Hobbits love stats, They particularly love a stat called OPS, in fact one hobbit loved OPS so much that he legally married it. Now get this, OPS is just two stats added together (OBP and SLG). Wow what a bunch of freaking geniuses. And although it is supposed to be the premier stat when judging a hitter it actually tells you nothing. Observe:
Hitter A: .850 OPS
Hitter B: .850 OPS
Identical hitters? Well no because hitter A has a .325 OBP and a .525 SLG while hitter B has a .400 OBP and a .450 SLG. Two very different players but yet this one stat lumps them together. Now the prevailing logic in Hobbitville is that hitter B is better because of his .400 OBP even if hitter A has more power.
OBP
They love on base percentage, in fact I think that sabermetrics should be called saberotica because I imagine that hobbits everywhere have a collective orgasm every time Kevin Youkilis draws a walk. I bet they grab the motion lotion and a kleenex and head for their parents restroom and scream out BALL FOUR as they climax. They also love base cloggers, you know guys who cant particularly hit that well and are very slow. These guys cant go first to third on a single or first to home on a double and they hold up faster runners but hey that walk was pretty sweet though. They dislike batting average for reasons I still don’t get but they like BABIP (batting average balls in play). Which leads us to:
Contradictions
They despise runs and RBI’s but adore home runs (geniuses, who doesn’t). But get this, a home run is worth a run and an rbi to a batter. So home run=good but run & rbi=bad. It’s all confusing and I’m sure they will invent another stat that they can’t explain like home run+ or something moronic along those lines.
WARP, VORP, & Captain Kirk
I’m telling you that some of these stats seem like characters from Star Trek, which I presume to be the official show of Hobbitville. I’m sure there is a statue of William Shatner outside of city hall (probably right next to the one of Papa Warp). WARP, VORP, OPS+, ERA+, eqa? If you ask one of these “guys” to explain what they mean well they just refer you to a website that doesnt really explain it either but tells you why its just the most wonderful stat in the world.
May 2, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Satire?
May 2, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Not at all
May 3, 2008 at 4:54 am
Just so you know–you blog says it’s a bog at the top. And your little pithy name dropping line in the Joe Posanski blog was pretty weak. That said, I agree that the OPS and stats of that Rob Neyer ilk are pretty damned lame. When people will argue that Edgar Martinez is a better hitter than Jim Rice was because of OPS, you know it’s a damned retarded stat.
May 3, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“When people will argue that Edgar Martinez is a better hitter than Jim Rice was because of OPS, you know it’s a damned retarded stat.”
Well, he was also a better hitter by every other measure except career HR.
May 3, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Rob – thats what I’m talking about, they invent stats that show that “their” guys are better than they actually are.
May 5, 2008 at 12:53 am
Tracy’s been smoking the same stuff Rob Neyer and his merry band of morons have been smoking. Edgar Martinez doesn’t even belong in the same paragraph as Jim Rice, let alone the same sentence. How many top 10 MVP finishes for Edgar? Did he ever win one? Did he hit in a stat inflated era?
That’s what I thought Tracy, now stfu, ya dope.
May 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Oh, Rob, you’re so cute.
Jim Rice, who slugged .459 outside of Fenway, once made 515 outs in a season, and ranks sixth in career GIDP, was a good hitter. Not a great hitter, except from 1977-79.
Edgar Martinez, who has a higher career BA, OBP, and SLG, and a better OPS+ (adjusted for era and park) than Jim Rice, was a great hitter from 1995-2001 (and in 1993). Oh, and he hit better in the postseason, too.
I know, I’m using one of those new-fangled stats in OPS+, but you’ll just have to deal with it.
May 6, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Saying Jim Rice was a good hitter (and comparing him to Edgar Martinez at that) is like saying Pizza is “good food”—you’re a oron if you ever think for a second Edgar COMPARES to Rice, let alone better. Get back to me with those MVP votes, then we can talk, jagoff…..
May 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oh—in case you’re scoring at home—Edgar has ONE top 3—Jim Rice has—count em bitch:
a 3, 4, 1, 5, 4 and 3
makes Edgar look like the wee bitch he is in the exploded steroid era, now don’t it fag?
And talking about jim Rice grounding into Double plays while comparing him in some off handed ill-fated way to Edgar Martinez is like comparing which Bush President was dumber—lol
May 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Rob, sweetie,
“Bitch” “Fag” “Jagoff” “Oron(?)”
I’m surprised you have the brains to operate a computer, let alone type.
I’ll go slow here. Rice has superficially impressive numbers, but made a lot of outs every year, because he wouldn’t take a walk. Martinez was on base all the time, scoring 100+ runs five times, compared to three times for Rice.
Oh, by the way, who drew more intentional walks? Martinez. Makes you wonder who the opposition really thought was a feared hitter.
May 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Yeah—as if after Rice in the lineup a pitcher couldn’t get stung by an Intentional Walk by the other Big Hitters in the Sox lineups of Rice’s Era, versus the Mariners who followed Edgar in the lineup–lol–the more you argue, the tinier your baseball brain shrinks, fool.
May 11, 2008 at 1:48 am
Martinez was half a player and thats why he will never be in the HOF. Rice will be in next year.
May 11, 2008 at 5:20 am
Thank you Derek–and agreed. Let’s face facts, IBB aside, no one ever really thought of Edgar Martinez as a feared hitter. An excellent hitter? Sure. A quality Hitter? Without question. But let’s not get all Rob Neyer-Dork here and talk OPS, IBB and things of that nature about two players from 2 totally different eras. I would have LOVED to see Jim Rice play in the era of the postage stamp sized strike zone, a strike zone that made mediocre players like Dante Bichette and Luis Gonzalez (and even Brady Anderson) into superstars—scary, isn’t it? You want to talk about doubles that Martinez has more of than Rice–sure, ok–but how many line drive lasers did Rice hit off the Green Monster for a single that were out of ANY park in the world, or were, at the VERY least a double? The only way Edgar had the 2 baggers he did was playing on carpet and having no speed to get to third—something Jim Rice did quite a bit of in his day.
Sorry Tracy–your Rice/Edgar comparison has no merit–plain and simple.
May 11, 2008 at 9:48 pm
How many singles did Rice hit off the monster that would have been homers anywhere else? Alot I imagine. He probably would have been 1st ballot easily.
May 11, 2008 at 10:08 pm
“Yeah—as if after Rice in the lineup a pitcher couldn’t get stung by an Intentional Walk by the other Big Hitters in the Sox lineups of Rice’s Era, versus the Mariners who followed Edgar in the lineup–lol–the more you argue, the tinier your baseball brain shrinks, fool.”
Funny, though, that after 1982, Rice never led his team in IBB. Looks like Wade Boggs and Mike Greenwell were more feared.
“I would have LOVED to see Jim Rice play in the era of the postage stamp sized strike zone, a strike zone that made mediocre players like Dante Bichette and Luis Gonzalez (and even Brady Anderson) into superstars—scary, isn’t it?”
Dante Bichette and Luis Gonzalez were superstars? Only in your mind, apparently.
Hey, I have no problem with Rice going into the Hall – he’s certainly worthy, although at a Tony Perez/Orlando Cepeda second-tier level. He wasn’t as good a hitter as Martinez, though, and all the name-calling in the World won’t change that simple fact.
May 12, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Calling Edgar Martinez a better hitter than Jim Rice is pure lunacy—period. Next thing you’ll be saying is that Jay Buhner is better than Dwight Evan—yeesh.
May 13, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Since I’m a masochist, I’m gonna throw my two cents into this debate. Jim Rice was a GREAT player. He was an excellent slugger for a good team. He is also the very definition of a borderline HOFer. He didn’t quite amass those seemingly magic numbers that the idiots that vote for the HOF require. Now it looks like he’ll probably get in, and I have no problem with that. I personally would leave him out, but he would by no means be the least deserving player in the Hall.
As to the Martinez vs. Rice “Better Hitter” issue, I think Martinez was better. Bear in mind they are two different hitters. Jim Ed was a slugger, a home run hitter, a guy plugged into the middle of good lineup to drive in runs, which he did very well. Edgar was a more patient line-drive hitter with plus power. As has already been pointed out, by almost any measure Martinez was a better hitter. Just a few: 141 more doubles, 613(!) more walks, a 13-point advantage in SLG, many more 150 OPS+ seasons (8 to 2), and higher RC/G (8.3 to 6). These are significant statistical advantages.
There are good arguments on Rice’s side, as well: 190 more RBI (if you like that stat), more Top 5 SLG, HR, RBI, and XBH years, the aforementioned MVP votes (if you put much stock in that).
I’ll take Martinez over Rice.
As for the “two completely different eras” argument, I offer the league averages for their respective years:
Rice (‘74-’89): .271 / .337 / .407
Martinez (‘87-’04): .267 / .337 / .420
Yes, in Martinez’ time there was a bump in slugging and a drop in batting average. But the difference is not huge.
May 17, 2008 at 4:00 am
That will be the end of me reading this eye ball hurting lunacy—especially from guys who probably never saw ONE Jim Rice hit either live or on tape. If you in SERIOUSNESS think Edgar Martinez is a better hitter than Jim Rice, you should be stripped of being able to ever talk baseball the rest of your breathing days. And you should also be subjected to a lifetime of nothing but Rob Neyer blogs. I am out of this joint for good–and in no offense at all to Derek–he’s obviously a man of intelligence and class. It’s purely because of the stat dork/nerds who have never seen baseball before Griffey and Frank Thomas who feel they have a clue.
Which they do not.
May 17, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Rob,
I was born in 1960, so I’ve seen plenty of hitters. Hell, I remember Wilie Mays batting leadoff in All-Star games.
Apparently, your reasoning rests on the fact that Jim Rice hit the ball real hard. That’s not exactly a convincing argument. The hardest hit ball I ever saw was by Leon Durham – perhaps that means he was a better hitter than George Brett.
Let’s face it; you are unable to actually refute an argument coherently, so perhaps it’s best that your take your ball and go home.
May 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Rob. Buddy. Calm down. Baseball is great because we can have these arguments. I didn’t see Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, or Hank Greenberg play, but I’m pretty sure they were great players. No, I didn’t see a single live at bat of Jim Rice. I’ve seen plenty of him in old highlights. That does not affect my ability to determine whether I think he was a better hitter than Edgar Martinez (or anyone else).
I challenge Rob, Mr. Hall, or anyone else to present an argument for why Rice is better than Martinez. All I would ask is that it be cogent, at least a little thought-out, and not based on the premise of “You’re stupid, I’m smart, so there.” I’m not optimistic of getting a response.