Options
Fan vote....Do you want Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame....
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
I am curious to the vote of the people on if they want Rice in the Hall. It is a simple vote. Yes if you want to see him enshrined. No, if you don't.
0
Comments
<< <i>I want the clowns that said no to tell why they said no. >>
He does not deserve it. He was not as good as Murphy-who also does not deserve it. Rice is not nearly as well qualified as Raines-who does deserve to be in the HOF.
there arne't a whole lot of HOF worthy players, is not a reason for putting someone in. If you have to go a few years without anyone
going, then that is fine. A guys numbers doesn't get any better over time. You have to comare him to who is in not who isn't. I have always
said, if you have to run a poll asking if he should be in, then he shouldn't be in.
The past few years have filled the HOF with average players...they might of been stars on their own teams, but that doesn't mean
squat. Gary Carter, Maz...Gossage...they are not CLEAR HOF'ers. Rice wasn't even on the radar 5 years ago..how come he is a
sure thing now?
JS
in his era.
Besides Rice, can anyone think of a league MVP
winner that also finished in the top 5 for MVP
five other times that is NOT in the HOF?????
p.s. I don't have an answer to that question. Just asking.
wpkoughan@yahoo.com
Collecting 1970-1979 PSA 9 & 10 Baseball Cards
<< <i>Yes, definately. He was one of the best players
in his era.
Besides Rice, can anyone think of a league MVP
winner that also finished in the top 5 for MVP
five other times that is NOT in the HOF?????
p.s. I don't have an answer to that question. Just asking. >>
And that is pertinent because.......?
It's that a Hall of Fame criteria?????
wpkoughan@yahoo.com
Collecting 1970-1979 PSA 9 & 10 Baseball Cards
lifetime hitter, never once won a batting tltle...that isn't domination.
Kevin
His lifetime totals might not be that impressive compared to guys already in the Hall (or even some guys not in the Hall) but if domination is a deciding factor Rice should be regarded more highly. Between 1975 and 1986 Rice led the AL in games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging percentage, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBI, multi-hit games, and outfield assists. Now, as others will point out, not all of his stats are great, but that sounds like prolonged domination to me.
Steve
Quoth Law on Rice: "If Jim Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, you might as well go to the front doors, take them off the hinges and just take them down entirely, because there are dozens of better players than Jim Rice who are not in the Hall of Fame, who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame."
Maybe not as much domination as some batting champs like Bill Mueller, Al Oliver, Bill Buckner, Ralph Garr, Dick Groat, Bobby Avila, or others NOT in the Hall, however........
Triple crown stats ; 3 HR titles, and two RBI titles.
Slg. Pct.; Two titles
Triples, Runs created, Hits, OPS +, and Games played, led the league once.
Total bases ? Quite the measure of a hitter's prowess. Since 1937 Jim Rice is the only American League hitter to get at least 400 total bases, 406 in 1978. He has led the league four different times in TB, also got 200 hits four times.
The eight time all-star, Jim Rice, might not be worthy on everyone's list. Reputable baseball evaluators, Gray Ink, Black Ink, and HOF Monitor all do rate him as qualified for the Hall.
<< <i>There's plenty of guys in the Hall of Fame that aren't .300 hitters. Besides, Rice was just 15 hits shy of being a lifetime .300 hitter.
His lifetime totals might not be that impressive compared to guys already in the Hall (or even some guys not in the Hall) but if domination is a deciding factor Rice should be regarded more highly. Between 1975 and 1986 Rice led the AL in games played, at bats, runs scored, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging percentage, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBI, multi-hit games, and outfield assists. Now, as others will point out, not all of his stats are great, but that sounds like prolonged domination to me. >>
<< <i>Keith Law on Jim Rice:
Quoth Law on Rice: "If Jim Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, you might as well go to the front doors, take them off the hinges and just take them down entirely, because there are dozens of better players than Jim Rice who are not in the Hall of Fame, who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame." >>
Quoth me: Who is Keith Law?
<< <i>
<< <i>Keith Law on Jim Rice:
Quoth Law on Rice: "If Jim Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, you might as well go to the front doors, take them off the hinges and just take them down entirely, because there are dozens of better players than Jim Rice who are not in the Hall of Fame, who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame." >>
Quoth me: Who is Keith Law? >>
Most likely some chump who was never athletically coordinated and couldn't make a T-Ball team, even though he was the coach's son.
Does he belong? I would'nt take Mr. Law's quote as gospel whoever he is.
Steve
If you need to endlessly discuss and debate if someone is worthy or not,
then obviously they aren't ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
Rice should go into the Hall of Fame for grounding into Double Plays
Folks like Ron Santo and Blylevn should be in the HOF way before someone like Rice
I'd put Tim Raines in the HOF before Rice.
Back to Article | Baseball Prospectus Home
January 9, 2008
Prospectus Today
Goose, Rice, and Confetti
by Joe Sheehan
To no one’s surprise, it was announced yesterday that Rich Gossage had been elected to baseball’s Hall of Fame. One of the five best relief pitchers in history by any standard, Gossage picked up 85.8 percent of the vote (with "only" 75 percent required for election) in his ninth year on the ballot. Goose’s omission from the Hall has stuck in his craw for some time, and he had been perhaps the player most vocal about his own status. With Bruce Sutter’s induction in ’06, however, Gossage’s eventual ascension to immortality was assured. There’s no better way to become a Hall of Famer than to have an inferior peer let into the room ahead of you.
Of course, the most interesting stories generally involve the players below the cut line, and that remains the case this year. Without an angry Rich Gossage to steal attention, eyes moving down the results list landed quickly on Jim Rice’s name. Rice finished second with 392 votes, named on 72.2 percent of the ballots cast, only 16 tallies shy of induction. With significant forward momentum, a small gap to close and some evidence of a “15th year” effect, Rice is a virtual certainty to be elected a year from now.
This will please many and frustrate a few, for Rice’s candidacy has become something of a battleground between analysts and the voting pool. For weeks now, the idea that Rice was “the most feared hitter in baseball for 12 years” has been pounded into our heads. The performance record shows that Rice would be a lower-echelon Hall of Famer and one of the weakest BBWAA electees ever, and in fact that he was, at best, the third-best outfielder on the ballot. However, that one phrase, and the single word “feared,” have become the club by which Rice’s supporters are beating their hero’s way into Cooperstown.
The thing is, they’re half right.
I will stipulate that at the end of the 1980 season, Jim Rice was on track for a Hall of Fame career. Even conceding that the right-handed slugger took advantage of a friendly home park and excellent teammates to post high home-run, extra-base-hit, and RBI totals, he was clearly among the very best hitters in baseball, and arguably the best in the American League. Through his age-27 season, Rice had four top-five finishes in MVP voting in his six years and a career line of .308/.357/.548 with 195 home runs. He wasn’t the best player in the game—as a slow left fielder, there’s just too much ground to make up—but he was among its best hitters. To project a player like that into the Hall of Fame wouldn’t require much effort.
The next six years, however—half of Rice’s effective career—he wasn’t the same player. It is entirely possible that he was “feared.” That fear, however, was based on performance that warranted it through 1980; it was based on nothing thereafter. Rice hit .299/.355/.490 from 1981 through 1986. That’s a completely unadjusted total, giving him full credit for the work he did at Fenway Park in that time. In the first six seasons of his career, Rice outhit his positional comps (left fielders except for 1977, when he DH'd 116 times) by 126 points of slugging and 17 points of OBP. In the next six, those figures dropped to 72 and 16 points, respectively. (Source: the Sabermetric Baseball Encyclopedia.) Again, this is without adjusting for Fenway Park’s effect on offense or making any note of Rice’s exceptional home/road splits in this period.
Let’s look at it a different way. Rice was, categorically, a high-average, high-SLG hitter. His calling card was power, which is how the whole “feared” thing came into play. After the age of 27, despite playing home games in Fenway Park, Rice appeared in the top ten in the AL in slugging exactly twice the rest of his career:
Year SLG Rank
1981 .441 15th (350 PA min.)
1982 .494 14th
1983 .550 2nd
1984 .467 21st
1985 .487 11th
1986 .490 10th
1987 .408 didn't qualify
1988 .406 39th
1999 .344 didn't qualify
Understand, this is supposed to be Rice’s sweet spot: raw slugging. Other than 1983, however, he was little more than ordinary even without looking any deeper into the park effect. This is not the record of a dominant, Hall of Fame-caliber hitter from 28 through 33. It’s the record of a slightly-above-average corner outfielder who is getting a huge boost from his home park.
Rice’s reputation comes from six good years, and then the inflated RBI counts that he still managed to post with these unimpressive slugging numbers. Yesterday on ESPNews, I made the point to Tim Kurkjian—who I don’t mean to single out by any means; he’s one of the good guys—that while Rice advocates will talk about the “feared” angle and that he “feels” like a Hall of Famer and that this is a “gut” decision, the truth is that they’re using numbers, too: just the wrong ones. Rice’s age-28 through -33 seasons, collectively, weren’t up to the standard he set prior to that. His Hall of Fame case is about RBI.
Jim Rice didn’t have a dominant 12-year stretch in which he was one of the best hitters in the game. He had a dominant six-year stretch, then dropped off noticeably while at the same time playing with a reputation and racking up huge RBI counts thanks to his teammates. Here’s a parallel chart to the one above, listing the number of men on base (ROB) that Rice saw when he came to the plate in those six seasons (I’ve truncated 1987-89, years that are irrelevant to his case):
Year ROB Rank
1981 367 1st
1982 466 7th
1983 504 2nd
1984 545 1st
1985 496 2nd
1986 514 3rd
Jim Rice voters: are you trying to elect Rice, or are you just putting Wade Boggs in a second time?
Rice has a stronger Hall of Fame case than does Don Mattingly, but the two resumes have similar characteristics. Both were among the best players in baseball for a six-year period. Both then had six-year stretches that were less than their peak, Mattingly’s moreso than Rice’s to be sure. Rice didn’t suffer the back problems that Mattingly did; on the other hand, he didn’t have a fraction of Mattingly’s defensive value.
Everything above is fact. Rice’s slugging averages, Rice’s plate appearances with runners on base, Rice’s stat lines from 1981-86. Elsewhere on the internet you can delve into the data on Rice’s so-so defense, his high double-play rates, and most notably, his performance outside of Boston. Maybe pitchers did fear him because of who he was, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that they were constantly pitching to him from the stretch in a bandbox. That would scare me, too.
The facts of Jim Rice’s career are not going to carry the day, as Rice’s vote total has reached a point that will make his eventual election inevitable. This will open the door, as Sutter did for Gossage, to a host of Rice’s superiors. Andre Dawson and Tim Raines and Dale Murphy and a whole hell of a lot of guys to come are going to be compared to Jim Rice—a BBWAA choice, not a Veterans Committee pick that can be hand-waved away—and find themselves cast in bronze.
Recently, Rob Neyer took it on the chin publically from a colleague, a member of the BBWAA. Neyer was accused of leading a charge against Rice’s candidacy. Frankly, I think the notion that this is personal is a disturbing one. When Neyer, or Keith Law, or Joe Sheehan, or Rich Lederer builds a case for or against a particular player, they’re trying to serve the discussion, and beyond that, uphold the standards of the Hall of Fame. These people have advocated as strongly for the induction of players such as Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, and Ron Santo as against the candidacies of Rice, Sutter, Jack Morris, and others. The arguments made by thoughtful analysts rise above the mythology of the day, and put context to notions such as “feared,” or “couldn’t win close games,” or “pitched to the score.” They should be regarded not with as much respect as the opinions of contemporaries, but with much more, because they don’t come with an emotional attachment to a player, a team, or an era.
The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983, not very many people knew or cared that Jim Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was “feared,” and that’s what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak, and not enough performance outside of his peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he’ll be elected in spite of that—and in contradiction to the facts in play—will serve neither the electorate nor the Hall of Fame well.
Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact Joe by clicking here or click here to see Joe's other articles.
Baseball Prospectus Home | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 1996-2008 Prospectus Entertainment Ventures, LLC.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Keith Law on Jim Rice:
Quoth Law on Rice: "If Jim Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, you might as well go to the front doors, take them off the hinges and just take them down entirely, because there are dozens of better players than Jim Rice who are not in the Hall of Fame, who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame." >>
Quoth me: Who is Keith Law? >>
Most likely some chump who was never athletically coordinated and couldn't make a T-Ball team, even though he was the coach's son. >>
Wow-what an intelligent response!
<< <i>The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983, not very many people knew or cared that Jim Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was “feared,” and that’s what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak, and not enough performance outside of his peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he’ll be elected in spite of that—and in contradiction to the facts in play—will serve neither the electorate nor the Hall of Fame well.
>>
Very well put, and 100% accurate.
<< <i>Guys in the halls are measured by batting titles and triple crowns, not something that is voted on like MVP's. Rice isn't even a .300
lifetime hitter, never once won a batting tltle...that isn't domination.
Kevin >>
At the time Rice retired he was one of only 13 players to EVER homer 20 plus times in 10 straight seasons. Yes it is domination ... I don't want to get carried away with my support for Jim Rice. He is afterall a Boston Red Sox and THAT enough should be enough to keep him from any praise.
BOTTOM LINE is if this guy was not such a a$$hole to the media as a player he WOULD HAVE BEEN IN by now. How is it that so many fail to realize this? Its not fair but its the TRUTH.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983, not very many people knew or cared that Jim Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was “feared,” and that’s what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak, and not enough performance outside of his peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he’ll be elected in spite of that—and in contradiction to the facts in play—will serve neither the electorate nor the Hall of Fame well.
>>
Very well put, and 100% accurate. >>
That is well-put and I don't totally disagree. The thing that gets me is the part that he said that "in 1983, not very many people knew or cared that Jim Rice was an ordinary player outside Fenway . . . he was 'feared' and that's what mattered."
If that's what mattered, why do we insist on applying today's analysis and standards to yesterday's experience?
I know I have posted this a few times over the years, but I really believe he would have been ROY (and MVP) over Fred Lynn had Tony C.'s comeback not cost him the beginning of the 1975 season and/or a broken hand not cost him the end of the season. Additionally, the legendary, evenly matched 1975 7-game WS could certainly have been tipped by Rice's presence. Had either happened, there would be no discussion. Rice had 20 GWRBI's in '75 even with the double-truncated season. Lynn was magnificent, but Rice was money.
For this reason, I favor giving Rice the benefit of the doubt in an extremely close call.
Bosox1976
<< <i>At the time Rice retired he was one of only 13 players to EVER homer 20 plus times in 10 straight seasons. Yes it is domination >>
At the time Rice retired, 16 players had hit 20 or more homeruns 10 straight seasons. Including two players not in the Hall-of-Fame, Colavito and Hodges. Interestingly, Rice missed his opportunity to hit 20+ 10 straight seasons because of the 1981 strike, as did Dale Murphy. Include them and the number is 18 (with four non-Hall-of-Fame players). Williams, DiMaggio and Mize missed it because of WWII, include them and the number is 21. And then there are over a dozen players who just missed the cutoff, like Ron Santo who hit only 17 in 72 (along with a .391 OBP and good defense). Or Norm Cash who only hit 15 in 70, but had a .383 OBP. And Both of them played their careers in years with much less offense
When a player compares so favorably with an so many players not in the Hall-of-Fame as Rice does, there is no way he is deserving
Remember when you asked if the steroid era would help guys like Rice or Dawson get in?
Surprisingly it hurt them from one voter!!!! Rick Telander decided not to vote for anybody because his reasoning was that since he can't 100% fully guarantee that guys like Andre Dawson didn't do steroids, it is hard to cast a vote for any of them!
I heard Dawson on the Radio and he wanted to punch him in the face. I met the hawk a few times. It would hurt...and not becaue of juice. When I heard Dawson react, and compared to how Clemens reacted...TALK ABOUT A TALE OF TWO CITIES! My god.
On to the more interesting angle...I wouldn't be surpirsed to see other guys hold that philosophy to the guys who really deserve it(the 90's to now era). What could end up happening is that they won't be voting for any of those guys...but it would be silly to have nobody make it for a two or three year stretch, and I could see the holdovers getting more support after all.
On to Rice! Had this question been posted in 1986...most would have responded that Rice is a HOFer no doubt. It is very strange in the end it is going to be Jerry instead of Jim. Though I think Rice will end up making it anyway.
Interesting take Bosox1976.
Steve
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Not true. Of Rice's 16 yr career 12 were effective. The first yr and the last 2 or 3 were not.
When people make flawed comments like that i have to then be skeptical of everything else they say.
Steve
I think if a player is borderline, they should not be inducted. The problem is a handful of players that were not even borderline are in, which inevitably starts the debate "well, if so and so is in, how can so and so not be in?" And that waters down the HOF.
I remember Rice being "THE most feared hitter" for 2 or 3 seasons, not 6 and certainly not 12. The rest of the time he was a dangerous hitter who was just as likely to ground into a DP as smash a homer. He was nothing special in the field. He played on zero championship teams, though his presence might have swung the '75 series as Bosox suggests. I would also suggest that he benefits from having played for a team in a large media market.......put him on the Expos as Andre Dawson was for the prime of his career (or Tim Raines) and there might not even be a debate. At the least, the large market he played in neuters the argument that the sportswriters are paying him back for being a jerk. He got double the exposure in Boston that he would have gotten in the majority of other markets.
Therefore, on his own merit, I would not vote for his induction. But if he were to be inducted, I wouldn't have a problem with it because as I said above the Hall is already watered down. I'd just put him in the group of guys who should not be there.
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Keith Law on Jim Rice:
Quoth Law on Rice: "If Jim Rice gets into the Hall of Fame, you might as well go to the front doors, take them off the hinges and just take them down entirely, because there are dozens of better players than Jim Rice who are not in the Hall of Fame, who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame." >>
Quoth me: Who is Keith Law? >>
Most likely some chump who was never athletically coordinated and couldn't make a T-Ball team, even though he was the coach's son. >>
Wow-what an intelligent response! >>
Let me guess, you resemble that remark too, huh?
The HOF is not only about stats, but also history, character and innovation, which are other factors that make someone famous.
Rice fills a vacuum left by so many players under steroids suspicion. The perception was that Rice was the most feared hitter in all of baseball for a significant stretch. I am OK with that since not everything humans do or say has to do with empirical facts.
Looking at Rice's numbers, one has to understand that they were extremely inflated by the ball park. Wade Boggs also played in Fenway and gained advantages too, but he has proven that a new home ball park can be made advantageous to him when he moved to Yankee stadium. His career BA at Yankee Stadium was much higher once it became his home. I don't know if Rice had that kind of talent, so maybe we should give him some benefit of the doubt?? Since someone also compared Rice to Mattingly, we must also consider that ballpark adjustmented stats sometimes disfavor players (Rice) and favor others (Mattingly).
Stats alone, there are too many equals to Rice. His contemporary, Fred Lynn, and former Red Sox Tony Pena compare real well statistically, but not in perception for some reason. Using park adjusted stats, Rice is not dominant, Koufax gets drawn closer to earth and Mattingly appears to shine, actually.
I have a problem with proving dominance by saying that Rice hit 20+ homers for 10 years straight. Someone pointed that it was not true. I say that homers are a spectacle and a mere statistical anomaly in the early decades of baseball. OPS is a more comprehensive stat that takes homers into account along with so many other dimensions of hitting. By talking about homers, you alienate decades of baseball where a dozen homers would win you the HR title. In the 1940s-90s (plus a few other years), 12 homers was no big deal. It would be more substance to say that Rice ranked in the top 5 in homers for 10 straight years--that would actually be putting it into context (I don't know his rankings for homers on a yearly basis).
So, I hope the election of Rice does not open the flood gates for many other players. As a historical baseball player, maybe he should be in since he has no equals. But when you reference stats too much, you are hurting his case, not building it. This is why I caution for Rice's election.
edit for grammer, make factual corrections
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>The next six years, however—half of Rice’s effective career—he wasn’t the same player.
Not true. Of Rice's 16 yr career 12 were effective. The first yr and the last 2 or 3 were not.
When people make flawed comments like that i have to then be skeptical of everything else they say.
Steve >>
The author did not say he was not effective after the six big years, he said he was not (nearly) as good. I agree with him. The HOF is not for effective players, it is for great players over an extended period of time.
ESPN.com: Neyer
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Unconverted Rice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry. It's almost over. Perhaps a few more mentions here or there, but this is the last time you should have to read much about Jim Rice until next winter. At least in this space. Anyway, it's become academic, as Rice came so close this year that he's practically assured of election next year.
Still, I don't feel that I can let Dan Shaughnessy's latest column pass without comment. Sandwiched between some appropriately snarky comments about our favorite arrested adolescent, Roger Clemens (who needs a new nickname, I think), Shaughnessy somehow figures out a way to once more exaggerate Rice's Cooperstown credentials:
"Rice hit for power in a day when power numbers were legit. He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded. He amassed more than 400 total bases when he was MVP in 1978. He hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons. He was more feared that Tony Perez, who is in the Hall of Fame.
Yesterday's news had to hurt, but Jim Ed has been typically stoic through these years of rejection. He hasn't cried about racism or favoritism (he'd probably already be in Cooperstown if he'd had the disposition of Kirby Puckett or Gary Carter), but he knows he was a better hitter than former teammates Perez and Wade Boggs and he suffers in silence while inching excruciatingly close to election. "
You have to admire Shaughnessy for sticking to his guns. He wrote something about Jim Rice and intentional walks last week, and must have received a great deal of great deal of criticism from his loyal readers because -- as I and others pointed out -- Rice never drew an intentional walk with the bases loaded and in fact didn't draw all that many intentional walks whatever the situation.
Was Rice the "dominant slugger of his time"? Of course he wasn't. In Rice's time, slugger Mike Schmidt hit 548 home runs and won three MVP Awards. In Rice's time, Reggie Jackson hit 563 home runs. Rice hit 382 home runs.
He did amass 400 total bases in one season, which is impressive. Roger Maris once hit 61 home runs in one season. Rice did hit 35 homers with 200 hits in three straight seasons, which is impressive. It's also only three seasons. And in all the rest of his career, Rice topped 35 homers exactly once more and never did get 200 hits in another season. So really, it seems that Rice's entire case, his time as a dominant hitter, rests solely on three seasons.
Would Jim Rice already be in Cooperstown if he'd had the disposition of Kirby Puckett or Gary Carter? Well, Carter didn't get elected until his sixth year on the ballot and he's one of the six or eight greatest catchers ever. So that wouldn't seem to be a big edge. As for Puckett, well, maybe. But that's a little like saying Alan Trammell would be in the Hall of Fame if only he'd been able to play defense like Ozzie Smith. Some gifts are rare enough that we don't use them as imaginary attributes. (What's more, it's not clear.)
Was Rice a better hitter than Tony Perez? Of course he was. A lot of guys were better hitters than Tony Perez. For your consideration, an incredibly incomplete list of hitters who were better than Tony Perez: Dick Allen, Gene Tenace, Frank Howard, Boog Powell, Jack Clark, Keith Hernandez, Reggie Smith, Norm Cash, Fred Lynn, Oscar Gamble, Jimmy Wynn, Tony Oliva, Bobby Bonds, Bob Watson, Greg Luzinski and Rico Carty.
All of those guys have two things in common: (1) they were better hitters, career-wise, than Tony Perez; (2) they're not in the Hall of Fame, and won't be. Tony Perez isn't in the Hall of Fame because he was a great hitter. He's in the Hall of Fame because he had a few great years and a number of good ones, and because he played with the Big Red Machine.
Rice's supporters like to cite the elections of Perez and (especially) Orlando Cepeda, but those were mistakes. Seems to me if your case relies upon repeating mistakes, you might ought to take a new tack.
Ah, but then there's Wade Boggs. He was no mistake. Boggs sailed into the Hall of Fame with 92 percent of the vote in his first try, and you heard no argument from this quarter. Was Rice really a better hitter than Wade Boggs?
A direct comparison isn't easy, as their careers had different "shapes." Rice reached the majors at 21, became a star at 22, was washed up at 34 and out of a job at 37. Boggs didn't reach the majors until he was 24, but hung on until he was 41.
Nevertheless, let's try. Because Rice enjoyed only 12 good years, his fans usually ignore the rest of his career. In the interest of brotherhood, we'll do the same: we'll compare his 12 best years with Boggs' 12 best years.
Jim Rice vs. Wade Boggs
Games Runs RBI OBP SLG OPS OPS+
Rice (1975-86) 1,766 1,098 1,276 .356 .520 .876 133
Boggs (1983-94) 1,761 1,160 757 .425 .456 .881 139
They played almost exactly the same number of games. Boggs scored a few more runs than Rice, which you'd expect because Boggs hit at the top of the order. Rice drove in a lot more runs, which you'd expect because he hit in the middle of the order and was always swinging. Their OPS's are virtually identical. Their adjusted OPS+'s -- which consider league averages and park effects -- are close, but it seems that Boggs does have a real edge there. When you consider that OPS (and OPS+) slightly undervalue on-base percentage relative to slugging, Boggs' edge only grows.
Oh, and the intentional walks? In Boggs' dozen best seasons he drew 153 intentional walks. In Rice's dozen best he drew 72. Maybe Rice really was better than Boggs. But the statistics don't support that notion. And the managers in the other dugouts apparently didn't believe it, either.
I haven't mentioned Fenway Park. That's OK; I've mentioned it before. By now, if you don't know that Rice had a huge home/road split over his career, it's because you choose not to know. What's amazing to me, more than 30 years after Bill James published his first "Baseball Abstract," is that a smart guy like Dan Shaughnessy can still pretend that inconvenient truths like Rice's performance in road games just don't exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN.com: Help | PR Media Kit | Sales Media Kit | Report a Bug | Contact Us | News Archive | Site Map | ESPN Shop | Jobs at ESPN | Supplier Information
Copyright ©2008 ESPN Internet Ventures. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and Safety Information/Your California Privacy Rights are applicable to you. All rights reserved.
The writer most certaintly did imply that Mark.
12 of his 16 major league career were HOF style type years, not 3 not 6 but 12.
I do not care how he matches up against Boggs or anyone for that matter.
His last 2 years were sub par. His first yr was a cup of coffee, everything in between that was HOF caliber.
The team he played on makes no difference to me.
I would suggest you guys look at his career before posting what other people say and stop with all the split stats and other boutique type stats that saber geeks like to use.
IMO, he is basically on the cusp. Like many other guys.
If he makes it he surely won't water it down anymore then it has in recent years his induction would actually raise the bar a tad.
Of course all is my opinion.
Steve
<< <i>The next six years, however—half of Rice’s effective career—he wasn’t the same player.
Not true. Of Rice's 16 yr career 12 were effective. The first yr and the last 2 or 3 were not.
When people make flawed comments like that i have to then be skeptical of everything else they say.
Steve >>
You agree with the author that his effective career was 12 years. But you disagree that half of that is six years?
I must be missing somethings
Rice did have 12 years where he did a lot to help his team. Some years (1978 and 79) more than others (in 1986 his obp was under league average). How many years equal or better than that 1986 season (or even 81) did Dwight Evans have? 15 maybe. Even peak value isn't too much different, Rice's best OPS+ years were 157 and 154 for first and fourth place, Evans' were 161 and 154 for second and fourth place. After accounting for Evans being one of the best defensive rightfielders in history I don't see any possible way to put Rice ahead
<< <i>Even peak value isn't too much different, Rice's best OPS+ years were 157 and 154 for first and fourth place, Evans' were 161 and 154 for second and fourth place. After accounting for Evans being one of the best defensive rightfielders in history I don't see any possible way to put Rice ahead >>
There are possible ways, but no good ways. We always hear what a fluke Norm Cash's 1961 season was, but even without it he has a career OPS+ better than Rice - AND he was a better HR hitter. Bobby Murcer's career OPS+ is about the same and his peak two are 181 and 169 (first and second). And he won a Gold Glove in center field. Ken Singleton's career OPS+ is better than Rice's and his 6th best is better than Rice's fourth best (in addition to having a higher peak). Same sort of thing for Jimmy Wynn (plus great baserunning), Cesar Cedeno (plus FIVE gold gloves in CF and outstanding baserunning), and that isn't even touching on the guys who played Gold Glove defense in the infield and still had peak and career hitting comparable or better than Rice's.
The case for Rice begins and ends on the mystical belief that he was "feared". Bring up his putrid baserunning and the response is silence. Bring up his nonexistent value to his team on defense - silence. Are there 100 non-HOFers who contributed more to their team's success with their bats, arms, gloves and legs than Rice or is it more like 200? I don't know for sure, but I know the correct answer is somewhere in that range. Were those players as "feared" as Jim Rice? Who knows and who the hell cares? It's a ridiculous standard. I bet there were a whole lot of pitchers who feared facing righthanded hitters in Fenway with men on, and Rice was in fact the right-handed hitter who got the most ABs with men on in Fenway. I suppose that made him the "most feared". But are we really that sure that Jim Rice was more "feared" in his time than Boog Powell was in his? There's no reason in the world to think that he was - Powell was not only a better hitter overall, but also a better home run hitter. Is there anyone willing to seriously try to make a case that Jim Rice was better than Boog Powell? Powell's FOURTH best OPS+ is better than Rice's best. Any pitcher that feared Jim Rice in his prime more than Boog Powell in his prime was what we call, in technical terms, a moron. And just to be clear - Boog Powell does NOT belong in the HOF; although considerably better than Jim Rice, he falls short of that standard.
That there are hundreds of better qualifed players for the HOF I accept easily. To deny that there are at least dozens more qualified takes nothing short of an iron will to ignore any and all available evidence. The man did one thing well; there are at least a dozen players who even did that one thing better in addition to doing everything else better. Understanding the case for Jim Rice is pretty much the same as understanding someone else's religion; it is a case based on faith rather than any tangible evidence.
You agree with the author that his effective career was 12 years. But you disagree that half of that is six years?
Yes you are missing the point that the author IMO claimed that in the next 6 yrs Rice was not as effective and I claim he was.
Geez was it that hard?
Steve
The first 6 full years he had: 195 hrs, 650 rbi with 1106 hits.
The next 6 yrs (including a short strike season) 155 hrs. 630 rbi with 1039 hits.
seems awfully similar in my eye.
Yes Hrs were down 6 per yr, rbi were down 3 per yr and hits were down 11
That is over the course of a yr!
To say that he spiraled downward is just not true, if anything he was actually consistent. And that is my only point I have been trying to make.
Steve
Even if you think his value was completely identical, certainly someone else might reasonably believe 49 more homeruns and 33 more doubles and triples are things that do help a team without destroying all credibility
Interestingly, in his fist six effective years Rice earned nearly twice the MVP voting points as he did in his other six years. I know sports writers voting is not close to a perfect measure (and is often a poor one) but in this case it is absolutely impossible to give any credibility to the idea that Rice did not have some decline from his peak in 78 and 79 to his last good years of 85 and 86
< You really think Rice was as equally effective a hitter in 1984-86 as he was in 77-79?>
I never said he was! What i said was: he was similar from 1975-80 as he was from 81 -86 Why did you insidt on taking his top 3 yrs and use them against his last 3?
That sir is picking and choosing.
The difference was slight IMO.
and it was 40 home runs not 49
67 hits over a 6 yr period
If one takes a glance at Rice's stats one sees that he was pretty consistent over the 12 yr period.
Of course as a player ages his stats come down from highs. I feel his downs were not as severe as the OP and the person he copied claims.
JMO
And with that I'm done with this thread.
Steve
Edited to answer the question.
Ultimately, though, his high is no better than Murphy, Lynn, Maris, he drops much faster than Allen, and doesn't last as long as Evans. And overall, at least half of those players, if not all, are better Hall-of-Fame choices than Rice
As for RBI totals. The article above pointed out how often Rice was the beneficiary of Men on Base...thus giving him a big RBI advantage over superior hitters who simply did not have the luxury of falling out of bed and being able to hit with men on. Only when you know exactly how many RBI opportunities a man had does it begin to have some sort of meaning.
Then you also have to see how many RBI opportunities he gives to HIS teammates! In essence, that is the OB% and other side of the equation.
Then you also have to see how many RBI he leaves out there. If you are going to credit him for his RBI total, then you have to see how many he failed to drive in as well. It is only fair if looking at raw totals like such.
Take for example the 1984 RBI race. Rice had 122, Eddie Murray 110. On the surface, one gets excited about Rice's 'victory'. Well, what if you know this information....
Batting with how many men on 2B:
Rice.....had 155 men on second and drove in 23% of them
Murray had 117 men on second and drove in 27 % of them
Rice...... had 76 men on third an drove in 59% of them.
Murray had 62 men on third and drove in 58% of them.
Rice.....had 49 on third w/ less than two out drove in76%
Murray had 37 on third w/ less than two out drove in 78%
Rice......had 281 men on first and drove in 7.5%
Murray had 228 men on first and drove in 8%
Total count:
Rice ....had 231 men on in scoring position, drove in 35%
Murray had 179 men on in scoring postiong, drove in 38%
Yet Rice had 12 more RBI, and in the minds of many fans they look at that, and think WOW, the best RBI man, most feared! It really isn't the case though. Rice had 52 more RBI opportunities, 12 of which in the easy RBI spot of man on third/less than two out! He also had 53 more men on 1B to drive in. Yet he only had 12 more RBI.
TIMES ON BASE. How many RBI opportunties did they leave their teammates??
Murray was on base 260 times. That is actually standing on base(meaning not double counting HR)
Rice.... was on base 200 times. So he gave his team 60 less chances to score runs than Murray.
Then please understand where Rice played in a park that in fact increased extra base hits, AND batting average, thus making it easier for him to drive in runs because of this advantage(making his % of runners drive in easier to attain).
Seems some guys are calling the best stats "boutique" stats. What the 'boutique' stats really are is an understanding off all this concrete factual data. You can go through every single play by play, and know EXACTLY how many times player A did this, how many outs there were...etc. But instead of going through all of that, all one had to do was look at the stat below and it would have told you the same thing...the thing that the misleading RBI total was COMPLETELY LYING ABOUT!
OPS+ Murray 156
OPS+ RIce 112
Actually, the OPS+ doesn't account for the men on hitting...just what the typical hitting event would bring. So it needs to go furhter, and that is adjusted batter runs. This is based on every event, and every base and out situation.
Murray had 60 runs creatd above what a league average player would...the best in MLB that season.
Rice..... had 6 runs created above what a league average player would. No, the "6" is NOT a misprint.
Rice's low total corrects the mistake that the RBI total is making...the fact that he had soo many more opportunites to drive runners in, and HE DID IT AT A LOWER PERCENTAGE. It also takes into account the dearth of RBI opportunites he gave his teammates. In essence, if he HAD NOT driven in 100 runs that season, I would be questioning if he had both arms working.
Then there is 1986 where Rice had the fourth most RBI opportunites in one season, spanning in all the years from 1975 to 1992. Tony Perez had the most in 1975...go figure. In fact, Rice holds THREE of the top twenty five spots on that chart. George Foster is the only other player with more than one(he has two).
I think WinPitcher picked an apt word to describe the statistical measurements that are so highly regarded by a few of the board members here.
I think the word suggests something hand-picked and selective and when people bring up stat comparisons under the guise of pure analysis they lose some of their analytical credibility with the rest of us when they appear to be picking and choosing which of these stats they want to use to build their case . . .
Take OPS+ for example. I keep hearing about how Dwight Evans was a better player than Rice (I'll give you that when it comes to defense). People can pick and choose whichever years they want, saying that so-and-so's 4th best was better than someone else's best. Does that really have any relevance when you're comparing different eras? In the context of these HOF arguments there is no consistency with the way people argue. Okay, so OPS+ is a superior measurment to RBI? Fine. But then some say that Dwight Evans is more HOF worthy than Rice? Why does Rice have a higher park-adjusted OPS+ for his career than Evans then (128 to 127, respectively)? Eddie Murray looks great with the stats outlined above, but his park-adjusted OPS+ is only 1 point higher than Rice's.
Here's another stat: Rice's career park-adjusted lgBA was .271 which trumps Murray at .262. There, I've made a case for why Rice is better than Murray. Of course, I've also neglected to include a lot of the other stats that show where Murray dominated Rice. My point is, you can take stats, even the new fashionable all-knowing stats, and leave out important information just as easily as you can with the traditionally accepted stats.
The reason why Rice has a higher career Park adjsuted OPS+ is firmly entrenched in the fact that Eddie Murray had THOUSANDS of post age 35 at bats, bringing his career rate down. That is the main reason. All you have to do is look at their best seasons of each and see where each was in their prime. Or an even simple method is see their yearly league rank in OPS+. That will tell you leaps in what you are looking for.
Murray's top five OPS+ seasonsa re 158,156,156,156,156.
Rice's.... Top five OPS+ seasons are 157, 154, 147, 141, 136
See, Rice's peak is excellent, but not quite as good as Murray's. But it is the NEXT five best seasons taht are more telling....
Murray. 149, 140, 138, 136, 136, 130, 129,126, 123, 120, 115, 113... still more, I am tired.
Rice.......130,127,123,122, 120, 116, 112, 102, 101, 70...then retired.
Murray's tenth best seasons is as good as Rice's fifth.
Murray's old man years drag down his career rate. He has a TON of old man at bats. Rice was at home at age 35, done as a hitter. Yet Murray was STILL above average almost all those years...jsut barely though in some years, bringing his total down, but still far superiro to rice.
Ditto for Evans to a lesser degree.
Second, OPS+ does not account for any men on hitting...or any of the situational hitting. Nor does it account for contact outs. Situational batter runs does, and that tells a further truth on their value.
In Murray's prime seasons of which he has all those 156's, his value is MUCH higher because of some of the best men on base hitting in history. His 1985 season is not even in his top five, but when his situational hitting is included, it is right up there.
Scoring runs can is done mostly by not wasting the 27 outs the team has and also by pushing yourself and others around the bases. OPS measures that fairly well, though certainly not perfectly. OPS+ adjusts it to account for park and era. A player with an OPS+ of 140 will always be a better hitter than one with 104. The same cannot be said about many other stats with an equal discrepency. Dave Kingman was not better than Rod Carew even with a huge difference in homeruns; and Carew was not better than Frank Robinson even with the big difference in batting average. And that is what makes OPS and OPS+ good measurments. If you want to look at hits, total bases, walks, outs, those would also be good. Except OPS+ is a nice way of putting them all together
When looking at career totals of 129, 128 and 127 obviously you would look a further. And the park adjusted batting average wouldn't give you much of a case for the ways they changed the scoreboard and standings
When there are a lot of variances, like an infielder from the 40s with a 20 year career compared to an outfielder from the 90s with a 10 year career, obviously a lot of subjectivity is requires. But even among similar players any analysis that looks at it from the perspective of making a difference in what the scoreboard and standings read, Rice falls short without leaving out anything important
Do NOT use OPS+ to distinguish between a long career and a short one...as outlined above. If you break it down year by year, fine.
OPS+ leaves out a few things that NEED to be looked at when a guy has one of 130 and the other guy at 128. Go to the next step...
The next best hitting measurement is adjsuted Batter Runs. That still leaves out ALL situational hitting. Go to the next step...
Situational batter runs. Only available for the years 1958-2000's.
ANY cross era adjustment where the scoring rate is drastic has pitfalls in measuring those players. All these measurements are GREAT for in era measurements.
There are STILL a few nuiances, most notably platoon factor. A guy like Ken Phelps is artificially high in ALL those measurements above. Even Willie McCovey is inflated due to his first third of his career of dodging lefites and saving his stats. But those are case by case things, and usually obvious on who to apply to.
There are still other minor factors...but nothing to change a guy who is getting soundly slapped like Rice is by Murray.