Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[rokketmn]

How exactly did you substitute Reggie's slugging?

I took his SLG numbers from 1969 and 1973 and substituted them for those in his 1983 and 1986 seasons. I did that with his Hr's, RBI, and total bases as well, substituting them for his lowert totals in those seasons in that period.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I took his SLG numbers from 1969 and 1973 and substituted them for those in his 1983 and 1986 seasons. I did that with his Hr's, RBI, and total bases as well, substituting them for his lowert totals in those seasons in that period.

Okay if you did that correctly Jackson's slugging percentage should have been .518 and not .509 like you claimed. Really though, Jackson's 1984 should be replaced instead of 1986, he had significantly lower rate stats in 1984. Here is how Jackson's slash line would look compared to Rice if you replaced those years correctly:

.273/.370/.520/.890 for Jackson
.304/.356/.520/.876 for Rice

 

[rokketmn]

Okay if you did that correctly Jackson's slugging percentage should have been .518 and not .509 like you claimed. Really though, Jackson's 1984 should be replaced instead of 1986, he had significantly lower rate stats in 1984. Here is how Jackson's slash line would look compared to Rice if you replaced those years correctly:

.273/.370/.520/.890 for Jackson
.304/.356/.520/.876 for Rice

I think you're right. I remember .518 when I did it the second time. At the time of the first post, I must have substituted for a different number in a different season.

I don't even care so much how these numbers show. Rice still shows either better, close, or on par with all of these players. It is not that I am saying Murray, Jackson, Schmidt, etc weren't great players. I AM saying they were great and have never said otherwise.

I am just saying that Rice has to be given the same consideration, no matter how many or few years he played. He led the league in most, if not all major categories from 1975-1986, and many were for all of MLB.

The issue is that some people on here have argued so much the other way that their pride will not let them admit the obvious conclusion at this point.

Example: if Murray = great hitter for his prime and Murray < or = Rice in his prime, then how can Rice not be considered great also? It's actually simple math.

To say he wasn't a great hitter is laughable.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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

It's not and you haven't. It's probably the single most accepted sabermetric stat. Even old timers use it. You just don't like it in this argument because it tells you want you don't want to admit.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I took his SLG numbers from 1969 and 1973 and substituted them for those in his 1983 and 1986 seasons. I did that with his Hr's, RBI, and total bases as well, substituting them for his lowert totals in those seasons in that period.

How did you substitute those seasons? How did you compute the effect on his rate stats? I'm genuinely curious. Baseball-reference doesn't let you do it. How did you randomly remove those two seasons from the time frame and insert the other two? Is there another website I'm unaware of, or did you put it all in a massive spreadsheet?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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

So because he had three great seasons in the midst of his prime at the Murph means it didn't hurt his numbers? Then why are his splits there so far below his career averages?

I've never seen a person so willing to change their stance in the face of irrefutable factual evidence. It's astounding. Dude, it's okay to admit you are wrong, or better yet, to alter your opinion to a more informed, objective position. I do it every day.

All you're doing here is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Okay if you did that correctly Jackson's slugging percentage should have been .518 and not .509 like you claimed. Really though, Jackson's 1984 should be replaced instead of 1986, he had significantly lower rate stats in 1984. Here is how Jackson's slash line would look compared to Rice if you replaced those years correctly:

.273/.370/.520/.890 for Jackson
.304/.356/.520/.876 for Rice

I figured he didn't calculate it correctly.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I think you're right. I remember .518 when I did it the second time. At the time of the first post, I must have substituted for a different number in a different season.

I don't even care so much how these numbers show. Rice still shows either better, close, or on par with all of these players. It is not that I am saying Murray, Jackson, Schmidt, etc weren't great players. I AM saying they were great and have never said otherwise.

I am just saying that Rice has to be given the same consideration, no matter how many or few years he played. He led the league in most, if not all major categories from 1975-1986, and many were for all of MLB.

The issue is that some people on here have argued so much the other way that their pride will not let them admit the obvious conclusion at this point.

Example: if Murray = great hitter for his prime and Murray < or = Rice in his prime, then how can Rice not be considered great also? It's actually simple math.

To say he wasn't a great hitter is laughable.

Because Murray was not </= Rice in his prime. He was >.

And it's important to note that we've been analyzing them based on the most advantageous time frame to Rice. When you analyze them through a similar number of PAs, the other hitters are clearly better, or better yet, if we analyze the other hitters based off their 12 best seasons (like we have Rice), they become even better.

For the umpteenth time: No one is saying Rice didn't have stretches where he was a great hitter. They just weren't long enough stretches, and he had sporadic gaps in his performance. Great hitters don't do that. It's okay to have an off year once in a while, but Rice seemed to have an off year almost every other years. Rice was great in a few select seasons, and even put together a string of 3 in a row, but over his career, he simply can't be considered a great hitter.

 

[rokketmn]

It's not and you haven't. It's probably the single most accepted sabermetric stat. Even old timers use it. You just don't like it in this argument because it tells you want you don't want to admit.

I have, but I am not going to get into that again. It was too long a post.

As for your second point? What does it really matter? Even if it is the holy grail of baseball statistics, it doesn't change the fact that Rice out-produced these other great hitters during their time together. You even admitted it is not the perfect stat. It has real flaws.

You point to OPS+, when Rice had similar, better, or not much less numbers in Bavg, SLG, HR, Runs, RBI, and total bases. You know, those ancient stats.

Somehow OPS+ throws all of that out the window in just one stat? That is one amazing stat. And why? Because Rice didn't walk as many times as somebody else?

I showed that Brett essentially walked 1 more time every 2 weeks than Rice over their careers.

To quote Crash Davis, the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is essentially 1 hit per week.There are very fine lines in the game.

The sabermetric stats try to account for everything, but they don't, and can't. The game is a situation to situation and at bat to at bat type of game. The bottom line is scoring more runs or preventing fewer. Those that accomplish this the best are the ones that should be revered.

Sugar coating stats with a walk when what you need is a hit to score a run or win a game does not determine a better hitter.

If I am the Yankees and Robinson Cano is up with a runner on second base in the ninth inning down a run, I want him to get a hit and score the run himself. I don't want him taking close pitches and draw a walk so Vernon Wells comes to the plate.

Of course, this is all in context. He can't be free swinging at pitches way out of the zone, but if there is a pitch close that he can handle, I want my run producer putting bat to ball.

You claim these situations don't happen often, and they don't. They are a small percentage of a player's at bats. But, these few at bats often decide games.

A walk is not always as good as a hit. A lot depends on who is coming up next; how many outs there are; the pitcher on the mound; is he tired?; who is in the other team's bullpen?; etc.

That can't be measured by a stat that treats every plate appearance the same as any other.

Very flawed indeed....

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I have, but I am not going to get into that again. It was too long a post.

As for your second point? What does it really matter? Even if it is the holy grail of baseball statistics, it doesn't change the fact that Rice out-produced these other great hitters during their time together. You even admitted it is not the perfect stat. It has real flaws.

You point to OPS+, when Rice had similar, better, or not much less numbers in Bavg, SLG, HR, Runs, RBI, and total bases. You know, those ancient stats.

Somehow OPS+ throws all of that out the window in just one stat? That is one amazing stat. And why? Because Rice didn't walk as many times as somebody else?

I showed that Brett essentially walked 1 more time every 2 weeks than Rice over their careers.

To quote Crash Davis, the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is essentially 1 hit per week.There are very fine lines in the game.

The sabermetric stats try to account for everything, but they don't, and can't. The game is a situation to situation and at bat to at bat type of game. The bottom line is scoring more runs or preventing fewer. Those that accomplish this the best are the ones that should be revered.

Sugar coating stats with a walk when what you need is a hit to score a run or win a game does not determine a better hitter.

If I am the Yankees and Robinson Cano is up with a runner on second base in the ninth inning down a run, I want him to get a hit and score the run himself. I don't want him taking close pitches and draw a walk so Vernon Wells comes to the plate.

Of course, this is all in context. He can't be free swinging at pitches way out of the zone, but if there is a pitch close that he can handle, I want my run producer putting bat to ball.

You claim these situations don't happen often, and they don't. They are a small percentage of a player's at bats. But, these few at bats often decide games.

A walk is not always as good as a hit. A lot depends on who is coming up next; how many outs there are; the pitcher on the mound; is he tired?; who is in the other team's bullpen?; etc.

That can't be measured by a stat that treats every plate appearance the same as any other.

Very flawed indeed....

OPS+ is no more flawed than most other universally accepted statistics. Not one stat is perfect, that's why you have to look at all of them, though some certainly carry more weight than others. OPS+ carries damn near the most weight when evaluating a hitter's overall performance.

 

[rokketmn]

I've never seen a person so willing to change their stance in the face of irrefutable factual evidence.

Tell me about it. I know, and my evidence is actual something you can point to and was not conjured up by Harry Potter and his friends.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Tell me about it. I know, and my evidence is actual something you can point to and was not conjured up by Harry Potter and his friends.

I really haven't seen much evidence from you. You've thoroughly stated the triple crown stats and other outdated measures as well as your personal opinion as a Red Sox fan, but that doesn't go very far.

I'm not a fan of the Harry Potter analogy. I'm more a fan of the flat earth/round earth analogy. Have you actually seen the evil sea serpents living at the edges of the planet?

 

[rokketmn]

I really haven't seen much evidence from you. You've thoroughly stated the triple crown stats and other outdated measures as well as your personal opinion as a Red Sox fan, but that doesn't go very far.

And what have you provided? A stat that doesn't properly account for ballpark home run factors, one that treats every at bat the same no matter the situation, and one that treats walkis the same as hits, no matter the situation.

Seems kinda sketchy.

At least my archaeic stats are something you can actually see. Remember, the name of the game is producing runs.

If my guy gets a groundout with a runner on 3rd to drive in a run, that is one for me. Your guy gets a walk with a runner on 3rd, and the next guy hits into a DP. No run.

In this scenario, you denigrate my guy and his "rbi" because he really didn't do anything to deserve that RBI , in your opinion (and other sabrmetricians). Your guy is the cat's meow because he drew a walk, and increased his OBP and OPS, and OPS+. Seems like real baseball to me. LOL.

Stats can work anyway you want them to.

 

[StanMarsh51]

At least my archaeic stats are something you can actually see. Remember, the name of the game is producing runs.

If my guy gets a groundout with a runner on 3rd to drive in a run, that is one for me. Your guy gets a walk with a runner on 3rd, and the next guy hits into a DP. No run.

In this scenario, you denigrate my guy and his "rbi" because he really didn't do anything to deserve that RBI , in your opinion (and other sabrmetricians). Your guy is the cat's meow because he drew a walk, and increased his OBP and OPS, and OPS+. Seems like real baseball to me. LOL.

Stats can work anyway you want them to.

Then again, how about this example which we do see:

Player A singles
Player B doubles, moving player A to 3rd
Player C gets a sac fly, scoring player A

Presuming player B doesn't score, he gets neither an RBI or run in the inning...but was he not a major contributor to the run?

 

[steveringo]

If my guy gets a groundout with a runner on 3rd to drive in a run, that is one for me. Your guy gets a walk with a runner on 3rd, and the next guy hits into a DP. No run.

In this scenario, you denigrate my guy and his "rbi" because he really didn't do anything to deserve that RBI , in your opinion (and other sabrmetricians). Your guy is the cat's meow because he drew a walk, and increased his OBP and OPS, and OPS+. Seems like real baseball to me. LOL.
.

I hate to jump in at the end of a discussion, but did someone say this?

 

[JR Hart]

I have, but I am not going to get into that again. It was too long a post.

As for your second point? What does it really matter? Even if it is the holy grail of baseball statistics, it doesn't change the fact that Rice out-produced these other great hitters during their time together. You even admitted it is not the perfect stat. It has real flaws.

You point to OPS+, when Rice had similar, better, or not much less numbers in Bavg, SLG, HR, Runs, RBI, and total bases. You know, those ancient stats.

Somehow OPS+ throws all of that out the window in just one stat? That is one amazing stat. And why? Because Rice didn't walk as many times as somebody else?

I showed that Brett essentially walked 1 more time every 2 weeks than Rice over their careers.

To quote Crash Davis, the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is essentially 1 hit per week.There are very fine lines in the game.

The sabermetric stats try to account for everything, but they don't, and can't. The game is a situation to situation and at bat to at bat type of game. The bottom line is scoring more runs or preventing fewer. Those that accomplish this the best are the ones that should be revered.

Sugar coating stats with a walk when what you need is a hit to score a run or win a game does not determine a better hitter.

If I am the Yankees and Robinson Cano is up with a runner on second base in the ninth inning down a run, I want him to get a hit and score the run himself. I don't want him taking close pitches and draw a walk so Vernon Wells comes to the plate.

Of course, this is all in context. He can't be free swinging at pitches way out of the zone, but if there is a pitch close that he can handle, I want my run producer putting bat to ball.

You claim these situations don't happen often, and they don't. They are a small percentage of a player's at bats. But, these few at bats often decide games.

A walk is not always as good as a hit. A lot depends on who is coming up next; how many outs there are; the pitcher on the mound; is he tired?; who is in the other team's bullpen?; etc.

That can't be measured by a stat that treats every plate appearance the same as any other.

Very flawed indeed....

Great post

walking is the new holy grail.....

....even though the other team many times wants good hitters to walk.

 

[JR Hart]

Then again, how about this example which we do see:

Player A singles
Player B doubles, moving player A to 3rd
Player C gets a sac fly, scoring player A

Presuming player B doesn't score, he gets neither an RBI or run in the inning...but was he not a major contributor to the run?

He got a double, 2 total bases, a hit, he raised his batting ave, slugging pct, and obp. Those are all good stats that he will be credited for.

 

[rokketmn]

I hate to jump in at the end of a discussion, but did someone say this?

Maybe not in those exact words, but that was pretty much said in one of the earlier posts on this topic. Probably something like post #150 or 160, give or take a dozen.

Anyway, my counterpart in the debate said that RBI's are overrated in determining a player's value. I do see the logic in that because you can generate an RBI without a hit, but the name of the game is driving in runs, and it's all about the context of the situation. Personally, I want that guy that can get the run home any way he can.

Situation: man on 3rd and 1 out;#8 hitter at the plate and the pitcher is on deck. Batter hits a weak grounder to 2nd and the run scores.

The batter made an out, but it was a productive out. He may have even swung at a bad pitch, but he wanted that ball in play to score the run, so the weaker hitters didn't leave him stranded.

Sabermetrics tells us that the player was better off taking a walk, because he increases his OBP, OPS, and OPS+.

Meanwhile, in real baseball we do what we can to get the run home.

 

[broncosmitty]

Watch out, the stat monkeys, and their acne, will find you.

 

[rokketmn]

Watch out, the stat monkeys, and their acne, will find you.

I thought about that, but if they left their mom's basement they might encounter a girl on the way to my house and be frightened away.

Is Sabermetrics the new Scientology?