Rusty Staub v Jim Rice v Sammy Sosa

**538280** · 01-01-2002, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by AlecBoy006

Where do you get MVP from? Most years you played, or because of the best job you do.

Shelf life on Rice is very long. The experiation date is on the side of the box.

And Btw- How do you explain Marichal better than Blyleven is Blyleven lasted 6 more years? If you are gonna put it that way, Blyleven > Marichal

I favored Blyleven over Marichal to begin with, but different cases are different cases. Sometimes longevity can outweigh peak (though personally I don't even think Rice clearly had a better peak than Staub), but in other cases it can't. It depends on the degree of each advantage.

I don't understand what you mean in the first two lines of your post.

**brett** · 12-01-2006, 02:55 PM

So, my system ranks Rusty Staub as a better career player (no extra credit for peak value) than either Rice or Sosa. Sosa comes in a little behind in second, followed by Rice.

**leecemark** · 12-01-2006, 03:02 PM

--Staub had more good years than either Rice or Sosa, but didn't have any great years. He may well have accumulated more career value, but both the others were better.

**Cougar** · 12-02-2006, 12:55 PM

Setting steroids aside, it's got to be Sosa>Rice>Staub.

**Edgartohof** · 12-02-2006, 01:03 PM

With no adjustments, peakwise, none of them can compare with Sosa's 61 HR's, 149 RBI over his 4 year stretch. Or his 58 HR, 141 RBI over 5 years.

Of course, we do (as we should) make the proper adjustments, and Sosa no longer is at the top.

**538280** · 12-02-2006, 04:29 PM

I say Sosa>Staub>Rice.

Sosa by far has the highest peak of the three, and that is definitely enough to overcome Staub's highest career value. Rice has the least career value, and if he is ahead of Staub for peak it is only very slightly. If I made a steroid adjustment I might say Staub>Sosa.

**AlecBoy006** · 12-02-2006, 04:53 PM

Steroid Sammy? No way!

Rice is the player everyone talks about that isn't in the Hall of Fame. For a Rice fan, you certainly don't think of him as that good of a player.

I'd take Rice not a phony. Put that together, it's a Rice-o-phony. And Rice goes with beans. Boston Baked Beans!

**EvanAparra** · 12-02-2006, 04:55 PM

Steroid adjustment...

Staub>Rice>Sosa -- Sammy wasnt a great player outside of that insane peak he had.

With no adjustment..

Sosa>Staub>Rice

**538280** · 12-02-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by AlecBoy006

I'd take Rice not a phony. Put that together, it's a Rice-o-phony. And Rice goes with beans. Boston Baked Beans!

What do you think of Staub? He lasted much longer than Rice, and was just as good a hitter at his best and over his career, and without all those GIDP either. I would call him better than Rice.

**AlecBoy006** · 12-02-2006, 05:14 PM

Where do you get MVP from? Most years you played, or because of the best job you do.

Shelf life on Rice is very long. The experiation date is on the side of the box.

And Btw- How do you explain Marichal better than Blyleven is Blyleven lasted 6 more years? If you are gonna put it that way, Blyleven > Marichal

**EvanAparra** · 12-02-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by AlecBoy006

Where do you get MVP from? Most years you played, or because of the best job you do.

Shelf life on Rice is very long. The experiation date is on the side of the box.

And Btw- How do you explain Marichal better than Blyleven is Blyleven lasted 6 more years? If you are gonna put it that way, Blyleven > Marichal

You can't just look at one factor -- you have to balance it out.

**AlecBoy006** · 12-02-2006, 05:21 PM

You can't live on a name, but also on a career.

**EvanAparra** · 12-02-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by AlecBoy006

You can't live on a name, but also on a career.

I dont understand what this means..

**AlecBoy006** · 12-02-2006, 05:26 PM

Time research

**538280** · 12-03-2006, 05:23 PM

Just bringing these threads up-posts made earlier today are at the beginning of the thread.

**KCGHOST** · 12-04-2006, 07:28 AM

I went with Sosa>Staub>Rice, but it is close. It might have helped if any of these guys could field a batted ball.

**Chisox** · 12-05-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by KCGHOST

I went with Sosa>Staub>Rice, but it is close. It might have helped if any of these guys could field a batted ball.

That's how I go, as well. Sosa did play center early in his career and was solid RF before his batting binge.
I'm in the process of re-ranking players deciding HOF worthiness, and Staub looks better to me than he ever has and have him currently as border, probably a spot or two on my RF rankings just outside.

**Chisox** · 12-05-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by AlecBoy006

You can't live on a name, but also on a career.

That makes absolutetly no sense whatsoever.

**EvanAparra** · 12-05-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Chisox

That makes absolutetly no sense whatsoever.

That's what I said... but apparently the answer is 'time research.'

**Wee Willie** · 12-05-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by EvanAparra

That's what I said... but apparently the answer is 'time research.'

"Time research"...LOL. What does the study of grandfather clocks have to do with baseball?

**willshad** · 06-06-2008, 01:29 PM

Staub was asecond-tier star who played forever, and Rice was a top level star with a short career. Its kind of like comparing Harold Baines to Albert Belle. career value may favor the longer career guys, but there's no doubt who are more hall of fame qualified. Sosa is obviously on a whole different level, unless you discount his stats due to steroids.

**Honus Wagner Rules** · 06-06-2008, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by willshad

Staub was asecond-tier star who played forever, and Rice was a top level star with a short career. Its kind of like comparing Harold Baines to Albert Belle. career value may favor the longer career guys, but there's no doubt who are more hall of fame qualified. Sosa is obviously on a whole different level, unless you discount his stats due to steroids.

So, willshad, did you do some "time research" to come up with your conclusions?