Best ten years between Thomas and Ramirez, BRAA:

Thomas 88
Thomas 87
Thomas 82
Thomas 82
Thomas 77
Thomas 75
Thomas 74
Ramirez 65
Thomas 62
Ramirez 61

Yeah.

Anybody remember when nobody believed Pujols was as young as he said he was? Even Baseball Prospectus called shitbull. What happened to that rumor?

Manny, a great, great hitter, is going to be overrated in a few years. Many writers and fans in the Yankee media market will recall that he has been a complete and total wrecking ball against the Yanks for the length of his career, but it appears he's stepped it up to unreal levels in the last four or five years.

I recall a Yankee Game Chatter during which several people insisted that Ramirez was better than Thomas, with no real basis other than that they'd spent years being terrified of Ramirez, while the guy who didn't play for the Red Sox had never made an emotional impact on them.

I think what happens in Chatters should stay in Chatters. We fans, in the heat of the moment, often say things that we wouldn't in other threads.

That having been said, I think that the fact that Thomas didn't share a division with the Yankees when he was really great, combined with the fact that Boston has always had better lineup help for the big man than Chicago did, means that the Yanks were forced to deal with him in big situations far too often. Also, the Red Sox and Yankees have been generally very good in the Manny era.

I know they both have their issues, but isn't shouldn't Verducci have at least MENTIONED Mark McGwire or Dick Allen?

Frank Robinson? He too often gets overlooked, but he was a cut below Ramirez.

Not so fast. Robinson had the same career OPS+ (154-155) as Ramirez does now but in over 3000 more PA. Ramirez might get another 3000 PA but if he does, his OPS+ will decline. Ramirez played his whole career in a high-offense era (and in particular his stupendous RBI numbers in Cleveland have to read with that in mind); Robinson played through the mid-60's "little dead ball days"

In Hall of Merit history, Robinson is one of only two players ever to be a unanimous 2nd place finisher in a yearly election. (Robinson was eligible in the same year as Aaron; the other was Hornsby, eligible the same year as Ruth.)

Anybody remember when nobody believed Pujols was as young as he said he was? Even Baseball Prospectus called shitbull. What happened to that rumor?

Speaking of which, Pujols already has four years by BRAA better than any Manny season: 83, 71, 67, 66.

And Mike Schmidt wound up with 10000 PA and a 147 OPS+, which might not be too far from the neighborhood Ramirez ends up in, which of course makes Schmidt a far more valuable player.

And Verducci waves away Wagner as an inconvenience to his thesis that he'd rather not talk about. In the context of his own time, Wagner was a power hitter.

Number of times leading the league in SLG:

Wagner: 6 (and 2nd 3 times, and 3rd twice)
Foxx: 5 (with a 2nd and two 3rd)
Aaron: 4 (and 2nd 5 times, and 3rd 4 times)
Robinson: 4 (with a 2nd and many 4ths)
Schmidt: 5 (and 2nd twice, and 3rd twice)
McGwire: 4 (and 2nd twice)
Thomas: 1 (he was always more OBP-heavy)
Bagwell: 1
Belle: 2 (and 2nd once)

Ramirez: 4 (and 2nd once, and several 4ths)

One thing going on here with Schmidt in particular is that the standard deviation of most offensive statistics was smaller in his day - so he dominated with OPS+ numbers that would seem less dominant in a different time.

Yes, Ramirez is a great hitter; even with his dubious defensive value, he's a Hall of Famer. But Mr. Verducci: Honus Wagner was very much a slugger.

Manny, a great, great hitter, is going to be overrated in a few years. Many writers and fans in the Yankee media market will recall that he has been a complete and total wrecking ball against the Yanks for the length of his career,

Certainly true. Manny never finished even 2nd in the MVP voting, yes flawed a process as it is, but still noteworthy. It is not like he was chasing Bonds for his prime either, different leagues.

Frank Thomas, for about 4 years there 1993-1996, you knew he was up at bat, beer vendors paused to watch. McGwire had it from 1998-2001. Bonds 2001-current. Manny never had that, if you ask me.

On that note, has any pitcher ever maintained his dominance as long as Smoltz has? When I see him name in the probables line, I don't have to adjust my expectations from ace to former ace, like I did with Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, etc.....He is 41, had 10k's 0 BB today! When did he ever have his down years? Waiting....

Number of times leading the league in SLG:

Wagner: 6 (and 2nd 3 times, and 3rd twice)
Foxx: 5 (with a 2nd and two 3rd)
Aaron: 4 (and 2nd 5 times, and 3rd 4 times)
Robinson: 4 (with a 2nd and many 4ths)
Schmidt: 5 (and 2nd twice, and 3rd twice)
McGwire: 4 (and 2nd twice)
Thomas: 1 (he was always more OBP-heavy)
Bagwell: 1
Belle: 2 (and 2nd once)

Ramirez: 4 (and 2nd once, and several 4ths)

You kind of make it seem that Thomas was weak in Slugging. Manny and Frank both finished in the top 3 in slugging 4 times. Frank finished in the top 5 in slugging (7) times.

Thomas did slug .600 5 years in a row. It is not like he was just an OBP one trick pony. Bonds has that record w 7.

Ramirez: 4 (and 2nd once, and several 4ths)

Try 3. 1999, 2000, 2004.

You didn't just try to crown Ramirez 2008 slugging champ after 85 plate appearances did you? This guy hit just 20 HR last year. Don't count the chickens bef....

I think what happens in Chatters should stay in Chatters. We fans, in the heat of the moment, often say things that we wouldn't in other threads.

Except for me

:)

I don't have to adjust my expectations from ace to former ace, like I did with Clemens

The guy with a 2.98 ERA over his last 5 seasons? 2.52 over his last 3?

Number of times leading the league in SLG:

Measuring value this way is going to hurt the guys who play in larger leagues. An old BBBA way of dealing with this sort of thing was to look at percentiles. Let's re-look at your list that way. (I don't have a readily handy way of identifying all the people in a league who were, say, eligible for the batting title in each year. I'll just use (number of teams * 8 starters per non-DH-league-team or 9 starters per DH-league-team) for convenience). I may well muck up the numbers, so feel free to take any results I get with a grain of salt.

Times in the top ten of SLG ('cuz that's what's readily available on bb-ref), listed by percentiles...



You'll note that if, say, Frank Thomas had ever finished 11th in the AL in SLG, it would not be listed on bb-ref but would earn him a 91 in the percentile game (though it would be un-noted above, since I was only using the bb-ref page). Finishing 11th in SLG in a DH-league of 14 teams is (by percentiles, for whatever you think that's worth) more impressive than finishing 8th in a non-DH-league of 8 teams. Which probably means the fair thing to do would be to not list anything below 92 (since that's the worst a player in the current NL can do while still making the top-ten for his league in SLG). That would make the above list look like this...




Make of all this what you will.

Looking at the percentiles (and pretending that SLG percentiles are the be-all and end-all for no really obvious reason), I think Ramirez might well have an argument for being in the top five right-handed hitters of the above list. He's ahead of Thomas, and one can make a decent argument that he's ahead of McGwire and Foxx.

Of course, why we're looking at Wagner and Foxx but not Hornsby (who led his league in SLG a whopping nine times) escapes me.

In all seriousness, Rogers Hornsby gets much less love than he deserves, at least as a player. If we thought of him as a first baseman, he'd have a strong argument for being the best-hitting first baseman of all time. And he played 1500 games at second and another 350 at shortstop. Even if defense at second and first weren't viewed as they are now, and even if Hornsby weren't a particularly great fielder at second (though he still wasn't moved to first base or to left field), you're still talking about a guy who hit as well as Lou Gehrig (give or take) for more than 2200 games. We talk about how Stan Musial is forgotten, but for being one of the top five hitters of all time and (is this true?) possibly better offensively relative to his position than Ted Williams, Hornsby seems unusually forgettable.

Wow, Schmidt really holds up well in 16's tables. More 99s than anyone, and holding 96 into his 13th season, which is three years longer than anyone else on the list!

If you make the positional and defensive adjustments, is Schmidt the most valuable RHB of all time? (A-Rod may make this moot)

Edit - Basically, according to SLG Schmidt had the best 5 and 10 year peaks and is at least close to Aaron for career. Even without positional adjustments, Schmidt should rank in the top 5 RH hitters of all time.

"Hank Greenberg? Too short of a career". Tom Verducci joins Bill Madden as being totally ignorant of World War II. For crying out loud, Greenberg missed most of the 1941 season when America was at peace because he was drafted as well as the whole of 1942, 1943, 1944 and half of 1945. Verducci could at least mentioned this.

I don't have to adjust my expectations from ace to former ace, like I did with Clemens

The guy with a 2.98 ERA over his last 5 seasons? 2.52 over his last 3?

That's what happens when you have 2 dog seasons in 1999 and 2002 and you turn 40. Yes Clemens had good/excellent seasons in 3 of his last 5 years, but he lost the impression of ACE!.

I'm sure you fully agree with my point on all of the other pitchers I listed. I can go on and on adding more too.

I thought for sure that Edgar Martinez would at least get a mention.

I also think that Thomas at his best was the better hitter.

I thought for sure that Edgar Martinez would at least get a mention.

He probably deserves a mention, but not much more than that. Edgar is at a 147 OPS+, with ~8600 PAs, and an OPS+ over 140 nine times. Manny, by contract is at 155 with ~8400 PAs and a OPS+ over 140 twelve times (and counting).

FWIW, best OPS+ by right-handed hitters, post-1900:

Hornsby 175
Pujols 168
Foxx 163
McGwire 162
Greenberg 158
Thomas 157
Allen 156
Mays 156
Aaron 155
DiMaggio 155
Ramirez 155
Robinson 154
Cravath 151
Lajoie 150
Wagner 150
Bagwell 149
Kiner 149
Guerrero 148
Heilmann 148
Martinez 147
Rodriguez 147
Schmidt 147
H. Wilson 144
Belle 143
Killebrew 143
Sheffield 143

Number of times leading the league in SLG:

Wagner: 6 (and 2nd 3 times, and 3rd twice)
Foxx: 5 (with a 2nd and two 3rd)
Aaron: 4 (and 2nd 5 times, and 3rd 4 times)
Robinson: 4 (with a 2nd and many 4ths)
Schmidt: 5 (and 2nd twice, and 3rd twice)
McGwire: 4 (and 2nd twice)
Thomas: 1 (he was always more OBP-heavy)
Bagwell: 1
Belle: 2 (and 2nd once)

Ramirez: 4 (and 2nd once, and several 4ths)

Hornsby - 9

edit: Missed #17. I couldn't believe a thread on greatest RH hitters didn't have a mention of Hornsby until post #23. But now that I RTFA, I see Verducci lists Hornsby and Foxx as locks at #'s 1 and 2. He's still way off base WRT Thomas though. At their peaks, Frank is no worse than #3.

Heilmann 148

I was wondering when Harry would show up in the thread. He's a similar player in some ways: tremendous right-handed slugger, no fielding genius, career as of right now roughly the same length as Manny's, OPS+ a notch below. The deadball era was not conducive to Heilmann's hitting style, it seems, which means that in 1921 Heilmann's batting numbers went up well beyond what you might have expected simply adjusting for era. That makes it hard to know how well Heilmann would have hit had he been born just five years later: he might be very comparable to Manny at this point. Manny, however, if he rebounds well this year and stays at a high level for the next few years, will eclipse a lot of these peers in terms of career totals and career value.

For all the Frank T. love, Manny (36) in 16 big league seasons has already eclipsed nearly, if not all of The Big Hurt's career numbers.

Sure, Thomas has been putting up the power numbers in his post-prime but look behind the glitz and you're talking about a twilight player who has only once put up a .275 average since 2000.

Manny's lefty/righty splits: .304/.375/.579 (rhp) versus .341/.449/.637 (lhp)
Frank's lefty/righty splits: .295/.410/.532 (rhp) versus .325/.452/.647 (lhp)

In clutch situations:

Manny 2-outs RISP: .314/.459/.606
Frank 2-outs RISP: .292/.454/.569

Versus power pitchers:

Manny: .269/.388/.510
Frank: .243/.390/.448

A lot of Thomas' edge comes in OBP, having walked in 16.6% (almost exactly once every 6 trips) of his plate appearances, while Ramirez lags at 13.4% (once every 7.5 trips).

But so far, at least, Manny seems to be aging better, and might well put up "plus" numbers for several more years.

Age 34 year:

Ramirez .321/.439/.619
Thomas .253/.361/.472

Age 35 year:

Ramirez .296/.388/.493 <<<---ouch!
Thomas .267/.390/.562

Age 36 year:

Thomas: 74 games

Age 37 year:

Thomas: 34 games

Point is - we can cherry pick numbers to make one case or the other all day. They're contemporary players, unlike trying to make these Rogers Hornsby comparisons, but Ramirez' career isn't near finished (at least according to Manny), and Thomas' career is pretty much done. I think it's fairly safe to say that another 3 years of even passing-Manny-like numbers will obliterate many of The Big Hurt's career marks.

In all seriousness, Rogers Hornsby gets much less love than he deserves, at least as a player.

And when he does get written up he's hated on

I'm not sure Bill James ever writes with less objectivity than when he writes about Hornsby- his visceral/personal dislike of the man, a man who has been dead for decades, and presumably no primate ever saw playing is....

really puzzling when you get down to it.

Top 20 RH batters, single season:

1 Rogers Hornsby 222
2 Mark McGwire 216
3 Frank Thomas 211
4 Rogers Hornsby 210
5 Rogers Hornsby 207
6 Jimmie Foxx 205
7 Honus Wagner 205
8 Nap Lajoie 205
9 Sammy Sosa 203
10 Jimmie Foxx 200
11 Rogers Hornsby 200
12 Nap Lajoie 200
13 Dick Allen 199
14 Nap Lajoie 199
15 Frank Robinson 198
16 Mark McGwire 196
17 Hank Aaron 194
18 Harry Heilmann 194
19 Kevin Mitchell 192
20 Rogers Hornsby 191

One of those names is REALLY REALLY REALLY not like the others

Yeah..."Wagner"?
Since when did they let krauts play baseball?

One of those names is REALLY REALLY REALLY not like the others

Well yeah, one's plural.

Point is - we can cherry pick numbers to make one case or the other all day.

The case for one of the guys doesn't involve cherry picking any numbers. Thomas has been a better hitter for his career in 1000 extra PA, and Thomas has the better peak.

I'll take that over batting average, 2 out/RISP, and stats versus power pitchers.

I don't know if Hornsby is forgotten, exactly, though his stock has slipped a lot during my lifetime. Forty years ago batting average got more respect, and 301 home runs still made it onto the career leaderboard that could be printed in a few columns in yearbooks and almanacs. (It isn't even in the top 100 anymore.) And the inevitable compressions of history have left a lot of old-timers out of the mainstream view. A casual fan now thinks of baseball pre-WW2 and remembers Gehrig, Ruth, Cobb, maybe Johnson and Mathewson; most others (including Hornsby, Speaker, Alexander, Sisler, and others who were still pretty famous when I was young) have been squeezed out of memory to make room for newer icons.

But respect for Hornsby is high among historians; Charles Alexander wrote a first-rate biography of Hornsby recently. And pace Bill James, I think that most statheads have a pretty high opinion of Hornsby. James's beef against Hornsby was that he was a distracting egotist who didn't think much about winning. Seeing as how he played for two pennant winners and managed one of them to a famous World Series victory, that theory doesn't hold a lot of water. I mean, it seems undeniable that Hornsby was a colossal jerk, but that puts him in the company of a lot of other guys who have been on, or managed, championship teams. He got on well with John McGraw, who had complementary anti-social tendencies. I wonder if James, who had spent some time running down nice guys like Enos Cabell for not contributing much on the field, found it necessary to balance his analyses by running down pains in the neck like Hornsby and Dick Allen.

Point is - we can cherry pick numbers to make one case or the other all day

I would never cherry-pick numbers to support my contention

(I just throw out the numbers that don't)

The case for one of the guys doesn't involve cherry picking any numbers. Thomas has been a better hitter for his career in 1000 extra PA, and Thomas has the better peak.

I think I understand your argument now - Hall of Fame worthiness is determined by longevity (as measured by extra PAs) and highlights (as measured by single season performance), and not "body of work".

I assume that you contend that Ramirez won't have another 1000 PAs in his career, or, alternatively, that he will, but that Manny won't maintain anything near his almost exactly equivalent OPS+, won't maintain his 25 point advantage in slugging, won't hit more than 20 home runs, and won't achieve 240 more total bases? (All in those 1000 PAs that seem to define why Thomas is the superior player.)

By the same token and criteria, I assume that Jamie Moyer is closing in on your Hall of Fame ballot, and that Charlie Hough is one of the most overlooked HOF candidates?

I think I understand your argument now - Hall of Fame worthiness is determined by longevity (as measured by extra PAs) and highlights (as measured by single season performance), and not "body of work".

But Thomas has the better body of work (at least as a hitter). He's been a better hitter in (so far) a longer career. How else does one define body of work? One can either look at the whole (career numbers seems like a good way of measuring that) or individual instances (single season numbers seem a good way of measuring that). You apparently have an alternate suggestion for how to measure body of work? What is it?

I assume that you contend that Ramirez won't have another 1000 PAs in his career

Well, the question is who has been a better right-handed hitter. It seems entirely possible that Ramirez can continue putting up numbers in such a way that he may surpass Thomas's career numbers. he hasn't done so yet, but he certainly could. Is that what you're looking for? An admission that Ramirez may end up with the better hitting numbers for his career? I doubt anyone would deny that it's a very definite possibility.

or, alternatively, that he will, but that Manny won't maintain anything near his almost exactly equivalent OPS+, won't maintain his 25 point advantage in slugging,

I don't understand. If Ramirez has the same OPS+ but a SLG deficit, then that makes Thomas (last time I checked) the better hitter. If Thomas and Ramirez have equivalent OPS+s but Ramirez is the better slugger, than Thomas is better at getting on base (which is of more value than equivalent OPS+ points of SLG).

Additionally, it's entirely possible that Ramirez has passed Thomas in career value when one adds fielding into the mix. A mediocre to poor outfielder is of more defensive value than a guy who fields his way off of first base into DH. I'm not saying that Ramirez has had the more valuable career to date, and this is irrelevant to the question of which one is the better hitter, but I definitely think that Ramirez has an excellent chance of passing Thomas in career value, if he hasn't already.

A mediocre to poor outfielder is of more defensive value than a guy who fields his way off of first base into DH.

We've had this argument before, but if Ramirez were on a team that didn't have David Ortiz on it, he'd have fielded his way to becoming a DH a long time ago.

Sure. No arguments here. But with Thomas and Ramirez on the same team, which one would DH?

But with Thomas and Ramirez on the same team, which one would DH?

Now? Clearly Thomas.

When they were both in their primes? Toss-up.

I have zero problem with marking Ortiz's value down because of his need to DH (or the Sox's insistence that he DH rather than risk health or whatever at first base), forcing the Sox to play a second DH in left field. I'm not sure how to be fair to Ramirez (who DID play the field, even when Ortiz wasn't around) in comparison to Thomas (who stopped playing the field roughly ten years into his career).

I have zero problem with marking Ortiz's value down because of his need to DH (or the Sox's insistence that he DH rather than risk health or whatever at first base), forcing the Sox to play a second DH in left field. I'm not sure how to be fair to Ramirez (who DID play the field, even when Ortiz wasn't around) in comparison to Thomas (who stopped playing the field roughly ten years into his career).

Again, we've had this argument before, and I'm not really interested in re-hashing it again. But the fact remains that the only reason that Ramirez isn't a DH is circumstance, not because he has any value in the field.

When they were both in their primes? Toss-up.

I agree with that. (I.e., I have no idea which one WOULD be moved or which one SHOULD have been moved). But Thomas was moved from 1B to DH at age 30 in order to play Wil Cordero at 1B (1998). Manny Ramirez was still playing LF at age 30 when his team's DH was Carlos Baerga. I think that at least lends itself to the suggestion that Ramirez's contributions in left were viewed less detrimentally than Thomas's contributions at first, for what little that may be worth.

the fact remains that the only reason that Ramirez isn't a DH is circumstance, not because he has any value in the field.

I'm not arguing against that. (In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to think of a statement which denigrates Ramirez's defense with which I WOULD argue). But in the Middle Class Twit of the Year competition, it may well be that Thomas is "ahead" of Ramirez in regards to fielding prowess.

In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to think of a statement which denigrates Ramirez's defense with which I WOULD argue

I think Manny is a bad fielder, but I think his bad fielding have been blown out of proportion in stat-head circles by "modern" measures, like UZR, which have never been properly calibrated for the distortion created by the Green Monster.

See? I agree with that. :)

But Thomas was moved from 1B to DH at age 30 in order to play Wil Cordero at 1B (1998).

IIRC, Cordero was viewed as being a pretty good defender. He was a converted shortstop, after all.

Thinking about it, Thomas spent several years sort of bouncing back and forth between first base and DH. When he was younger, his biggest problem on defense was on throws - he simply couldn't throw the ball. But even then, he'd get plenty of time in at first base. He was a poor, but not atrocious fielder.

In 2001, he dislocated his shoulder diving for a ball (that knocked him onto the DL for most of the season), and around the same time, he developed serious ankle and foot problems that really hampered his ability to get around. Really, it was injury and not lack of ability that drove him to DH. Until then, the White Sox had no problem putting him in the field when they needed to.

If you want to argue that Ramirez's ability to remain healthy, and thus in the field, has given him more career value, then I guess I would agree.

the fact remains that the only reason that Ramirez isn't a DH is circumstance, not because he has any value in the field...He was a poor, but not atrocious fielder.

Man, I have to disagree. He was always atrocious. There was never a time in Thomas's career that he should've had a glove on. The only reason he did play the field so long was he thought it made him a better hitter, and when you hit like that you have a good chance of carrying the day with that argument. I believe he also had one eye on the Hall and knew he'd have a better chance if he were not just a DH; he's always been a stats guy and aware of things like that.

I agree that his throwing was particularly bad. I looked away every time he had to try to get a lead runner.

OK, I'll admit that my post #10 was slapdash and sloppy. (Home with a cold, couldn't get to sleep.) I forgot to exclude 2008 knowing full well I should; I originally intended not to use use the people Verducci had in his top 4, but changed my mind by including Aaron and Foxx; once I did that I should have included Hornsby as well. Fortunately many of you are on your toes, and most of the issues with that have been dealt with by subsequent posters.

One of those names is REALLY REALLY REALLY not like the others

Just thought I'd mention, the reason I stopped the list in 23 where I did is because if I'd gone down to 142, I would have included Mitchell, along with Miguel Cabrera, Frank Howard and Mike Piazza. That felt like outside of the discussion.

Compared to Career OPS+, the guy who isn't like the others is Sammy (128!)

One of the arguments commonly summoned against the traditional counting statistic of "runs batted in" is that it is clearly non-contextual. While runs scored are the bottom line of baseball, the simple RBI statistic ignores opportunities. A player batting behind a Robby Alomar or a David Ortiz may have more (or fewer) RBI opportunities than another player batting behind a Mike Caruso or a Jose Valentin.

One option is to consider a batter's proficiency at delivering runners on base as a proportion of available runners to runners actually driven home. Such a statistic would provide a sense of how likely it is that a batter would take advantage of his available opportunities to deliver runs for his team.

For the 10 years from 1996-2005

PA Total Baserunners Batted In (Less HR) RBI/Runner

Ramirez 6263 4537 850 .187
Thomas 5111 3365 604 .179

I can go back and add in 2006 and 2007 if anyone thinks it's going to make an appreciable difference.

Manny Ramirez' durability has allowed him to play in more games, bat in more runs, and do so at a higher rate of proficiency than Frank Thomas over Manny's age 24-33 years and Thomas' 28-37 years. The difference is not tremendous, but, yet again supports my contention that there is no clear case for the argument that Thomas has had a more prolific career, and that Thomas will be remembered as the better player.

Look, I get that a lot of baseball people don't like Ramirez' counter-culture persona. His hair is long, his look is disheveled, he plays defense with seeming indifference, he doesn't always (often?) run all that hard, and he admires his home runs (no, long fly balls) like no one else in recent memory. But if you're judging Manny on your "Baseball Tonight" impressions and the whole "Manny Being Manny" show, you're really short-changing one of the most naturally talented, fluid and graceful hitters in the history of the game.

The difference is not tremendous, but, yet again supports my contention that there is no clear case for the argument that Thomas has had a more prolific career, and that Thomas will be remembered as the better player.

Well, you picked a period that left out 5 of Thomas' best years. Manny has nothing like Thomas' 90-97 (lowest OPS+ during that stretch was 174, which would be Manny's third highest total) in his career.

Beyond that, there's no accounting for park in your numbers, which skews the numbers towards Manny, who has always played in hitters parks and usually on good offensive teams.

The difference is not tremendous, but, yet again supports my contention that there is no clear case for the argument that Thomas has had a more prolific career, and that Thomas will be remembered as the better player.

RBIs per opportunity overlooks that Thomas has always had the much higher walk rate. Manny Ramirez has not only had better hitters in front of him his whole career, he's also had better hitters behind him. Pitchers pitched around Thomas a lot more freely than they pitched around Ramirez.

I actually think that Ramirez and Thomas are fairly close in terms of overall career value. But Thomas is probably better, and he certainly deserves more than a "you would take Ramirez over Thomas in their best days".

Okay, far be it for me to post "dishonest" numbers. I posted a 10-year career period as a decimal-centric matter of convenience. Let's go back to the dawn of ancient time, 1990, Frank Thomas' rookie season (Ramirez was a rookie in 1993).

1990-2005

Ramirez 7225 PA - 5198 runners - 972 runs batted in - .187 of all opportunities were driven home
Thomas 8603 PA - 5756 runners - 1017 runs batted in - .177 of all opportunities were driven home

Now do I need to add 2006 and 2007, or can we agree that Ramirez' career proficiency at driving home available runners is higher than Frank Thomas'?

Now do I need to add 2006 and 2007, or can we agree that Ramirez' career proficiency at driving home available runners is higher than Frank Thomas'?

For his career, maybe but I'm not exactly sure what this proves. One of Thomas' major advantages over Manny is that he walks a lot more. His career OBP is 82 points higher than league average, Manny's is 65. But this stat basically reduces walks to, at best, a neutral event.

Moreover, the difference just isn't that big. Over 500 chances it's a difference of 5 runs driven in. In fact, the more I think about this stat, the less I like it. There's all kinds of ticky-tacky problems which I suspect add up to many problems. It's one of those numbers that sounds fine but falls apart when you give it any thought.

Frank Thomas, for about 4 years there 1993-1996, you knew he was up at bat, beer vendors paused to watch. McGwire had it from 1998-2001. Bonds 2001-current. Manny never had that, if you ask me.

Fenway didn't have beer vendors roaming the aisles until two weeks ago. If your numbers had been beer-vendor-adjusted, they'd show the Fenway beer vendors to be shirking their duties at a rate comparable to Thomas' heyday.

EDIT: It should be noted that the Fenway beer vendors are roaming the aisles for the best seats. If they were to serve the more affordable seating areas, they'd never have a chance to watch anything.

Hey, when Manny comes up, everybody starts buying cold ones to celebrate those RBIs with. The beer vendors have no leisure to watch the game.

The RBI percentage stat also doesn't take into account the overall league averages of percentage of runners driven in, which is doubtless going to help Thomas in comparison to Ramirez.

Look, look, look, look....Let's not even get into this one, or we could be at it for the next 50 years.

OBP is another overplayed overly-simplistic statistic. Why? Because it makes the easily-disprovable assumption that any "on base" is as good as any other.

I'm being told here that the superiority of Thomas' walk rate is the final nail in the Thomas>Ramirez debate.

Last I checked, the value of a walk (or for that matter a hit batsmen) is the least beneficial offensive component of the OBP formula. OBP ignores all baserunners, and presumes that all offensive outcomes take place in a runner-neutral environment. I disagree strongly, and maintain quite vehemently, that the ultimate contribution a batter can make to his team's won/loss record is doing something that causes runners on base to reach home.

According to figures derived by Tango Tiger from Retrosheet (1999-2002), these are the TRUE values of a batters actions on baserunners:

Walk 1.39 bases
HBP 1.48 bases
Single 1.83 bases
Double 3.23 bases
Triple 4.46 bases
HR 5.41 bases

[Credit: April 22, 2008 article, "Bases and Outs Ad Nauseum" by Brandon Heipp, published at Hardball Times.]

This idea that Frank Thomas plays baseball in a vacuum and that his amazing walking prowess proves his superiority to Manny Ramirez is an overly simplistic analysis of how the game is actually played. Manny's value as a higher-batting average, extra-base hitting machine is far more important to bringing runners across the plate than Frank's ability to put more runners on base in the hope that other batters will drive him in.

And as for the argument that "Manny plays on good offensive teams", that contributes nothing to the discrimination of which batter is more likely to bring available runners home. We're looking at percentages of available runners, which eliminates the effect of "good offensive teams."

okay, I am sure it was covered at the time of publication, but how can a HBP have a value higher than a walk? The ball is dead when it hits the batter, correct?

This idea that Frank Thomas plays baseball in a vacuum and that his amazing walking prowess proves his superiority to Manny Ramirez is an overly simplistic analysis of how the game is actually played.

The idea that either Frank Thomas or Manny Ramirez play baseball in a vacuum and that Manny's amazing ability to drive in an extra 5 runs per 500 chances isn't affected by his superior offensive environment, in both era and park, is an overly simplistic analysis of how the game is actually played.

okay, I am sure it was covered at the time of publication, but how can a HBP have a value higher than a walk? The ball is dead when it hits the batter, correct?

The two factors I can think of:

-Intentional walks are worth much less than unintentional walks, bringing down the average value of a walk a bit
-A pitcher who is wild enough to hit batters may be easier to score on than somebody who's just walking them

I'm being told here that the superiority of Thomas' walk rate is the final nail in the Thomas>Ramirez debate.

No, you're being told that a statistic which ignores Thomas' BB advantage altogether (as this RBI per chance thing does) is fundamentally flawed.

Moreover, the stat has all kinds of problems that need solving before it can be examined. Simply saying "Runners On" isn't really measuring RBI chances. You need to break it down--at the least--to RISP situations vs. not. Moreover, we need to see if Manny's runners on base were more clustered than Thomas'.

In other words, Manny could have 3 bases empty ABs, and then one bases loaded AB. He could go 1-for-4 with a single but still drive in a higher proportion of his runs than Thomas would if he, say, hit 3 doubles, all with a slow runner on first base. Nevertheless, by any reasonable measure Thomas has had the superior offensive day.

Until these kind of problems--plus ones about the increase in offense league-wide and ballpark issues--are sorted, the stat just isn't worth much frankly, which is why things like OBP will be looked at instead.

I'd prefer to just see Thomas' and Ramirez's AVG/OBP/SLG with runners on base. That would tell us more than "RBI per chance," especially when you consider the fact that they played in different lineups and in different-scoring offensive eras. If anybody is up to calculating their AVG+/OBP+/SLG+ with runners on for their career, that'd be great.

In case the derivation of those figures isn't otherwise clear (and I very much invite you to read the article that I mentioned in Hardball Times):

At some (significant) proportion of the times that a batter comes to the plate over the course of his career, there will be runners on base. Over the 16 years I've reported of Frank Thomas' career, he has come to the plate with an average of .67 runners on base every time.

When a batter reaches base via walk, there is a possibility that he MAY advance runners who are already on base. Of course, if a batter comes to bat with first base open, his walk advances no one, which explains the strategy of "putting him on."

When a batter reaches base via a hit, in almost all circumstances, he advances runners who are already on base. As we know, runners on 2nd and 3rd are more likely to score than runners on 1st base. In many cases, a single has the potential to advance a runner two bases (going from 1st to 3rd on a ball hit to the outfield), while a double has the potential to advance an on-base runner as many as three bases. A home run advances everyone - all the way around.

Therefore, the contributive offensive value of a hit is almost always greater than a walk, and certainly so over the long run. An OBP statistic that ignores this reality is about as anachronistic as BA, RBIs and ERA.

Samourai-thanks...I guess #1 makes sense, but for #2 ("-A pitcher who is wild enough to hit batters may be easier to score on than somebody who's just walking them"), i think you could say that a walk entails 4 too wild efforts (4 balls), while a HBP entails only 1 really wild effort. Also, a walk is more effort, meaning the pitcher has a pitch count of x pitches higher for a walk.

Therefore, the contributive offensive value of a hit is almost always greater than a walk, and certainly so over the long run. An OBP statistic that ignores this reality is about as anachronistic as BA, RBIs and ERA.

Well, Baseball-Reference lists a Linear Weights stat that weights a player's offensive output based on run values very similar to the ones Tango Tiger derived, which you listed above. Here are the top eight season by runs above average in that stat for both Thomas and Ramirez:

Thomas:
74.6
70.3
69.8
69.6
67.8
66.2
66.1
62.2

Ramirez:
63.2
62.2
56.8
54.2
49.4
48.6
46.3
43.8

Their career totals are 752.4 for Thomas and 616.3 for Ramirez. Yes, a hit is more valuable than a walk. But, even that into account, Thomas has been a far more valuable hitter, both on peak and career, than Ramirez.

I believe that HBPs have higher value because walks, unlike HBPs (here comes another argument) are strategically used by managers and pitchers in situations where they will not advance a runner.

In other words, a certain percentage of walks represent a pitcher "working around" a batter with first base open - situations where the walk would never advance runners. A slightly larger percentage of HBPs will advance runners, assuming for the sake of argument that most HBPs are not strategically intentional.

I thought it was agreed runs above replacement was more appropriate. Also, how is the average calculated? If it is team average, then it is as unfair to penalize Manny for having Ortiz and Thome as teammates as it was to penalize Drysdale for partnering Koufax.

One factor accounting for a small piece of that RBI/opportunity:

In 1999, when Ramirez had 165 RBI, the most common Cleveland batting order was Lofton-Vizquel-Alomar-Ramirez. The SB numbers for those three batters were 25-6, 42-9, and 37-6. In addition, Alomar in particular had a good number of doubles. Now the main reason Manny prospered as he did was that these three had OBPs of .405, .397, and .422, and that's already been accounted for in using baserunners as the denominator of that expression. But beyond that, those three were in scoring position when Manny came up more often than a typical player because they were good basestealers, and beyond that, it's plausible the some of those three were also good baserunners apart from SB, meaning more likely to score on Ramirez's hits.

Of course, this does not describe the whole of Ramirez's career. But did Thomas ever have such a crew on base ahead of him?

Not that it's being discussed, but the list in #27 is wrong. Jeff Bagwell should be 3rd with a 213 in 1994, and there are others missing as well.

I thought it was agreed runs above replacement was more appropriate. Also, how is the average calculated? If it is team average, then it is as unfair to penalize Manny for having Ortiz and Thome as teammates as it was to penalize Drysdale for partnering Koufax.

It's compared to league average, not team. And using runs above replacement rather than average would increase Thomas's advantage on both peak and career--Thomas has about 1,400 more career PAs than Ramirez, and in his best eight seasons by LWTS, he had a total of 5,256 PAs, vs. 4,860 for Ramirez in his best eight.

Well, Baseball-Reference lists a Linear Weights stat that weights a player's offensive output based on run values very similar to the ones Tango Tiger derived, which you listed above.

I'm assuming that your Linear Weights stat is "Adjusted Batting Runs", which dates back to Peter Palmer's seminal sabermetric work. Further research into Adjusted Batting Runs has suggested that the statistic is valid only for the 4.3 runs/game era of 1901-1977, and that the linear weights associated with batting runs

"..differ not only by era but also by league and for each league by each individual team and for each team by position in the batting order. In other words, in order to caclulate how many runs an individual player is responsible for it would be necessary to calculate weights for each offensive event that were particular to his team and position in the batting order.

- Dan Agonistes: "A Brief History of Run Estimation: Batting Runs" (http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2004/10/brief-history-of-run-estimation.html)

I'd point to another sabermetric analysis offered by Baseball-Reference.com, the Bill James-created Runs Created, which, interestingly, shows Manny Ramirez and Frank Thomas career-equivalent at 8.9 RC/game.

I think my original point has long since been obfuscated - it was simply this. There is no open and shut case for the argument that Frank Thomas > Manny Ramirez as one of the top right handed hitters of all time. Frank Thomas' career is (apparently) nearly over, and though he has been quite prolific, Manny Ramirez would seem to have another 3-4 years of high-value contribution left in his career. If he proves to be as durable as he has to date, and suffers no Jim Rice-ian fall off, his career numbers should well exceed Thomas' over the same number of seasons.

But the fact remains that the only reason that Ramirez isn't a DH is circumstance, not because he has any value in the field.

The statement makes no sense. First, it doesn't matter what the "circumstance" was. The fact is that he played the field.

Second, the fact that he played the field means that, obviously, he had value in the field.

Unless you're arguing that he has always been below adequate as a fielder. And I don't think that assertion is supported. Like Srul, I don't think the cartoon depiction of his fielding is accurate. And that cartoon depiction follows from the wall in left, which has never been properly accounted for.

Has there been a Red Sox LF that doesn't show up as comically bad in the fielding ratings? I remember that Mike Greenwell's Defensive Average ratings were horrific. Rice and Williams are seen as bad fielders. I don't know that Yaz's defensive rep was bad, but I can't remember anyone praising his defense, either.

The statement makes no sense. First, it doesn't matter what the "circumstance" was. The fact is that he played the field.

You're missing the point. The original argument was that Ramirez had more value because he played in the field more often than Thomas did. Thomas played DH because the team was best served by playing him there. For most of his career, he was capable of playing first base (albeit a poor first base). If DH was not an option for whatever reason, he played in the field.

I'd say their relative contributions in the field have been about a wash over their careers.

Here's another way of looking at it: while their career OPS+ are quite close, they came to them in very different ways. Manny has been remarkable consistent throughout his career, flucuating around his 155 OPS+ (last year's 126 was his worst since his rookie year). Thomas, on the other hand, was an absolute monster from 1990-1997, and, while he has obviously had some very good years since then (his 2000 was close to his early career level), he has also put up some clunkers, and suffered through a lot of injuries. You can see this in their career breakdowns; through age 29: Thomas hit 330/452/600 for an OPS+ of 182 (which is Barry Bonds' career level) while Manny hit 312/406/594 for an OPS+ of 153. Since that age, however, Manny hit the eerily similar 315/413/594 for OPS+ of 157, while Thomas has only managed to hit 276/390/521 (135 OPS+).

So even if Manny ends up generating more total wins with his bat--which is possible, although no sure thing--this will be due more to his ability to stay healthy late in his career, NOT because he was the better hitter. It seems very hard for me to see how one could think Manny was better when, for the first SEVEN YEARS of Thomas' career, he maintained a level of offense Manny has not been able to equal even once.

This is not to denigrate Manny, who has a pretty good case as one of the top 20 hitters ever. Being a worse hitter than Frank Thomas is hardly an insult.

I don't know that Yaz's defensive rep was bad, but I can't remember anyone praising his defense, either.

He won Gold Gloves -- as a left fielder. He was recognized as a good defender.

It seems very hard for me to see how one could think Manny was better when, for the first SEVEN YEARS of Thomas' career, he maintained a level of offense Manny has not been able to equal even once.

Especially since the original argument was who you would want "in their best days". There's really no argument there. On peak, Thomas blows Ramirez out of the water. It's only on career that they're close.

Re 71, I am not sure if Baseball Reference's Linear Weights make the mistake you alledge (I don't have a copy of ESPN Baseball Encyclodpedia to check how Palmer is doing the calculation these days), but if it does, that only helps Thomas, since walks are proportionally more valuable in the higher run environments that Thomas and Ramirez both played in.

You're missing the point. The original argument was that Ramirez had more value because he played in the field more often than Thomas did.

Yes. And that argument is perfectly valid, if we're talking about defensive value.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why it's being classified as an "argument" instead of as fact. UNLESS you can show that Ramirez was not close to adequate in the field.

Thomas played DH because the team was best served by playing him there. For most of his career, he was capable of playing first base (albeit a poor first base). If DH was not an option for whatever reason, he played in the field.

I don't care if he was a DH because his teams had a better defender for 1B, or if he was a DH because his managers flipped a coin and it came up heads. I don't care that he was "capable" of playing 1B. The fact is that he didn't play 1B the majority of the time. That detracts from his value.

I don't know why what he was "capable" of doing is at all relevant to a discussion of the actual value he had to his teams on defense. For all we know, he was "capable" of being the best defensive centerfielder of all time. But he didn't play center, so it's irrelevant.

I'd say their relative contributions in the field have been about a wash over their careers.

Ramirez: 1673 games in RF/LF, 266 games at DH
Thomas: 971 games at 1B, 1258 games at DH

It's not close. To argue that this is "a wash," you have to argue that Ramirez was far, far below adequate in RF/LF.

Frankly, I'm not even sure why it's being classified as an "argument" instead of as fact.

Because I don't believe it is a fact.

But I've already had the argument about whether a below-average defender is more valuable in the field or at DH many, many times, and have no interest in re-hashing that argument.

And it really has nothing to do with the main point of the article, which was who is/was the better hitter.

But I've already had the argument about whether a below-average defender is more valuable in the field or at DH many, many times, and have no interest in re-hashing that argument.

I have no bias against a DH; I just think his overall value must be downgraded because a DH provides zero defensive value. (Obviously Thomas has ~1000 games at first, so he doesn't have zero defensive value for his career.) In short, I think it's just another step on the defensive spectrum, past 1B. We should adjust for DH just like we adjust for any other position.

But a below-average defender has defensive value. That's what I think you're missing. A below-average defender in left (Ramirez) has more defensive value than a DH. It's only when the quality of his defense slips below adequate -- when he can't handle the position -- that his defensive value goes below zero, leaving the DH with more defensive "value."

Ramirez is capable of playing left, and plays left. Thus, he provides value there. To equate his defensive value with Thomas's is just bizarre.

Ray - I don't agree, but again, I'm not interested in arguing the point.

Ray - I don't agree, but again, I'm not interested in arguing the point.

If you "have no interest in re-hashing the argument," then don't; but don't expect to get a free pass when you make comments such as "I'd say their relative contributions in the field have been about a wash over their careers."

don't expect to get a free pass when you make comments such as "I'd say their relative contributions in the field have been about a wash over their careers."

It's just my opinion. Clearly, I value time at DH differently than you do.

It's just my opinion.

But not one that's really supportable.

Clearly, I value time at DH differently than you do.

Keep in mind: I don't discriminate against the DH like a lot of people do when they refer to the DH as "half a player" and think a DH can't make the Hall of Fame. I just want to adjust for DH like any other position (one notch from 1B on the defensive spectrum) -- not overly penalize for it.

It's a mysterious philosophical debate. On the one hand, a DH can kick no baseballs around the left-field corner, and Manny kicks many. On the other, Manny still manages to catch 175-200 fly balls a year and get 8-10 assists, while a DH catches nothing and assists nobody. On the whole, I would say that there is considerable body-of-the-iceberg value in being able to catch those coupla hundred routine fly balls and make the everyday professional throws to the infield. It doesn't show up in some metrics or some opinions on fielding – because everybody makes those plays – but non-major-league-outfielders can't make them. Manny, as Ray suggests, does make them.

Oh, and more on-topic: Manny vs. the Hurt, just as hitters, is a clear career/peak dispute. Manny may outlast Thomas, but he was never quite as good.

But not one that's really supportable.

I think it is; I just don't have the time or the inclination to go into it right now.

It was really a throwaway comment, and it has nothing to do with whether Thomas or Ramirez are the better hitter.

It's a mysterious philosophical debate. On the one hand, a DH can kick no baseballs around the left-field corner, and Manny kicks many.

I don't think he "kicks many"; I think people mainly question his range. Errors -- while, as we know, do not measure defense -- seem like a good barometer for "kicks many," and his fielding percentage is just below average for the position. (About 6 errors per 162 games.)

I don't claim he has good range, but I think he's better than adequate. While watching a player is not really a good way to evaluate defense, I do think that we can tell at the extremes whether a player can handle the position or not. To me, watching him, he can clearly handle the position.

On the other, Manny still manages to catch 175-200 fly balls a year and get 8-10 assists, while a DH catches nothing and assists nobody. On the whole, I would say that there is considerable body-of-the-iceberg value in being able to catch those coupla hundred routine fly balls and make the everyday professional throws to the infield. It doesn't show up in some metrics or some opinions on fielding – because everybody makes those plays – but non-major-league-outfielders can't make them. Manny, as Ray suggests, does make them.

Right. And try to imagine Thomas in left field. He (very likely) wouldn't be able to make the plays, and he (very likely) would look like a circus clown trying. That's how we can tell "adequate." So to pretend that Ramirez provides no value in left is kind of silly. If that were the case, we could put any player in left and he'd do at least as good as Ramirez does.

Oh, and more on-topic: Manny vs. the Hurt, just as hitters, is a clear career/peak dispute. Manny may outlast Thomas, but he was never quite as good.

Right. Ramirez at his best was not as good as Thomas was at his best; but Ramirez at his worst was never as bad as Thomas at his worst. This is purely a matter of definition.

True, Manny is not Kevin Reimer out there (about 16 errors per 162). Mainly he doesn't look confident and comfortable when chasing the ball down, and he can be very inconsistent in his throwing, sometimes surprisingly quick and accurate, and sometimes just weak or sloppy (and often that doesn't matter – he holds a double to a double either way). All these problems contribute to that "lack of range" issue. But compared to the spectre of Thomas or Ortiz or Thome or Jason Giambi out in LF, Manny is quite acceptable.

Thomas vs. Manny is not YET a matter of peak vs. career. If Manny can maintain his career average level of productivity for another four years or so, it will be, but that is a pretty big if. As it stands, Thomas has him on both.

Thomas vs. Manny is not YET a matter of peak vs. career. If Manny can maintain his career average level of productivity for another four years or so, it will be, but that is a pretty big if. As it stands, Thomas has him on both.

You make a good point, but it's two years, not four; while Thomas is four years older, the difference between them is only 296 games.

Of course, if Thomas plays for another year or two, Ramirez will have to make up those games also.

Well, it seems to me it would take four years for Manny to have a clear advantage in career value over Thomas. If you go by Batting Wins at BR, Thomas leads 69.3 to 56.1, which is between three and four years of typical Manny work.

Oh, I don't expect Ramirez to top Thomas in career (offensive) value. I was just talking about what it would take to get Ramirez equal to Thomas. I think a couple years, assuming (which I don't) that Thomas won't play anymore.

Frank Thomas played a meh 1B. Can you imagine Manny at 1B????

Frank Thomas played a meh 1B. Can you imagine Manny at 1B????

Not really, but, then, I'm not claiming that Manny could play 1B.