For instance, Jim Rice gets a lot of gawking at his 122 RBI in 1984...yet HE MADE THE MOST OUTS IN THE LEAGUE THAT YEAR. Plus he hit into a league leading 36 double plays!
Heck, even in his best year in 1978 he made the fourt most outs in the A.L.
I shutter to think how many outs and how many double plays he would have hit into had he continued to play another six FULL TIME years like the Hall of Famers from his era did.
AND FOR EVERYONE, NO, IT ISN'T JUST OUTS MADE. YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO WEIGH THEM WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POSITIVES ACHIEVED. It isn't unlike stolen bases. Knowing how many bases a guy steals is useless until you know how many times he got caught.
Rice is going to have less CAREER outs than many Hall of Famers from his time, but that is only because he didn't play the extra seven older man years like they all did. And Park factor still helped him, and it isn't just the Monster...IT IS AWFULLY HARD TO FLY OUT IN FOUL TERRITORY AT FENWAY PARK.
As for the fear factor of Jim Rice...his best rankings in intentional walks are 5th, 5th, and 10th. No other top ten. Yeah, pitchers may have feared him, but they also suspected they could get him out. Sure, lineup could affect that, but if he was such a feared guy ala Koufaxian, he should be much more feared than that.
<< <i>Dan, I appreciate the answer. Growing up in St. Louis, and therefore seeing Rice only a few times a year on the Game of the Week, I never thought of him as anything special, but I can see how a Yankee fan would. I do think it's interesting that even those who think it is obvious that Rice is a HOFer can't think of anyone else in the HOF they feel comfortable saying wasn't as good as Rice, but if that's not part of your standard then I guess there doesn't have to be an answer. >>
I think this is a telling comment - maybe this has something to do with your lack of appreciation for Rice. You admit that you didn't see him play very often, which is important here. Growing up a Red Sox fan, I obviously saw him play regularly. He did indeed grow into a fearsome hitter (for over a decade), and as pointed out, especially against the rival Yankees. You can't really measure this (intentional walks don't tell the whole story) but just read some of the comments of his contemporaries - guys that he played with or against - and you'll see that he was truly the most feared hitter of his time (slightly behind him were Murray and Winfield, and they are both in).
I also don't see why I have to slight someone in the Hall in order to put Rice in - he belongs on his own merits, and for his own reasons, why does he now have to be "better" than some guys who are already in? He is as good as many of them, and I have already outlined why I think so.
It's too bad that Rice often had a caustic relationship with the media and writers during his playing days. That is the real reason he has been denied entry to the Hall - if he had been a friendly, quotable type guy during those days, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He'd already be in (and so would Gossage). I can guarantee you that many of the writers not voting for him are doing so because of that reason - and hardly because they think playing in Fenway Park had an unfair effect on his statistics.
<< <i>It's too bad that Rice often had a caustic relationship with the media and writers during his playing days. That is the real reason he has been denied entry to the Hall - if he had been a friendly, quotable type guy during those days, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He'd already be in (and so would Gossage). I can guarantee you that many of the writers not voting for him are doing so because of that reason - and hardly because they think playing in Fenway Park had an unfair effect on his statistics. >>
the same reason some didn't vote for Ted Williams!
skinpinch - I agree that facing more left-handed pitching would not have altered Rice's enough to offset very much of the ballpark factor.
In terms of best ballparks to hit in it is not close for Rice. Yankee Stadium is his best park, followed by Fenway followed by the Metrodome. I believe he would have posted better numbers in Yankee Stadium in his career than in Fenway Park. If he had hit 3rd or 4th in that lineup facing 45% left-handed pitching his numbers would have been big and nobody would have said anything about the ballpark helping him. I think that is because he was not a dead pull hitter. You might have more access to his flyball percentages but I recall that he hit a lot of flyballs the other way, and that he tended to pull a lot of ground balls which results in a lot of 6-4-3's and accounts for his DP percentages. Certainly as a Red Sox fan I recall his flyball in the ninth inning against Rich Gossage in the play-off game that in Yankee Stadium would have been an easy homer but in Fenway was just a flyball.
I do have a question about the situational batter runs. Jack Clark scores that high? Even with all of the games he missed? Do those numbers indicate that Clark over 135 games is that much better than Rice, or anybody else, over 162?
Jerry, I get what you're saying but I think what you're desribing is a HOF without any reasonable standards for entry at all. Obviously, you saw Rice play more than I did; I saw Jack Clark play more than you did. I thought Jack Clark was something special - certainly in a higher class of players than Rice. But if what I saw as a Cardinal fan and what you saw as a Sox fan are relevant, then entry to the HOF ends up, at least in part, based on how many people saw them play. So you'll end up with way more Yankees and Red Sox in the HOF than Cardinals or Astros, and way more HOFers from hitters parks than pitchers parks. Which is, of course, exactly what we have now. I have little doubt that had Jack Clark, Joe Torre, Ted Simmons, Jimmy Wynn, Cesar Cedeno and Jose Cruz played for the right big market teams in ballparks better suited to their bats that most if not all of them would either already be in the HOF or else in the same situation that Rice is today.
What I'm trying to advocate is a system where what you saw and what I saw doesn't matter. We saw Rice and Clark play with the eyes of a fan - remembering all of the positives and forgetting all of the negatives. If we remove personal bias and anecdotes from the process, I do not think it is possible to reach the conclusion that Jim Rice is more deserving of the HOF than Ken Singleton, or Bobby Grich, or Darrell Evans or a vast number of others who played out of the limelight. "Most feared hitter" sounds impressive, but (1) I don't believe that it's true, (2) there's no way to find out if it is or not, and (3) even if it is true, so what? As a standard for the HOF that seems awfully flimsy to me. It also allows the sportswriters, who write mostly about big market teams and who get to coin catchy phrases like "most feared hitter", to have influence in a process in which they should have none (beyond their own vote, of course). Why, when it is now possible to determine with tremendous accuracy how many runs and wins a player is worth, should we not take advantage of that rather than relying on press clippings and stats that we now understand were inflated? I guess if you're a Sox fan I see the advantage of pretending that Fenway stats mean the same thing as Astrodome stats, but you have to appreciate how frustrating that is for the rest of us.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The intentional walks to do tell a story. Murray was first three times, and in the top ten a bunch of other times. He was the superior hitter to Rice, and he received all those same accolades from players etc... IN fact, in one poll of MLB pitcher he was voted by a large margin the most feared hitter in baseball.
Now I'm not sure how you can back up Most Feared, or if that even matters. But I do know that Murray was the better of the two in their peaks, and for the entire career. He was responsible for more RUNS, and that is what truly matters. All the other stuff you can save for the sportwriters, as that is the extent of their ability.
I find it amazing how people just gloss over the high amount of outs Rice made during his time, and the extremely high amount of double plays he hit into. People act as if those don't matter, and just go on with blinders.
Rice was a fine player, and to put him in the Company of Murray, Brett, or Schmidt is either bias or ignorance at work. He simply wasn't as good a hitter as others from his own era who are NOT in hte Hall of Fame...adn thta isnt even including Ballpark adjustmen. But to dismiss the massive amount of evidence that shows that fenway was a large help to hitters in that era has to be the biggest set of blinders of all!
Just because you say, "I don't believe in it," doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If I walk around saying I believe Derek jeter was a better player than Ted Williams, and I use the same blinders as per era, then I am sure you would disagree with the evidence I am adhering to.
Jack Clark, Eddie Murray, and Jim Rice have been compared quite a bit in this thread.
It might be of some interest to see their very best (PEAK) yearly performances compared;
HR Rice 46, Clark 35, Murray 33 BA Murray .330, Rice .325, Clark .306 RBI Rice 139, Murray 124, Clark 106 TB Rice 406, Murray 322, Clark 318 Runs Rice 121, Murray 115, Clark 93 Hits Rice 213 ( 200 or more 4 times ), Murray 184, Clark 181 SLG Rice .600, Clark .597, Murray .549 SB Clark 15, Rice 10, Murray 10 3B Rice 15 ( twice), Clark 8, Murray 3
Also interesting might be a couple of career stats;
Lifetime BA VS league adjusted average for their respective career time span; Rice .298 28 pts higher, Murray .287 25 pts higher, Clark .267 5 pts higher. Number of AB needed to hit a HR, sometimes called HR frequency; Clark 20.1, Rice 21.5, Murray 22.5
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
If I have time, I will give a more detailed examinatin of the true peaks. Yours is waay too incomplete to dissecting right now.
Why on earth do you use a career percentage for RIce and Murray when Murray had over 2,763 at bats after age 36, and Rice 200+ because he was a useless double play machine at that point?
I would love to see Rice's career percentages with another 2,700 at bats of .234 batting average, .276 OB%, and .344 SLG%, as that was his ability when he was washed up at 36. AND YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING THESE OTHER REASONS WHY HE ISN'T A HALL OF FAMER, WHEN THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON!!!!!!
If you bother to bring up career percentages to try and paint the picture, why do you stop there? Why not add the career totals too...you know the traditional measures you always love....Total HR, RBI, H, 2B, TB.
Win, I disagree with my 'view' on clark. I saw both play too, and Clark was every bit the force. The man could mash, and he was simply responsible for more runs that Rice....and that is the ONLY way it can be cut...how many runs a guy is responsible for. All the other stuff is the slanted stuff. You can't slant the runs a guy created.
I am still in awe at the total looking of the other cheek with a better measurement, simply because they aren't understood... or are 'newer' than the others.
I guess I will base my future Hall of Fame analysis using only the measurements originall leaned upon for determining a players worth....stuff like Putouts, fielding percentage, and batting average.
Hal Morris has a higher fielding percentage, and more putouts than Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and Frank Robinson. OH, AND HE HAS A HIGHER CAREER BATTING AVERAGE THAN THOSE GUYS. These are traditional stats that players have been measured since the beginning of baseball. I'm not interested in anything else...this is what matters.
<< <i>I saw both Rice and Clark play and believe me Clark was no Jim rice. >>
He certainly wasn't! Clark was unbelievable, wasn't he?
And Jack, I almost have to question the sincerity of your motives. You always list traditional, unadjusted stats. But this time, you reached into the barrel of useful stats and plucked out adjusted batting average; why would you venture into those stats and pick out only batting average and not OBP+ or OPS+? Both of those stats include batting average plus a whole lot more. And the case for Rice being better than Clark or Murray absolutely evaporates once you're willing to look at that "whole lot more". Jack Clark walking every 6th or 7th time up may not make him the most feared hitter in the league, but it made him a hell of a lot more useful than Rice was, and won a whole lot more ballgames.
And comparing at-bats per HR? A righty in Fenway compared to guys who played in Candlestick & Busch / Memorial & Dodger and you think that comparison is fair? How about ABs per HR on the road: Clark 18.9, Murray 22.1, Rice 23.8? That's a comparison that actually shows you something useful, although it still grossly understates Murray's true value. Rice was not as good a HR hitter as either Clark or Murray; realize that and take that off Rice's list of pluses and you're left with vitually nothing.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I merely listed accurate and correct stats, for any to see and evaluate, I made no conclusions.
Would most agree the abiltlty to get 200 or more hits FOUR TIMES is an indication of a pretty good hitter, whether he played mostly in Fenway park, Candlestick Park, or Yellowstone National Park ??
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Rice was actually more than a "Pretty good" hitter. And those numbers you listed are indeed facts. The only problem is, those facts are missing a bunch of pertinent information to complete the picture. This is the very example of 'slanting' that you guys claim that the objective accurate measurements do. In fact, that is one of the reasons why better measurement tools were researched to such a high degree...to get rid of the slanting and misinformatin that prevails among sports followers.
Bias is also another reason. We have Ctsox lambasting Derek Jeter because he feels that he would just be an ordinary hitter because he 'believes' that he is a product of being in a good lineup. Yet when it comes to Jim Rice(who also had a great lineup), he simply throws his beliefs to the side because it hurts a player he is fond of. It can't be both ways, but in the mind of the bias sports fan it usually is. Either the lineup helps Jeter and Rice, or it doesn't help either. It can't be it helps Jeter, but not Rice.
Then we also have a bunch of Rice backers who believe in the myth of the postseason hitter...yet when it comes to Rice and his poor post season performance, I don't hear that anymore? It can't be both ways.
Comments
Heck, even in his best year in 1978 he made the fourt most outs in the A.L.
I shutter to think how many outs and how many double plays he would have hit into had he continued to play another six FULL TIME years like the Hall of Famers from his era did.
AND FOR EVERYONE, NO, IT ISN'T JUST OUTS MADE. YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO WEIGH THEM WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POSITIVES ACHIEVED. It isn't unlike stolen bases. Knowing how many bases a guy steals is useless until you know how many times he got caught.
Rice is going to have less CAREER outs than many Hall of Famers from his time, but that is only because he didn't play the extra seven older man years like they all did. And Park factor still helped him, and it isn't just the Monster...IT IS AWFULLY HARD TO FLY OUT IN FOUL TERRITORY AT FENWAY PARK.
<< <i>Dan, I appreciate the answer. Growing up in St. Louis, and therefore seeing Rice only a few times a year on the Game of the Week, I never thought of him as anything special, but I can see how a Yankee fan would. I do think it's interesting that even those who think it is obvious that Rice is a HOFer can't think of anyone else in the HOF they feel comfortable saying wasn't as good as Rice, but if that's not part of your standard then I guess there doesn't have to be an answer.
>>
I think this is a telling comment - maybe this has something to do with your lack of appreciation for Rice. You admit that you didn't see him play very often, which is important here. Growing up a Red Sox fan, I obviously saw him play regularly. He did indeed grow into a fearsome hitter (for over a decade), and as pointed out, especially against the rival Yankees. You can't really measure this (intentional walks don't tell the whole story) but just read some of the comments of his contemporaries - guys that he played with or against - and you'll see that he was truly the most feared hitter of his time (slightly behind him were Murray and Winfield, and they are both in).
I also don't see why I have to slight someone in the Hall in order to put Rice in - he belongs on his own merits, and for his own reasons, why does he now have to be "better" than some guys who are already in? He is as good as many of them, and I have already outlined why I think so.
It's too bad that Rice often had a caustic relationship with the media and writers during his playing days. That is the real reason he has been denied entry to the Hall - if he had been a friendly, quotable type guy during those days, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He'd already be in (and so would Gossage). I can guarantee you that many of the writers not voting for him are doing so because of that reason - and hardly because they think playing in Fenway Park had an unfair effect on his statistics.
<< <i>It's too bad that Rice often had a caustic relationship with the media and writers during his playing days. That is the real reason he has been denied entry to the Hall - if he had been a friendly, quotable type guy during those days, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He'd already be in (and so would Gossage). I can guarantee you that many of the writers not voting for him are doing so because of that reason - and hardly because they think playing in Fenway Park had an unfair effect on his statistics. >>
the same reason some didn't vote for Ted Williams!
In terms of best ballparks to hit in it is not close for Rice. Yankee Stadium is his best park, followed by Fenway followed by the Metrodome. I believe he would have posted better numbers in Yankee Stadium in his career than in Fenway Park. If he had hit 3rd or 4th in that lineup facing 45% left-handed pitching his numbers would have been big and nobody would have said anything about the ballpark helping him. I think that is because he was not a dead pull hitter. You might have more access to his flyball percentages but I recall that he hit a lot of flyballs the other way, and that he tended to pull a lot of ground balls which results in a lot of 6-4-3's and accounts for his DP percentages. Certainly as a Red Sox fan I recall his flyball in the ninth inning against Rich Gossage in the play-off game that in Yankee Stadium would have been an easy homer but in Fenway was just a flyball.
I do have a question about the situational batter runs. Jack Clark scores that high? Even with all of the games he missed? Do those numbers indicate that Clark over 135 games is that much better than Rice, or anybody else, over 162?
What I'm trying to advocate is a system where what you saw and what I saw doesn't matter. We saw Rice and Clark play with the eyes of a fan - remembering all of the positives and forgetting all of the negatives. If we remove personal bias and anecdotes from the process, I do not think it is possible to reach the conclusion that Jim Rice is more deserving of the HOF than Ken Singleton, or Bobby Grich, or Darrell Evans or a vast number of others who played out of the limelight. "Most feared hitter" sounds impressive, but (1) I don't believe that it's true, (2) there's no way to find out if it is or not, and (3) even if it is true, so what? As a standard for the HOF that seems awfully flimsy to me. It also allows the sportswriters, who write mostly about big market teams and who get to coin catchy phrases like "most feared hitter", to have influence in a process in which they should have none (beyond their own vote, of course). Why, when it is now possible to determine with tremendous accuracy how many runs and wins a player is worth, should we not take advantage of that rather than relying on press clippings and stats that we now understand were inflated? I guess if you're a Sox fan I see the advantage of pretending that Fenway stats mean the same thing as Astrodome stats, but you have to appreciate how frustrating that is for the rest of us.
The intentional walks to do tell a story. Murray was first three times, and in the top ten a bunch of other times. He was the superior hitter to Rice, and he received all those same accolades from players etc... IN fact, in one poll of MLB pitcher he was voted by a large margin the most feared hitter in baseball.
Now I'm not sure how you can back up Most Feared, or if that even matters. But I do know that Murray was the better of the two in their peaks, and for the entire career. He was responsible for more RUNS, and that is what truly matters. All the other stuff you can save for the sportwriters, as that is the extent of their ability.
I find it amazing how people just gloss over the high amount of outs Rice made during his time, and the extremely high amount of double plays he hit into. People act as if those don't matter, and just go on with blinders.
Rice was a fine player, and to put him in the Company of Murray, Brett, or Schmidt is either bias or ignorance at work. He simply wasn't as good a hitter as others from his own era who are NOT in hte Hall of Fame...adn thta isnt even including Ballpark adjustmen. But to dismiss the massive amount of evidence that shows that fenway was a large help to hitters in that era has to be the biggest set of blinders of all!
Just because you say, "I don't believe in it," doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If I walk around saying I believe Derek jeter was a better player than Ted Williams, and I use the same blinders as per era, then I am sure you would disagree with the evidence I am adhering to.
<< <i>Jack Clark is only 800 odd plate apperances behind Rice for their career. >>
Plus, Tommy Lasorda never had Tom Niedenfuer pitch to Jim Rice with two outs, first base open and a pennant on the line...
It might be of some interest to see their very best (PEAK) yearly performances compared;
HR Rice 46, Clark 35, Murray 33
BA Murray .330, Rice .325, Clark .306
RBI Rice 139, Murray 124, Clark 106
TB Rice 406, Murray 322, Clark 318
Runs Rice 121, Murray 115, Clark 93
Hits Rice 213 ( 200 or more 4 times ), Murray 184, Clark 181
SLG Rice .600, Clark .597, Murray .549
SB Clark 15, Rice 10, Murray 10
3B Rice 15 ( twice), Clark 8, Murray 3
Also interesting might be a couple of career stats;
Lifetime BA VS league adjusted average for their respective career time span;
Rice .298 28 pts higher, Murray .287 25 pts higher, Clark .267 5 pts higher.
Number of AB needed to hit a HR, sometimes called HR frequency;
Clark 20.1, Rice 21.5, Murray 22.5
Clark is one of many on the cusp guys. Guys like Colavito, May, etc etc
Rice is IMO a true HOF'r regardless of how his stats are interpreted.
The writers surely agree as they have given Rice more votes then Clark over the years. The writers have the only opinion that counts.
Steve
If I have time, I will give a more detailed examinatin of the true peaks. Yours is waay too incomplete to dissecting right now.
Why on earth do you use a career percentage for RIce and Murray when Murray had over 2,763 at bats after age 36, and Rice 200+ because he was a useless double play machine at that point?
I would love to see Rice's career percentages with another 2,700 at bats of .234 batting average, .276 OB%, and .344 SLG%, as that was his ability when he was washed up at 36. AND YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING THESE OTHER REASONS WHY HE ISN'T A HALL OF FAMER, WHEN THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON!!!!!!
If you bother to bring up career percentages to try and paint the picture, why do you stop there? Why not add the career totals too...you know the traditional measures you always love....Total HR, RBI, H, 2B, TB.
Win, I disagree with my 'view' on clark. I saw both play too, and Clark was every bit the force. The man could mash, and he was simply responsible for more runs that Rice....and that is the ONLY way it can be cut...how many runs a guy is responsible for. All the other stuff is the slanted stuff. You can't slant the runs a guy created.
I am still in awe at the total looking of the other cheek with a better measurement, simply because they aren't understood... or are 'newer' than the others.
I guess I will base my future Hall of Fame analysis using only the measurements originall leaned upon for determining a players worth....stuff like Putouts, fielding percentage, and batting average.
Hal Morris has a higher fielding percentage, and more putouts than Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and Frank Robinson. OH, AND HE HAS A HIGHER CAREER BATTING AVERAGE THAN THOSE GUYS. These are traditional stats that players have been measured since the beginning of baseball. I'm not interested in anything else...this is what matters.
<< <i>I saw both Rice and Clark play and believe me Clark was no Jim rice. >>
He certainly wasn't! Clark was unbelievable, wasn't he?
And Jack, I almost have to question the sincerity of your motives. You always list traditional, unadjusted stats. But this time, you reached into the barrel of useful stats and plucked out adjusted batting average; why would you venture into those stats and pick out only batting average and not OBP+ or OPS+? Both of those stats include batting average plus a whole lot more. And the case for Rice being better than Clark or Murray absolutely evaporates once you're willing to look at that "whole lot more". Jack Clark walking every 6th or 7th time up may not make him the most feared hitter in the league, but it made him a hell of a lot more useful than Rice was, and won a whole lot more ballgames.
And comparing at-bats per HR? A righty in Fenway compared to guys who played in Candlestick & Busch / Memorial & Dodger and you think that comparison is fair? How about ABs per HR on the road: Clark 18.9, Murray 22.1, Rice 23.8? That's a comparison that actually shows you something useful, although it still grossly understates Murray's true value. Rice was not as good a HR hitter as either Clark or Murray; realize that and take that off Rice's list of pluses and you're left with vitually nothing.
Would most agree the abiltlty to get 200 or more hits FOUR TIMES is an indication of a pretty good hitter, whether he played mostly in Fenway park, Candlestick Park, or Yellowstone National Park ??
Rice was actually more than a "Pretty good" hitter. And those numbers you listed are indeed facts. The only problem is, those facts are missing a bunch of pertinent information to complete the picture. This is the very example of 'slanting' that you guys claim that the objective accurate measurements do. In fact, that is one of the reasons why better measurement tools were researched to such a high degree...to get rid of the slanting and misinformatin that prevails among sports followers.
Bias is also another reason. We have Ctsox lambasting Derek Jeter because he feels that he would just be an ordinary hitter because he 'believes' that he is a product of being in a good lineup. Yet when it comes to Jim Rice(who also had a great lineup), he simply throws his beliefs to the side because it hurts a player he is fond of. It can't be both ways, but in the mind of the bias sports fan it usually is. Either the lineup helps Jeter and Rice, or it doesn't help either. It can't be it helps Jeter, but not Rice.
Then we also have a bunch of Rice backers who believe in the myth of the postseason hitter...yet when it comes to Rice and his poor post season performance, I don't hear that anymore? It can't be both ways.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240