quote:
You can ONLY compare a guy against his era. In the end, it boils down to your numbers. How many hits? How many homers? What average? As a player drifts further into the past, all that is left is his statistical record. And those numbers mean nothing without context.

Famously, home runs are devalued in the 1990s. A 30 HR hitter in 1968 is more valuable than a 30 HR hitter in 1998. Conversely, a 4.50 ERA is league average in 1998, and would get you sent to AAA in 1968. There was a time when a 300 BA was league average. Not so much anymore. Teams don’t run as much as they used to, so a stolen base threat is more valuable now. Context is everything. The first question you should ask is: how does he measure up to his contemporaries?

IMO, Orlando Cepeda was a good illustration of the concept of comparing players within their era. Very, very similar offensive numbers to Rice but for the most part collected in the 60s. He was a borderline case that I believe deserved to get in...barely (and kudos to the Veteran's Committee on that one).

ETA: Admittedly, I just checked the OPS+ numbers...Rice's are better. Oh well.

quote:
MStreet – I essentially agree. All are borderline cases and I think the Hall of Fame loses no credibility leaving them out. Conversely, it loses none by letting them in. They are right on the cusp. I think they let the wrong guy in, but it’s not an outrage. Honestly, Raines is my pet candidate (aside from Blyleven – who I do think is genuinely outrageous is not enshrined).

Agreed on both counts.

I realize that BA is not the end all be all...but with Murphy, I just can't get past a career BA of .265.

This post was edited on 8/3/09 at 10:34 am