Rice v Tenace

markj111 · January 8, 2009 7:50AM

One of the writers at billjamesonline.com ( a pay site, but cheap) posted the following comment when reviewing the candidates for the HOF.

Jim Rice – As a player, probably on par with Gene Tenace.

Hoopster · January 8, 2009 9:18AM

A lot of people laugh when the comparison of Rice and Tenace are brought up, and due to fame and popularity, I understand why. However, if you measure what they each did while playing in neutral parks where neither had an advantage, here is what their career road stats are...

RICE.........BA .277 OB% .330 SLG%.459 OPS .789
TENACE....BA .244 OB% .384 SLG% .441 OPS .825

When you consider that appx 60% of Tenace's plate appearances came while manning the catcher position, it isn't a laughable comparison at all.

In laymen's terms, think about it this way. Rice's biggest attribute as a baseball player was the ability to hit HR.

Jim Rice for his career averaged one HR every 21.5 at bats.
Tenace for his career averaged one HR every 21.8 at bats.

Fenway was a fairly neutral HR park, so it affected BA, 2B, and SLG% a great deal, but HR totals were pretty neutral compared to the road.

Oakland and SD were suppressing HR a bit, so Tenace was at a disadvantage.

Jim Rice started at age 21 and played till age 36
Tenace started at age 22 and played till age 36

I think it would be VERY surprising to many that Tenace hit HR at the same frequency as Rice! This isn't complicated by one of them playing till age 42, thus having the post prime years lowering percentages. They started and finished at basically the same age level.

This is just HR of course, and the rest of the figures need to be accounted for within a good comprehensive valid method like WinShares or Situational batter runs. I want to keep it with things people recognize a little more though.

Of course, Tenace didn't play full seasons, thus why his career HR total is lower. Part of that is from being a catcher and not playing everyday like most catchers don't. Part of it may be from sitting vs. a tough RHP, which of course would be a knock on Tenace. Injury time is a factor too.

If you consider that Teance's value is lowered due to playing less, you would be correct. However, this is balanced out by Tenace being a catcher putting up those numbers.

In the end, it isn't laughable at all.

TheVon · January 8, 2009 9:18AM

It's deja vu all over again.

edmundfitzgerald · January 9, 2009 9:21AM

Rice before tenace may make your stomach unsettled.
It depends if you are playing singles or doubles.

MeteoriteGuy · January 9, 2009 9:57AM

I'll take a double.

grote15 · January 10, 2009 3:24AM

I love these threads..

Goot · January 10, 2009 5:39AM

Despite their struggles, I'd take Tennessee over Rice any day in football. Baseball's another story, but UT does have a decent team and UT would beat the tar out of Rice in basketball.

CASE CLOSED

Goot · January 10, 2009 5:42AM

<< <i>But would you take beans over rice? >>

Black beans AND rice.

edmundfitzgerald · January 10, 2009 5:53AM

<< <i>

<< <i>But would you take beans over rice? >>

Black beans AND rice. >>

Goot, you missed a good opportunity there.

Your answer should have been "BUSH beans and RICE"

Hoopster · January 10, 2009 5:54AM

<< <i>But would you take beans over rice? >>

Come to think of it, Nathan "Too Mean" Labean could be preferable to Jime Rice.

Only two more days until the Rice topic is old news. Once Rice is elected, the campaign starts for the guys who are not in, but were better than him.

It is just too bad that there aren't enough Pirate fans on here to push for Dave Parker.

I am just wondering where all the Boston faithful and writers were for Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn.

Rice v Tenace

Comments