gregmag

Sorry to come back to this two days later, but RoCo, you said one thing that I can't let go. Molitor-Rice. Paul Molitor, IMHO, clearly had a better career than Jim Rice. Here's how I get there. Molitor, depsite having a longer career, which usually means a longer mediocre "tail" at the beginning or end of the career, had a lifetime OPS+ of 122. Rice's was better -- 128. So Rice starts out with that small but meaningful advantage. Everything else cuts Molitor's way. Rice played in a great hitter's park, which dramatically inflated his stats. County Stadium, IIRC, was rated as neutral to a slight pitcher's park (I don't have a source for splits -- anyone?). Molitor stole 30 bases per 162 games at a 79% clip; Rice stole four at 63%. Then there's defense. You pointed out, not quite accurately, that Molitor played half his career as a DH. Molitor played 1495 games in the field (against 1174 as a DH), over 1200 of them at 3B (791), 2B (400), and SS (57). Rice played 1543 games in the field -- only 48 more than Molitor -- all of them in the outfield, almost all, I presume, in LF. I have no deep insights into evaluating fielding performance, and I know Rice was considered an excellent LF. But in terms of overall defensive value, it isn't close. Jim Rice did one thing better than Paul Molitor -- hit home runs. Molitor did everything else better. He hit for a higher average, walked more, hit more doubles and triples, stole more bases, played tougher defensive positions. I know we aren't going to agree on this, but I humbly submit that Paul Molitor was clearly a more valuable player for his career than Jim Rice. Greg.

I agree that if the standard for the Hall of Fame is "fearsome mystique developed by a hitter, without regard to his defensive position (let alone defensive ability), over a five-year period, without regard to the rest of his career, in the best hitter's park of the era, without regard to how he hit on the road," then Rice should be in. But I don't think that's the standard. Greg.

Top 5? I'm working from memory here . . . Jackson, Winfield, Schmidt, Murphy, Carlton, Seaver, Dawson, Brett, Fisk, Yount, Molitor, Murray, Raines, Carter, Ryan, Perez -- all of those guys began and/or ended their careers within a few years of Rice, except Ryan, who overlapped him by miles at both ends. Stargell, Bench, Morgan, Carew, Henderson, and I'm sure a bunch of guys I'm forgetting had substantial overlap, but I'm willing to disqualify them on generational grounds. Then there are guys like Whitaker, Trammell, Jack Clark, Eckersley, Grich, Dwight Evans, and Darrell Evans, who clearly qualify generationally and whom I would take over Rice, but you might not. There may even be a guy or two on the first list to whom you would prefer Rice. But 12? That's how many you would need to knock off that list to make him top 5. I don't think he has a good case for top 20. Greg.

It's one thing to put up good stats. It's another thing to be the most feared hitter of his time. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the most feared hitter of the time would put up stats that no one could question. Rice did that for a few years. So did Don Mattingly, and a lot of other terrific players. The HoF is about career value to a significant extent, which is why guys like Roger Maris aren't there. The extreme debate between peak and career value is an interesting one. Take Rice/Maris/Will Clark vs. Murray/Palmeiro/McGriff. If I could have any of those guys for a year, it would be Rice or Maris. If I could have any of them for 15 years, it would be one of the latter group. I think the HoF is more about the 15 years; if you're going to get in based on five or six good seasons, you have to be Ralph Kiner good. Albert Belle good? Definitely, although by a close margin, better than Jim Rice good, IMHO. Greg. P.S. -- Yes, I just said I'd put Fred McGriff in the Hall of Fame before Jim Rice.

Splitter, this is a great idea. These are quickly becoming some of my favorite threads. I don't think Rice would be a bad selection, but he doesn't quite make it for me. His hitter's park and nonhitter's era cancel each other out, leaving a guy who was great at his peak but wasn't quite good enough for long enough. In general, I'm not a big fan of "RBI man" selections -- guys whose raw contribution gets juiced by their circumstantial achievements. Tony Perez is the poster guy for the type. Rice is very good of the type -- which is why it's certainly close -- but I still don't think he did enough on his own. Put it another way: he wasn't quite fearsome enough to make up for the deficits in his final counting stats. Greg.

Manny Parra sighting in Huntsville! Did we know about this? Greg.

A: "The stars lost fifteen to four." B: "Okay, I believe that." A: "Four Huntsville pitchers gave up more than three runs each." B: "Wow. Amazing, but plausible." A: "Jerome Gamble pitched in the game." B: "Well of course he did." A: "He pitched two scoreless innings." B: "Oh come on. Quit yanking my chain." A: "Also, Enrique Cruz walked twice." B: "Go away."

Why is it so obvious that Bruce Sutter is a better HoF candidate than Lee Smith? I agree that saves, as a stat, are misleading and overrated, so let's look at other info. Sutter had a career ERA+ of 136; Smith was 132. (I know that relievers' ERA+ can by deceiving, but I think it's a fair place to begin comparisons AMONG RELIEVERS). Smith lasted longer, pitching 247 more innings, and had a much better strikeout rate and K/BB ratio. Sutter gave up fewer hits per inning. I'd rate them as very close on objective performance criteria; I'd probably give Smith the edge, based on longevity as an excellent pitcher. Both Sutter and Smith, by the way, outpace their contemporaries mentioned so far in this thread. Fingers had a career ERA+ of 117; Gossage was at 126. If you want a better HoF candidate than Sutter, look no farther than Dan Quisenberry: he pitched almost exactly the same number of innings as Sutter, with an ERA+ of 146. He didn't strike anybody out and gave up more hits than Bruce, but he made up for those deficits by walking about half as many hitters as Sutter did. Hoyt Wilhelm, BTW, also put up a 146 ERA+ -- and pitched over twice as many innings as Sutter. That's a good HoF case. Beyond that, it gets dicey. I don't care about closers' Cy Youngs, because I think that begs the same question we're asking to begin with: how good does a guy have to be over 80-100 innings to be considered more valuable than a guy who isn't quite as good over 250? The relief ace was an innovation of the 1970s, and we've been overvaluing the role ever since then. The comparison somebody made to pinch-hitters was a little unfair, but only a little. Relief aces simply pitch too few innings to deserve inclusion among the elite unless they do an extraordinary job for a long time. Wilhelm did that. Mariano Rivera (ERA+ of 190 over ten years) is making a hell of a case so far. Eckersley (ERA+ of 116 in mixed duty) is the weird case, of course, but I'm okay with him. I wouldn't have voted for Fingers. I don't think Sutter or Quis was good enough for long enough. I don't think Smith was quite good enough. I don't think Gossage is close. Baseball people's ways of assessing relief pitchers are just too damned mystical. There's too much talk about dominance and innovation, and too little talk about performance criteria that we can agree on in principle and then use as grounds for argument. Bill James tried to do that in his New Historical Abstract, and it really took some of the wind out of relief aces for me. Greg.

Damn. Remember when Fielder was hitting .250? Last week? I'm getting a tiny bit worried about the security of Jerome Gamble's top prospect status. Greg.

I still disapprove of the Inman selection, X, and one great start for Helena, or ten, isn't going to change my mind. Mike Jones had a lot of great starts in the low minors. Do you still approve of that selection? Show me a HS pitching draftee who helps the Brewers as a pitcher or even as trade bait, and then we'll talk. I'd love for Inman to be the first since Jeff D'Amico. Hell, I'd still love for it to be Mike Jones. But until one of these guys makes it, I'm going to consider every high-round HS pitcher a wasted draft pick. None of this, of course, diminishes the beauty of what Inman did today. He is where he is, and he's dealing. Greg.

Fielder, Hart, Krynzel, Braun, Moss -- I don't remember the last time we had such a fine day of collective mashing from the prospects (especially if you limit the scope to A ball and above). Lost in the Nashville mayhem is the fact that Nelson Cruz is becoming one of those guys -- you look, and he only has a single in four trips, but then you notice the walk and the steal. A few nice pitching lines from youngsters as well. Greg.

Hoffy: best post of the night. That really was a kidney stone of a game. Dull, lethargic, utterly forgettable. I'm almost sorry I was at the ballpark. Almost. Greg.

Those of us who have found Jeff Housman's K/BB rates over the last couple of seasons tantalizing are officially confused by the line he's putting up tonight. The hell? Greg.

Okay, Clancy, I'll bite -- the differences between Vandenberg and Salome start with the fact that Vandenberg couldn't have put up Salome's numbers in little league, pause at the fact that Vandenberg is six years older, and end with the fact that Salome is a prospect and Vandenberg isn't. In addition, Palmisano's increasingly distant flash of glory still places him head-and-shoulders above Vandenberg in the catching prospect sweepstakes; the three-year age difference between them more than makes up for Lou's 50-point OPS deficit one level down the system. In other news, Brad Nelson is in free-fall after a hot start for the second time this year, and Angel Salome has six stolen bases. Greg.

Has Charlie Fermaint discovered the strike zone? Tiny sample, but he has walked 7 times (against 11Ks) in 52 ABs. Then there`s Salome, who, in addition to everything else, doesn`t strike out. Wow. Capellan`s hiccup in Nashville obscured a hell of a start by Jeff Housman. It`s only one game, and he has been awful this year, but at every level he seems to go through an adjustment period and then start mowing people down. I`d say it`s worth staying tuned. Re: the Huntsville game, I`m not sure I`ve ever seen a 19-15 game in the Brewers` system that contained less interesting news -- good or bad -- about our prospects. Greg.

I´m going to go out on a limb and say that this Krynzel thing is officially a problem. If he can`t put it together -- and I`ve never been a hater, I`m just saying -- then we aren`t as deep in CF as we think we are, because I still think Gwynn projects as a backup, and Moss has to get to the upper levels before we can start pencilling him in as anything. I`m starting to think the Brewers´ CF of the future may be an infielder in the organization now. Weeks? Hall? Hurricane? Greg.

Weren`t the Catching Molinas a circus act of some kind? Greg.

I can't believe how college-heavy this draft is, with basically no HS pitchers in the lower rounds. My instinct is to love this trend, in part because I have stathead tendencies but more because (1) this isn't Jack Z's "pattern," so it has to represent a very thought-out strategy, and (2) did I mention I hate HS pitchers? This does leave me with one question, though. Does inserting a college-heavy draft in what had been a string of prep-heavy drafts create any danger of a talent bottleneck followed by a shortfall? I know guys develop at uneven rates, so maybe this comes out in the wash, but it is a fairly major clustering of players in age. Actually, I have another question: Does drafting an unusual number of guys who are the same age as a lot of guys whom we drafted the past two years mean the organization isn't thrilled with the results of our last couple of drafts? Greg.

CC guy . . . so is this where we really start seeing a solid wall of DFE candidates? Greg.

Good Lord . . . Seattle just drafted somebody from Villanova. I had no idea we had a baseball team. Greg.

I haven't seen this posted anywhere else, but according to BA's draft blog, tenth-rounder Steve Garrison of the now-legendary Hun School immediately signed with the Brewers and will report to Arizona. They appear to have reached a predraft deal: www.baseballamerica.com/t...yblog.html Greg.

Thanks, Bill! What a horribly designed site that is. Greg.

Right, but his supporters (and I don't know enough to be anything other than agnostic here) would then say that, if you have two or three basically equal players, and one fills a need, that's a fair tiebreaker. Wouldn't you agree -- even though you disagree with the premise that Braun is approximately even with Maybin? Greg.

I live in Philly, and I've always mistrusted New Jersey's intentions, but the existence of this school just disturbs me on a whole new level. I mean, our ramparts here absolutely suck, and the kids these days just don't want to become archers. Greg.

Did we seriously just draft a LHP from the "Hun School"? What do they teach there -- pilliaging? Greg.