates in, and gone up in the stadiums he didn't. Didn't you read that part?

What you don't realize or can't understand is that if Winfield was such a poor hitter at the Murph, then why were his final 3 seasons (4 if you include 1977) so good? Could it be that he just developed into a better hitter as he got more experience? Sure looks like it. It happens to a lot of players. All of his stats took a jump in 1977.

Winfield's OPS in 1977-1980 was no different than an OPS he produced in any of his other peak seasons throughout his career. Even with the Yankees his OPS ranged from .800-.927, which matched those OPS seasons of 1977-1980 in range. He also produced his 2nd best HR total and best RBI total in 1979.

The argument he was hurt by the Murph is simply not true.