Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
At least with Brock you had the 3000 hit barrier and 800+ stolen base barrier to prevent some of that lowering the bar, but there is no "magic" numbers with Rice Medwick, it's just a 9000 8000 pa player who put up 6 all-star worthy seasons.
I'm not seeing six even by my own charitable lights.
99. Publius Publicola
I'm a pitiful little Sox Sawx fan who loves Rice and want to have his babies.
Clark was injury-prone and missed a ton of playing time. Strawberry and Parker wrecked their careers with drugs. Rusty Staub was a brutal defender, was slow as molasses and had 0.37 MVP shares. Luis Gonzalez had one huge steroid era year but who was otherwise unremarkable.
See, I can do that too.
About on par with Luis Gonzalez steroid (who cares)
As to the players failures that affected their careers? I'm not sure how that plays into it.
I'm bagging on the writers choice, because they are completely and utterly clueless, and your defense of the writers is "well the writers thought he was MVP worthy".... How are you not seeing this is not a good argument?
What you can't do is properly evaluate Lou Brock and Jim Rice.
Isn't it equally possible that the writers, being at the games all the time and sort of eating, drinking and sleeping baseball, are rather knowledgeable and you're the one that's clueless?
Rickey Henderson didn't go into the hof unanimously.... No, I'm not the one that is clueless.
Mind you. If you have a good statistical argument for Rice to be in the HOF, I'm all for hearing it.
He did kind of win the last Triple Crown in NL history; you may have heard that there are people who consider that sort of thing significant.
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how Brock is better than Rice. If you can do that, then maybe...maybe you can start beating up Rice again.
1. Rice is the newer selection so the people I'm bagging on for being stupid are still alive
2. Rice was around when we had better tools to evaluate a players value...
Rice is the worst choice, based upon available information that anyone has ever made in the history of mankind....
This is on par to believing in creationism as far as I'm concerned.
Based upon the evidence of 1980 or so, Brock had more total bases, hits, fewer double plays, all time record for stolen bases etc...
Not really. There weren't any decent defensive metrics developed when Rice was playing. and Rice and Brock's careers overlapped so there couldn't have been that big a difference anyway.
you can't make a case that he was better than Fred Lynn,
More than whom? More than Rice? Sure. Rice's career was only half over. Why don't we talk about OPS+, HRs, RBI's, OBP, SLG%, WAR, RC, RC/27? Stuff like that. Let's compare Brock and Rice based on those things.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.4944 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed