Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[soxfan1468927]

I think I did glance at it the other day. This may shock some (especially IMSmarter), but I thought Trout should have won the MVP last season. Not because I don't value the Triple Crown stats, but because Trout was the better defender and baserunner. I thought Cabrera was clearly the better hitter, but Trout was clearly the better player, IMO.

I think some underestimate what speed can do to a pitcher, catcher, and defense.

Well so far (3 ballots) Trout has all the first place votes, I would very much value your opinion. From what you've said about Rice and the 70s, I know I'm not as old as you are (the earliest full season I can remember is 1993) so I'm going to be relying completely on statistics beyond that point. You seem to have more of a firsthand account which I value. So you and JR Hart should definitely submit ballots.

 

[rokketmn]

The reason Rice got MVP votes is because he had good Triple Crown numbers, which voters salivated over, and because his teams finished high in the standings (thanks mainly to the deep, quality teams the Sox had those years). He legitimately deserved the MVP in 1978, but otherwise, his MVP voting tallies are skewed by the voters' love of flawed statistics.

This is a comment you posted early on in the debate. You also made many other comments along these lines during the conversation.

What you are clearly saying is that the Triple Crown stats are overrated. You actually call them flawed. Therefore, by your own words, you have said that batting average, HR's, and RBI are not good indicators as to the quality of player.

This is what happens when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. You said it, I found it, and as I said, you said it many other times.

I don't need to twist words and go against original comments to win an argument.

 

[soxfan1468927]

This is a comment you posted early on in the debate. You also made many other comments along these lines during the conversation.

What you are clearly saying is that the Triple Crown stats are overrated. You actually call them flawed. Therefore, by your own words, you have said that batting average, HR's, and RBI are not good indicators as to the quality of player.

This is what happens when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. You said it, I found it, and as I said, you said it many other times.

I don't need to twist words and go against original comments to win an argument.

Smarther: Triple Crown statistics are flawed
You: Smarther is claiming that Triple Crown statistics are not good indicators as to the quality of a player
You: If a guy grounds out with a runner on third, you claim he "didn't do anything to deserve that RBI"

So you actually have twisted words and put words in someone's mouth. Saying something is not a good indicator of the quality of a player because the statistic is flawed is not the same as saying a player does nothing to deserve an RBI.

Either way, your situation (runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs) comes up in roughly 7-8% of plate appearances in an entire career.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Actually, I don't. I re-hash what other people say. I really didn't want to have to find that comment in all of these posts.

It is you that contradict yourself with such statements that Eddie Murray was a great hitter in his prime, and yet don't give Rice that same consideration when his stats were better.

The stats I showed for Murray encompassed his prime, and I even made up for the fact that he didn't break into the league until 1977 by using stats from his best seasons in his career. Thus, double-counting his BEST seasons in the comparison.

For RBI, I used his 1980 (116) and 1985 (124) totals twice. He still fell 21 RBI short of Rice.
For Hr's, I used his 1980 (32) and 1983 (33) totals twice. He still fell 10 Hr short of Rice.
For Hits, I used his 1980 (186) and 1990 (184) totals twice. He still fell 96 hits short of Rice.
For Slugging, I used his 1982 (.549) and 1983 (.538) totals twice. He still fell .004 points short.
For Total Bases, I used his 1980 (322) and 1983 (313) totals twice. He still fell 195 TB's short
For Avg, I used 1990 (.330) and 1995 (.323) totals. He still falls .002 short (.303 to .301).

What Murray did more than Rice (or better than) was walk. Even if you want to say because of that Murray was better overall, I will still disagree, but I won't argue it any longer because it is just your opinion.

But...when you say that Murray was a great hitter in his prime years and Rice is right along side him, you have to say Rice was also great for that same time.

You keep saying Rice had a few great seasons clustered together but didn't do it for his career. Well...from 1975 to 1986, Rice didn't drive in at least 100 runs only 4 times. One time was because of the strike in 1981. Another was in 1980 when he only played 124 games because he broke his wrist, and he still drove in 86 runs. In the other 2 seasons, he drove in 85 and 97 runs. It's pretty safe to say he would have driven in over 100 in 1980 and at least 90 in 1981 had he played a full season, given his career averages.

In that period, Rice never hit below .280. He hit .300 7 times, and above .290 2 more times. That is 9 of 12 seasons.

Other than the strike season of 1981, Rice never hit fewer than 20 HR's. His lowest totals were actually 22 in his rookie year of 1975 and 20 in his final good season in 1986. In between, he never hit fewer than 24. This is an era when hitting 20 hr's was considered good.

It seems to me that Murray's best seasons were also clustered together (1980-1985).

You're just penalizing Rice because when he had a great season, it was really GREAT, so everything else pales in comparison.

Murray's 162 game averages were: .287/87 runs/27 hr/103 rbi/.476 slg/.836 OPS
Rice's 162 game averages were: .298/97 runs/30 hr/113 rbi/.502 slg/.854 OPS

These averages pretty much coincide with what each did in the prime of their careers, so longevity wasn't the only issue.

Thank you very much.

Rice wasn't better. I've illustrated that numerous times. Rice had 5 great seasons. They were not all in a row. So his "prime" isn't the typical prime a player has. He had 5 prime seasons, but they were spread out. Murray, on the other hand, had 6 consecutive "prime" seasons from 1980-1985 where he was a great hitter. Then, he tacked on another great season in 1990, and had several other very good seasons between 1985 and 1990, and another very good season in 1995, and several other very good seasons before 1980. Murray was a good-to-great hitter for 18 years. Rice was a good-to-great hitter for 12 years.

During Rice's best stretch (1975-1986), he put up the following line:
.304/.356/.520, 133 OPS+, 162-game averages of 102 R, 33 HR, 118 RBI in 7754 PAs
Murray over that same stretch: .303/.375/.505, 143 OPS+, 96 R, 30 HR, 110 RBI in 6415 PAs (given that he didn't start until 1977).

That is the most favorable comparison for Rice you could possibly come up with, and it still looks like an edge to Murray to me. 10 points of OPS+ is a pretty big margin.

If you look at them through a similar number of plate appearances (9000 +/-):
Rice: .298/.352/.502, 128 OPS+, 97 R, 30 HR, 113 RBI
Murray: .294/.372/.494, 140 OPS+, 92 R, 29 HR, 105 RBI

Clear edge to Murray.

Since I looked at Rice's most favorable 12 year stretch (1975-1986), it's only right to do the same for Murray, no?
1977-1988: .295/.371/.500, 141 OPS+, 94 R, 30 HR, 108 RBI
Looks better to me, and that doesn't even include his MVP-caliber 1990 season.

You can't look at career averages when there's a difference of 4000 plate appearances between the two, which brings down Murray's averages down. It's not Murray's fault that Rice fell apart and that Murray remained an effective hitter for so long.

As I've said all along, Rice had great stretches, but he was not a great hitter for his career, was never the best hitter of a decade, and wasn't the best hitter in baseball during his 12-year peak. All you're giving me are raw counting totals. They lack context. 100 RBI is an arbitrary measuring stick. Rice was typically in better lineups, always had guys on base ahead of him (though Murray admittedly had his share of good OBP guys at the top of the order until the mid 80s), and played in a more hitter-friendly park. Murray played the bulk of his career in Municipal Stadium, Dodger Stadium and Shea Stadium, which were all notorious pitcher's parks that suppressed runs. Those precious RBI and R totals, which Rice barely has an edge in over most of these time frames, would have clearly gone in favor of Murray had he played his entire career in parks like Fenway Park. Murray clearly had better slash lines, so once you put it all into context, it's abundantly clear that Eddie Murray was a better hitter than Jim Rice no matter how you slice it, unless you stick your head in the sand and look only at outdated, context-free measures.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

This is a comment you posted early on in the debate. You also made many other comments along these lines during the conversation.

What you are clearly saying is that the Triple Crown stats are overrated. You actually call them flawed. Therefore, by your own words, you have said that batting average, HR's, and RBI are not good indicators as to the quality of player.

This is what happens when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. You said it, I found it, and as I said, you said it many other times.

I don't need to twist words and go against original comments to win an argument.

I know I said Triple Crown stats are overrated. Mainly because it's true. Why are those the stats that comprise the Triple Crown, when they're not the three best measures of a hitter? Seems arbitrary to me. Very impressive, but still arbitrary. Just because I called them overrated doesn't mean that I "denigrate" or completely devalue RBI. I also never said batting average was a bad stat. Both stats simply don't tell you enough. I also especially never said anything about HR, though HR totals are obviously dependent upon park. A HR is still the single best thing a hitter can do when he steps to the plate, but that doesn't mean the guy with more HR is the better hitter.

You claimed a number of things that never even approximately came out of my mouth, such as "denigrating" RBI. I understand that you're anti-SABR, but that doesn't mean you get to paint all people who appreciate those stats with the same broad brush. Just because I acknowledge advanced stats doesn't mean I completely ignore other stats. That's the problem with the flat-earth fans. You think just because someone like me prefers OBP, OPS+ or wOBA means I never even bother looking at AVG, RBI or Total Bases. It's actually quite the opposite. I look at all the stats to gain a full picture of how a hitter performed. People like yourself are the ones who ignore information, not me. And you happen to ignore information that is extremely valuable and is becoming more and more accepted by the day because people are learning and understanding how good those stats are. People who deny stats like OPS+ are becoming akin to people who deny evolution at this point. Why would you ignore information that gives us a better understanding of events?

 

[rokketmn]

During Rice's best stretch (1975-1986), he put up the following line:
.304/.356/.520, 133 OPS+, 162-game averages of 102 R, 33 HR, 118 RBI in 7754 PAs
Murray over that same stretch: .303/.375/.505, 143 OPS+, 96 R, 30 HR, 110 RBI in 6415 PAs (given that he didn't start until 1977).

You are ignoring that I gave Murray his BEST seasons twice in the comparison, so for 1975 and 1976 he got .330 and .323 averages, 33 and 32 hr's, 124 and 116 rbi, .549 and .538 SLG, 322 and 313 TB's. He even got further advantage because his high hits seasons didn't coincide with his highest average seasons, but I still gave him the highest of both in comparison to Rice.

Have fun with your OPS+. It just shows that Murray walked more, but he certainly didn't out hit, HR, RBI, score, SLG, or have more total bases than Rice for that period.

I do believe SABR stats have a place, but they are very flawed. I pointed that out already. They treat every at bat the same and that is not the case. They do not take HR factors into their park factor analysis. Lastly, (and I've said this many times), a walk is not always as good as a hit. SABR stats put extra empahasis on walks, without context of the situation.

Eddie Murray walked a little less than 1 more time per week than Rice, yet that carries great weight over a season and career in terms of OBP and OPS and OPS+. That is all you have for Murray over Rice. You can see that because even in your own comparison Rice has the higher average and slugging. You are just looking at OBP, and OPS+ is just an extension of that OBP. It looks like Murray bests him 2 ways, but his walks are double counted in the stats you chose.

As I said, 1 hit per week based on 500 AB's is the difference between hitting .250 and .300. So, walks carry similar weight when determining OBP, OPS, and OPS+. If I take two players that hit an identical .300 (150 hits in 500 ABs), and give one player 15 more walks, that means player A has an OBP of the same .300, but player B has an OBP of .320. That is quite a difference and essentially makes up your argument for Murray over Rice. One stat. Walks can be a big part of the game, but it is one stat that is heavily skewed by situation.

Just because Murray walks more doesn't make him a better hitter, especially when Rice bests him in every other category, including average. And, again, I don't care about Murray's longevity or decline phase. I picked stats from the prime of both of their careers, and even gave Murray stats from outside that range if it benefitted him.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You are ignoring that I gave Murray his BEST seasons twice in the comparison, so for 1975 and 1976 he got .330 and .323 averages, 33 and 32 hr's, 124 and 116 rbi, .549 and .538 SLG, 322 and 313 TB's. He even got further advantage because his high hits seasons didn't coincide with his highest average seasons, but I still gave him the highest of both in comparison to Rice.

Have fun with your OPS+. It just shows that Murray walked more, but he certainly didn't out hit, HR, RBI, score, SLG, or have more total bases than Rice for that period.

I do believe SABR stats have a place, but they are very flawed. I pointed that out already. They treat every at bat the same and that is not the case. They do not take HR factors into their park factor analysis. Lastly, (and I've said this many times), a walk is not always as good as a hit. SABR stats put extra empahasis on walks, without context of the situation.

Eddie Murray walked a little less than 1 more time per week than Rice, yet that carries great weight over a season and career in terms of OBP and OPS and OPS+. That is all you have for Murray over Rice. You can see that because even in your own comparison Rice has the higher average and slugging. You are just looking at OBP, and OPS+ is just an extension of that OBP. It looks like Murray bests him 2 ways, but his walks are double counted in the stats you chose.

As I said, 1 hit per week based on 500 AB's is the difference between hitting .250 and .300. So, walks carry similar weight when determining OBP, OPS, and OPS+. If I take two players that hit an identical .300 (150 hits in 500 ABs), and give one player 15 more walks, that means player A has an OBP of the same .300, but player B has an OBP of .320. That is quite a difference and essentially makes up your argument for Murray over Rice. One stat. Walks can be a big part of the game, but it is one stat that is heavily skewed by situation.

Just because Murray walks more doesn't make him a better hitter, especially when Rice bests him in every other category, including average. And, again, I don't care about Murray's longevity or decline phase. I picked stats from the prime of both of their careers, and even gave Murray stats from outside that range if it benefitted him.

You wrote all of this to say nothing. This argument simply isn't worth my time any more. It's not even the topic of the thread. I know I'm not going to change your mind, it's just a matter of trying to correct your mistakes at this point, and even that has become exhausting. You put an inordinate amount of value on secondary stats, refuse to accept stats that adjust for the drastic differences in their parks, and make sweeping generalizations and put words in peoples' mouths. Just not worth my time.

 

[rokketmn]

You wrote all of this to say nothing. This argument simply isn't worth my time any more. It's not even the topic of the thread. I know I'm not going to change your mind, it's just a matter of trying to correct your mistakes at this point, and even that has become exhausting. You put an inordinate amount of value on secondary stats, refuse to accept stats that adjust for the drastic differences in their parks, and make sweeping generalizations and put words in peoples' mouths. Just not worth my time.

That is hilarious.

I do agree it was not the topic of the thread. I just made an innocent comment and you tried to make me look foolish. I think we can see how that ended.

You say I put an inordinate amount of empahasis on secondary stats. I guess those "secondary stats" are batting average, HR, RBI, runs, SLG, and Total Bases.

Consequently, YOU put an inordinate amount of emphasis on OPS+. That is your whole driver in this debate. One stat, which in this comparison of Rice to Murray is entirely based on WALKS.

"Here endeth the lesson".

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

That is hilarious.

I do agree it was not the topic of the thread. I just made an innocent comment and you tried to make me look foolish. I think we can see how that ended.

You say I put an inordinate amount of empahasis on secondary stats. I guess those "secondary stats" are batting average, HR, RBI, runs, SLG, and Total Bases.

Consequently, YOU put an inordinate amount of emphasis on OPS+. That is your whole driver in this debate. One stat, which in this comparison of Rice to Murray is entirely based on WALKS.

"Here endeth the lesson".

I wasn't trying to make you look foolish. You did a fine job of that without my help.

And no that one stat isn't entirely based on walks. It's also based on the vast difference in the parks they played in. Murray played nearly his entire career in pitcher's parks, while Rice played his entire career in a hitters park. Walks just add to Murray's production.

 

[rokketmn]

I wasn't trying to make you look foolish. You did a fine job of that without my help.

Yeah, that is surely the way it looks.

I am having a blast.

I'm going to leave me desk right now and take a walk to the store. I need to boost my OPS+.

 

[rokketmn]

Stop the Presses!!!

I stand corrected. It does appear that I have been wrong all along about OPS+ and it's meaning in determining a better hitter.

I was just comparing Jim Rice to Ken Singleton. Rice had 500 more plate appearances, but only had 136 more Hr's, 386 more RBI, a .16 advantage (.298 to .282) in batting average, a .066 advantage (.502 to .436) in SLG, and a .03 advantage (.854 to .824) in OPS.

But...Singleton was the better hitter!! How can this be, you may ask? That doesn't make any sense. You are crazy, man!!

Well...Singleton had an OPS+ of 132, compared to Rice's 128. That's how!!

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Singleton walked nearly 600 more times in his career than Rice, and that boosted his OBP and OPS, and OPS+. Could it?

No freakin' way!!! OPS+ is the end all, be all indicator of a players hitting ability. To say such a thing would be devaluing the majesty of the stat. I'm sure all of those walks were important. He must have scored an absolute shitload of runs because of those walks.

Actually...he only scored above 90 or more runs (or was on pace) 3 times in his 15 seasons.

Ouch!

 

[luvthemeagl1]

best pure hitter today, no doubt. but this question is fairly stupid

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Stop the Presses!!!

I stand corrected. It does appear that I have been wrong all along about OPS+ and it's meaning in determining a better hitter.

I was just comparing Jim Rice to Ken Singleton. Rice had 500 more plate appearances, but only had 136 more Hr's, 386 more RBI, a .16 advantage (.298 to .282) in batting average, a .066 advantage (.502 to .436) in SLG, and a .03 advantage (.854 to .824) in OPS.

But...Singleton was the better hitter!! How can this be, you may ask? That doesn't make any sense. You are crazy, man!!

Well...Singleton had an OPS+ of 132, compared to Rice's 128. That's how!!

I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Singleton walked nearly 600 more times in his career than Rice, and that boosted his OBP and OPS, and OPS+. Could it?

No freakin' way!!! OPS+ is the end all, be all indicator of a players hitting ability. To say such a thing would be devaluing the majesty of the stat. I'm sure all of those walks were important. He must have scored an absolute shitload of runs because of those walks.

Actually...he only scored above 90 or more runs (or was on pace) 3 times in his 15 seasons.

Ouch!

Now resorting to strawman arguments. Like I said, not worth my time.

 

[rokketmn]

Now resorting to strawman arguments. Like I said, not worth my time.

Yet you keep reading. I guess you missed me.

I was just having so much fun, and since you are no longer engaging, I thought I would keep it going.

I was even thinking of writing a book titled "Fun with Sabermetrics".

I'm even enjoying these smiley faces!

 

[JR Hart]

Well so far (3 ballots) Trout has all the first place votes, I would very much value your opinion. From what you've said about Rice and the 70s, I know I'm not as old as you are (the earliest full season I can remember is 1993) so I'm going to be relying completely on statistics beyond that point. You seem to have more of a firsthand account which I value. So you and JR Hart should definitely submit ballots.

Cabrerra deserved the MVP. He won the Triple Crown. His team won the pennant. That's a good combination. Trout has a case, but Cabrerra is a better choice IMO.

 

[da55bums]

You wrote all of this to say nothing. This argument simply isn't worth my time any more. It's not even the topic of the thread. I know I'm not going to change your mind, it's just a matter of trying to correct your mistakes at this point, and even that has become exhausting. You put an inordinate amount of value on secondary stats, refuse to accept stats that adjust for the drastic differences in their parks, and make sweeping generalizations and put words in peoples' mouths. Just not worth my time.

who is putting more emphases on "secondary stats"? because some how someone really isn't getting what are secondary stats....like dp's, k's, walks, sacs...etc

Seems to me that, someone would rather be right than correct...worst thing in any debate...pride and ego...

guess we all can read the ID names to see who has the ego down.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm going to leave me desk right now and take a walk to the store. I need to boost my OPS+.

Hahahahahaha!

 

[cezero]

He's not even the best hitter of the past 20 years, much less "ever".

 

[1905 Giants]

Best Hitter? I think not

To Name A Few Better:
-Jimmie Foxx
-Ted Williams
-Stan Musial
-Joe Jackson
-Ty Cobb
-Clean Barry Bonds (if he was definitively ever clean)
-Babe Ruth
-Lou Gehrig
-Maybe Frank Thomas
-Willie Mays
-Mickey Mantle

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

who is putting more emphases on "secondary stats"? because some how someone really isn't getting what are secondary stats....like dp's, k's, walks, sacs...etc

Seems to me that, someone would rather be right than correct...worst thing in any debate...pride and ego...

guess we all can read the ID names to see who has the ego down.

Apparently, you can't.