Neyer on Rice
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From ESPN.com:
Seriously, though. Jim Rice did some things that Hall of Famers do. I've written about his qualifications many times before, and today's not the day to rehash that conversation once again. Whatever I might think, Rice will be elected next month, and then we can move on to someone else. But you're going to read a lot of things about the guy over the next month or so. And here's a little tip: If you do read that Rice was "feared" and you don't read anything (substantive) about his defense or the significant advantage he gained from playing half his games in Fenway Park, then what you're reading is not serious. What you're reading is propaganda. Ad hominem attacks like Shaughnessy's can be a lot of fun, and they've always enjoyed a place of honor in newspaper columns. But they don't do a great deal to advance the discussion. Nor are they meant to.
Seriously, though. Jim Rice did some things that Hall of Famers do. I've written about his qualifications many times before, and today's not the day to rehash that conversation once again. Whatever I might think, Rice will be elected next month, and then we can move on to someone else. But you're going to read a lot of things about the guy over the next month or so. And here's a little tip: If you do read that Rice was "feared" and you don't read anything (substantive) about his defense or the significant advantage he gained from playing half his games in Fenway Park, then what you're reading is not serious. What you're reading is propaganda. Ad hominem attacks like Shaughnessy's can be a lot of fun, and they've always enjoyed a place of honor in newspaper columns. But they don't do a great deal to advance the discussion. Nor are they meant to.
0
Comments
Looks like Neyer read that article too
I've written many words on the statistical value of Rice.
The feared value is something I wanted to touch on.
Who is doing the fearing? Opposing managers, pitchers? I would bet these have the most to fear, and these are the guys who have a recourse for their fear.
One simple way to measure a recourse of fearing a batter is by looking at his intentional walks.
Rice had three top ten finishes in the AL in intentional walks in his career, 5ht, 9th, and 10th. His career high is 10 intentional walks in a season, which he did twice. A scan of other Hall of Famers from his era show more fear from the opposing teams.
Eddie Murray(I hate to keep using him, but). Here are his best IBB rankings...1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,9,9,10. Career highs of 25,24,21, etc....
George Brett....1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,6,6,8. Highs of 31,18,15.
Mike Schmidt...1,1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10. Highs of 25,18,17.
One may say it is because Rice had a good lineup, thus less intentional walks, and that may be partially true...but then that is the exact same reason why his RUns and RBI totals are inflated.
If Rice was that much more feared than every one else in the leauge, then wouldn't it be reasonable to figure that he would have the most intentional walks, or at least close to it?
So then I must ask, who exactly was fearing him? It wasn't the people with the most to lose(mangers,pitchers).
It seems guys like George Brett, Eddie Murray, and Mike Schmidt were avoided like the plague by opposing managers during key situations, wheras Rice was pitched to.
My take is that the next time someone mentions the most feared hitter of that time, say that is right, Schmidt, Brett, and Murray(which happen to be the three best hitters of that time frame of late 70's-mid 80's).
I was thinking about this notion of being feared as well, knowing that Rice's Intentional Walks don't seem to support this notion of him being the most feared. All I can say is that it seems impossible to measure how much fear a batter inspires so there's really no honest way to build somebody up on this statement. You can watch a game and pick up hints that might not show up in the box score: did the pitcher "pitch around" the hitter, did the third baseman play farther back, did the outfield play deep? That might indicate some level of fear. But maybe that's just good scouting/game planning.
Even when Barry Bonds was getting intentionally walked whenever someone was on base, it seemed like that was just as much a comment on how bad the rest of the team was as it was a reflection of a pitcher's fear of pitching to him.
The lineup plays a part, just ask the eight place hitter in the NL and his intentional walks.
Guys like Schmidt, Murray, and Brett didn't have pitchers batting behind them. They had legit MLB hitters behind them, and look at the respect they got. Not only did they receive a high amount of intentional walks, but they also had a lot of traditional walks...many of which are the intentional/unitentional variety. Rice didn't have as many as those either.
Cal Ripken was a pretty good hitter from 1982-1985. I think all can agree he was much better than average. In that span, do you know how many intentional walks he received when Murray was batting behind him?
Zero! That is pure respect to Murray.
The thing is, everyone says Rice was just so feared, yet if he was feared to such great heights as is supposed, I think he would have gotten at least a few more IBB than he did. Heck, in 1978 he was third on the Red Sox in intentional walks, and that is the pinnacle of his career.
<< <i>I PM'd CU and advised them to increase their allotted gigabyte space with their server in anticipation of replies to this thread. >>
I think I'm done with Rice. The information is there. Everyone who knows anything worthwhile about the situation knows that Jim Rice's contribution to winning games was less than 100 or so other players who will never get into the HOF, three of whom happened to be on the same team as Rice at the same time. It was a good ride for a long time, and much like the fun to be had listening to children talk about Santa Claus if it goes on too long and they're still doing it years later, you feel embarrassed for them more than anything else, and its time to change the subject.
This will be my last post on Rice unless he comes up in the ordinary context of a useful discussion.
Rob Neyer: Of course not. If he'd played for the Mariners he'd be Boog Powell or Frank Howard.
Sparky would never pitch to George with the game on the line.
I vaguely remember a quote by Sparky in which he said when he managed the Reds he feared Willie McCovey the most, when he managed the Tigers it was Brett.
Of course with the game on the line Brett was the greatest hitter certainly of his generation.
I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to see some facts. Was he better than Schmidt? Murray?
The numbers say it, and a poll of MLB pitchers in 1984 or '85, said it as well. Murray was far and away voted the most feared hitter in such a meaningful situation.
I don't want to dwell on rice, but in Late/Close situations, Rice was at his worst(or second worst).
Murray's long career lowers all of his percentages(which isn't bad, but that happens when you play into your 40's), but when the prime years are focused on for all these players, Murray was what the Elias Sports Bureau in 1989 called the "quintessential clutch hitter of the past decade."
The existence of a clutch hitter is in question, but if one wants to guage what occured in terms of winning games, the impact can't be overlooked.
Here are Murray's Late/Close performances during his prime...
Year.......AVG.....OB%......SLG%
1982.....338.....459.........545
1983.....342.....451.........618
1984.....374.....500.........736
1985.....380.....427.........747
Those numbers are downright Ruthian in every respect, and there isn't another player from Murray's time that can match such a performance...even guys who played in hitters paradises!
I have debated lately on the merits of Rice and Murray, and what was used was an overall measurement. Nowhere did I look into the game score situation measurement. Clutch may not be a trait that exists in a player, but there is no denying the impact of performances in high leverage situations in terms of wins and losses. One can easily say that when you look at a player like Murray in his prime, you see a great prime. When you notice how many meaningful hits he got, it was way better than what it looks like on the surface, and that diretly relates to extra wins for his teams.
The pitchers recognized this by voting him the most feared hitter, the opposing managers recognized it by intentionally walking him, and the results scream it.
Not a great walker, not a great intention base on balls getter.
Hitting, is usually measured by power and average.
Rice could hit for both power and average, and at this time, only nine other HOF hitters rank ahead of him in both career home runs and batting average. They are: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams
Rice is the only player in major league history to record over 200 hits and at the same time having 39 or more HRs for three consecutive years. He is tied for the American League record of leading the league in total bases for three straight seasons,
Despite the above, or contrary well-formed, intelligent comments like "Jim Rice Sucks", he is somewhat a "marginal" choice, he may very well not be elected in this, his final regular election chance. I believe Ralph Kiner was the last fellow to make it in his final regular year.
If he fails, fine and dandy, the HOF will do okay without him , or Smokey Joe Wood and Bill Dahlen. The Vet selections have drastically changed from their original purpose. A separte thread would be needed to cover the shortcomings, and Rice, along with anyone else who had 15 regular trys, should not be inducted by that means
.
A walk is an offensive event as well, and has appx 2/3 the value as that of a single. Every walk that Rice gets is an opportunity for Yaz or Dewey to drive him in.
RIce coming up with a man on 2nd getting a single drives him in. 1 RUN.
RIce coming up wiht a man on 2nd and drawing a walk...Yaz/Lynn getting a single drives the runner in too, 1 RUN..... but now it is 1st and 3rd, instead of just man on 1st. The next single drives in another to make TWO RUNS instead of one! Against RHP, Yaz actually has a greater chance to get a single than Rice does(depending on year).
Rice coming up with a man on 2nd and swinging away at all costs to drive him in...results in more outs and rally killing events.
Rice was among the league leaders annually in FAILING to drive runners in. As much as he drove in, he also cost his team a great deal by MAKING OUTS and killing those innings. I am sure opposing pitchers liked getting out of those innings by making him chase a pitchers pitch.
This exercise being done with all situations as such gives a clear picture the value of the events. The play by play data is a great tool.
Intentionall base on balls are a pure sign of pitcher's/managers fear of the hitter.
One knock against Rice is that he hit his best when the score of the game was greater than Four Runs...
Here is what he hit in those game where the score difference was greater than four runs...
.BA 297____OB% .342___SLG% .505
Here is what he hit when the game was late/close...the times where wins are decided the most...
BA .274____OB% .337____SLG% .453
Add a park adjustment, and thoe figures drop down further to reflect the reality of the environment.
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.
I am going to remain civil towards Jaxxr. I have already passed my first test on it
<< <i>[Of course with the game on the line Brett was the greatest hitter certainly of his generation. >>
I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like to see some facts. Was he better than Schmidt? Murray? >>
I'm just going from memory. Check his stats the last two or three weeks of the 85 regular season when the Royals and Angels were neck and neck. Brett took over and the Royals won the division. Then they were behind the Blue Jays in the A.L. pennant series, Brett took over again and the Royals came back and won. Then he had a great world series.
That was just one year of his career.
And its not even his monster year of 1980.
For people that didn't follow the Royals then I realize Brett is probably known for hemmoroids and the pine tar game, but there was nobody better than him when his team needed a big hit.
What would that poll have looked like at the end of the 1980 season?
But, the poll is just a pitchers opinion, and that is why I posted the actual late/close batting results to go with it.
Here are Murray's Late/Close performances during his prime...
Year.......AVG.....OB%......SLG%
1982.....338.....459.........545
1983.....342.....451.........618
1984.....374.....500.........736
1985.....380.....427.........747
Darin, I have looked at this stuff, and there isn't another player in that era that did as well as this in the late/close in their prime years as Murray did...there just isn't. Same goes for hitting with men on base.
The only one close, and quite close....GEORGE BRETT
So there are two things screaming Murray...the pitchers, and the results.
You don't have to convince me that Brett was every bit as good, I won't argue with you on that. But it is extremely hard to ignore those performances in late/close by Murray. I have no problem calling it equal between those two.
I showed this for two reasons. 1) To show people who have the notion that Murray was some sort of compiler. That is a myth. Murray had a PRIME at the plate that was second to nobody that played in that era. When you account for his MEN ON hitting, and his LATE/CLOSE, nobody was responsible for more wins with the bat than ED. Those late/close performances go a long way in the W/L column.
2) To show that it isn't remotely possible for Rice to claim most feared hitter for that stretch that everyone seems to do. It just isn't. With Brett and Murray in the same league, who has time to fear Jim Rice.
Brett and then Carew would be most feared from '76-'80. Then Murray took over that reign from there.
Being a Royals fan for 35 years, Brett was just such a huge part of those winning teams we had, its hard for me to imagine sometimes that anyone was better.