I would presume they asked the question without a timeframe in mind. Just a guess. But he had come off a year in which he was fourth in MVP voting in 1983 and had a pretty strong 1984 season, based on the old way of looking at things. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the poll is all that bias against Rice, if at all. >>
That's making a lot of assumptions without knowing anything about this poll but if that's the case, then again, the argument holds more water.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
A link to the Fear Factor poll would help many better understand that concept, and would certainly be appreciated.
One might assume a pitcher would "fear"' facing a really good slugger, or possibly a true HR threat, or maybe a guy who gets a lot of base hits. Steady Eddie Murray never did lead the league is slugging percentage, nor did he ever lead in HRs in a full 100 + game season, nor did he ever manage to garner 200+ hits, or lead the league, in any of his 20 different MLB seasons..
In 1984, the year of the famous poll, Eddie Murray was not even in the league's top ten in Slugging Pct., and actually, Steady Eddie did not even top his own team in slugging Pct. that season. In 1984, 8 other AL players had more HR than Eddie. In 1984, Eddie tied for 10th most base hits in the AL, with Jack Peronte and Damaso Garcia.
What was so fearsome, a link to that poll might explain what those pitchers were so afraid of from Eddie in 1984.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Just for clarification, I'm not saying Rice was or was not the most feared hitter during his playing days. Due to growing up in Houston, I rarely saw him actually play, except for a handful of games during the playoffs and Game of the Week.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Really? Good lord. I think your last post really means I should never call you a name again...it puts your methods and thoughts in a better light than any adjective a human could think of. I shall just move on from there. Good luck with your Kingman/Wagner method. I see it is STILL in full force, LOL.
Stown, doubt there is a link. It is in an issue of a 1985 Sporting News. I will try and dig it up. Probably not till the weekend when I recover though.
Also, the heart of my point has to do with the acknowledging the lineup factor when dealing with intentional walks, and ignoring it when dealing with runs scored or RBI. That is the krux these people have put themselves in.
Then you STILL have people post things without regard to ballpark factor. Unbelievable, but still do.
While doing a Google search for this poll I came across this very interesting article regarding the topic of Jim Rice being feared. The author went back and looked at what some of the sports publications and baseball writers were saying at the time. His conclusion was that there did seem to be a few years in which he was legitimately referred to as the most feared hitter but it was a short-lived title and players like Dave Parker, Eddie Murray and Rod Carew had more mentions as "most feared".
A couple points brought up in the article that I found interesting included Jim Rice being quoted after four years in the big leagues that he estimated he had lost 100 home runs by hitting the Green Monster. That seems staggeringly high and is way higher than what we calculated earlier in the thread. Even aside from the obvious bias, it is interesting to me that Rice thinks he hit the Green Monster that many times that early in his career.
A Sports Illustrated article is also quoted that mentions that Rice was not the most physically imposing player but that his muscles and reflexes made up for his smaller size (compared to Parker and Howard). They also said that he was "fearless" because he'd stand his ground against the fiercest brushback pitches.
And this quote from the Texas manager, Billy Hunter, was telling of why Rice seemed to be perceived as feared: "Carew can single you to death. He might even beat you with a bunt. But Rice can win games with one swipe of his bat."
Anyway, anyone really interested in this discussion should take a look at the article. It's "fair and balanced" and provides an interesting historical context for this discussion.
What is the correct basis for being "Feared" as a hitter ?
Please recall, the famous 1984 post season poll, was not introduced by me, into this thread, however it makes one wonder how voters measure "fear".
In 1984 the AL was topped with 43 HR, by Tony Armas, who got more than half of his league leading 43 away from ever popular Fenway with 22 dingers on the road, so the famous anti-BoSox cry doesn't work well this season. Steady Eddie in 9th place for the AL, well behind the leader both raw and percentage-wise, had 29.
Slugging, commonly measured by the official Slg Pct stat, saw Harold Baines as the leagues best slugger, Cal Ripken Jr, was the best slugger on the Orioles that season, and Cal was the league's best offensive WAR position player that season as well, although I would guess most voters did consider WAR very much as a real "fear" factor. Murray was not among the AL's top ten sluggers that season.
A key base hit can drive in a run or two, perhaps evoking fear in many a pitcher. The BA champ was Don Mattingly, who also led the league in OPS+, however most hurlers who voted on "fear" may not have been aware of such plus type calculations. The most base hits were also produced by Matingly that year. Murray was 8th in BA, and tied for 10th place in base hits for 1984.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
"What batters would these pitchers least want to face? What hitters do pitchers fear the most? What sluggers would they rather avoid in the most pressurized situations?
To find out, major league correspondents of The Sporting News polled pitchers in both leagues. The pitchers were asked, simply, to identify what batter they FEARED most in their league. The answers turned out to be both predictable and surprising.
In the AL, the overwhelming winer was dangerous Eddie Murray of the Orioles. Of the 96 pitchers voting, Murray received 21.5 votes, far outdistancing KC's George Brett. Wade Boggs of Boston, the 1983 batting champ, was third with six and Lou Whitaker of Detroit and seven-time batting champ ROd Carew tied for fourth with five each.
In the NL Murphy nosed out Hernandez 20 t 14..." Then it talks about the rest of the finishers in the NL and throws all sorts of accolades on Murray and Murphy.
"Not even in contention were AL power men such as Boston's Jim Rice, the Yankees Don Baylor, and Oakland's Dave Kingman." Funny who Rice got grouped with there .
Stown, your point of it being a couple years after RIce's prime peak has some merit, but it didn't hurt Rod Carew, or other player in a similar situation...and like I posted above, Rice led the AL in HR, RBI, and TB in 1983 and 1984 combined. We know how one of our posters continually posts those numbers in such a meaningful way, yet the pitchers Feared MURRAY over RICE, despite trailing in these 'all important' categories.
It was a very open ended question to the pitchers and the word "FEARED" is right there in black and white! In fact, Rice is not mentioned again in the article. No surprise that he wasn't higher. Nothing. If Rice, still in his supposed run of MOST FEARED hitter in baseball, then he should have been at the top of the vote, and if not, the writer would have expressed some surprise that the 'most feared' hitter wasn't getting any votes.
Guys receiving two votes, same as Rice were: Lance Parrish, Buckner, Baines, McRae, Baylor, and Cooper. SOme notables receiving one vote: Mattingly, Fisk, Kingman(jaxxr's guy), Oglivie, Lemon, Gaetti, Ganter, Yount, Moore, Decinces, Roenicke, Easler.
Actually, based on the guys receiving votes, more older guys were getting the love. There were six guys in the top 11 in the AL leaderboard who started their career at or before Rice. In the NL the leaderboard had 7 of the top 10 starting their career at or before Rice. Clearly reputation played a role in many votes.
Lets remember now, the HOF writers clearly defnined the era that Rice was most feared in. They said from 1975-1986 he was the most feared hitter. This is in that time period, is it not? Rice was at the combined height of reputation and skill.
So who exactly was fearing Rice? He got less IBB walks than a bunch of guys NOT in the HOF...and remember IBB was introduced by Shaughnessey as a way to show FEAR, and one of the reasons he voted for him. This poll, and this writer, showed no fear factor either.
Jaxxr, your Kingman/Wagner method does not work. You are wasting your time using it. Spend your time creating the Dahlen thread, as I am interested in that topic.
Here is an article from the Hardball Times about the IBB during Rice's famous 1975-86 run....Notice some of those players did not even play all those seasons during that stretch, yet still had more IBB.
"One thing I keep reading regarding the Hall of Fame candidacy of Jim Rice is that he was widely regarded as the dominant hitter in baseball, or "The Most Feared Hitter in the Game" for most of his career, 1975-1986. One way of measuring how feared he was might be to look at how many intentional walks he received. Now, I'm not saying that intentional walks are necessarily a good measure of hitting quality, but they should be a decent way to gauge if somebody was causing opposing pitchers to quake in fear as the batter strode to the plate. (BTW, looking at IBB for Rice is certainly not my idea. A quick google search will bring you to threads at Baseball Think Factory and Sons of Sam Horn on this very subject.)
Anyway, I have used the Retrosheet data to look at who had the most IBB from 1975 through 1986. I've not included IBB to number 8 hitters — lots of these guys are weak hitters who get intentionally walked to reach the even weaker hitting pitcher batting ninth. Rice received 72 intentional walks during that period, which means the "Most Feared Hitter in the Game" ranked 30th on our fearsomeness scale during those years. Of course, there are complications, like who was batting behind Rice and, say, Darrell Porter (who received more IBB than Rice). Still, 30th? "
Here's the list:
+-------------------+-----+ | name | ibb | +-------------------+-----+ | Schmidt, Mike | 155 | | Brett, George | 141 | | Simmons, Ted | 139 | | Winfield, Dave | 127 | | Parker, Dave | 124 | | Cruz, Jose | 120 | | Murray, Eddie | 117 | | Hernandez, Keith | 113 | | Madlock, Bill | 112 | | Carew, Rod | 110 | | Garvey, Steve | 100 | | Evans, Darrell | 98 | | Cey, Ron | 96 | | Carter, Gary | 95 | | Oglivie, Ben | 91 | | Oliver, Al | 90 | | Driessen, Dan | 89 | | Foster, George | 88 | | Murphy, Dale | 86 | | Cromartie, Warren | 85 | | Singleton, Ken | 85 | | Jackson, Reggie | 85 | | Durham, Leon | 84 | | Porter, Darrell | 82 | | Chambliss, Chris | 82 | | Luzinski, Greg | 78 | | Buckner, Bill | 78 | | Baylor, Don | 76 | | Clark, Jack | 73 | | Rice, Jim | 72 | +-------------------+-----+
All the attempted pleas for understanding with other posters, or All the references to the post, you yourself started where you as one of your many usernames compared Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman, or All the crude insults you spew towards me, or others who dare to disagree with your opinion, or All the constant, repetitious, boring failure to recognize any positive achievements of a HOF player you are obviously obsessed with,
Will NEVER change the fact that in real life MLB 1984, not via my personal opinion, nor the result of any informal poll, but the actual official statistics, Steady Eddie Murray was not a league leader in HR, nor BA, nor base hits, nor even a Baltimore Oriole team leader in Slugging Percentage.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Jaxxr, your efforts on these boards are very rewarding, keep up the good work.
I await your Dahlen thread so, perhaps, we have another topic to talk about.
Did you not find the quotes from the article on the FEAR poll interesting, or of good informational purposes, perhaps shedding light on a topic where no single statistical method could determine?
Was it off putting, that the writer, with good intention, put Jim Rice in a group with your guy Dave Kingman?
Or that pitchers, from their own mouth, not from an all inclusive statistical method, or any other perceived form of recognition, said that Jim Rice was only feared by 2 pitchers, and that other members of the league were much more feared, some twice as much, some five times as much, and one ten times as much, in REAL LIFE MLB?
Your personal opinion is, of course, very very important to me.
Congrats on your new Sig. line, quite telling about you, indeed.
I can not engage in a continuation of this very open-minded and meaningful discourse, for tonite at least, I am off to a traditional quite common style party, and look forward to perhaps discussing the true meaning of "fear" with other drunken party-goers.
May all have a happy and safe New Years.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Stown, anyone is welcome to put their alternate reality into it.
The AL pitchers and managers had their reality, and they voiced it or showed it, with the poll, and with the IBB, or lack of IBB.
Obviously, the HOF writers were dealing with some sort of hallucinational reality when declaring Rice the MLB's most feared hitter in the minds of the opposing teams from 1975-1986.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
PS: I do not endorse or condone above said good times.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories.
They are not knowledgeable enough on analyzing baseball players, and have shown that they don't do the proper research...and are fooled by their own story making abilities(as in the case of Rice here).
You think ANYONE in the world would be more terrified by having to pitch to a good baseball hitter, than having a known child mass murderer stalking their streets, like the example that moron Stark used in his faulty Rice criteria??
Yeah, I know, it is a glorified analogy...but it shows what they are good at doing...creating hyperbole stuff like that, NOT analyzing baseball players! They do hook a lot of fans though...that can be seen first hand on these boards often.
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories.
They are not knowledgeable enough on analyzing baseball players, and have shown that they don't do the proper research...and are fooled by their own story making abilities(as in the case of Rice here).
You think ANYONE in the world would be more terrified by having to pitch to a good baseball hitter, than having a known child mass murderer stalking their streets, like that moron Stark used in his faulty Rice criteria??
Yeah, I know, it is a glorified analogy...but it shows what they are good at doing...creating hyperbole stuff like that, NOT analyzing baseball players! They do hook a lot of fans though...that can be seen first hand on these boards often. >>
I need to ask the question? What do you have against Jim Rice? Did he terrorize you as a kid or beat up one of your friends, sleep with an ex-girlfriend of yours?
I have nothing against Rice, he is innocent, and I have stated that several times.
It is the people that keep making the falsehoods, and using lazy and innnacurate methods, and penalizing more deserving players in the process, that I have a problem with.
Heck, if Rice wanted to, he could have joined me with my old girlfriend and we could of had a three way.
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories. >>
True. One of the ESPN guys voted for Surhoff. Your honor, we rest our case.
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories. >>
True. One of the ESPN guys voted for Surhoff. Your honor, we rest our case. >>
I am more worried about the ones who did not vote for Raines.
ESPN writer Stanton voted for BJ Surhoff and Tino Martinez. No votes by him for Alomar, Raines, or Larkin. Very strange.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
RIce doesn't need any more positive things posted about him. He already got too much recognition for being elected to the Hall of Fame over superior players from his own era and his own team.
Things are posted about Rice to show truth, justice, and the American way.
I'm still trying to figure out who exactly was fearing him all these years, certainly not the opposing managers, lol
According to the explanation I read, Stanton voted for Surhoff because he's known B.J. since he was a teenager and once promised to give him a Hall vote if he ever got the chance. You can take issue with him placing a vote like that (especially since he left so many spots vacant, with so many plausible candidates), but it's not like he really thought Surhoff was a HOF caliber player.
That is just it. The HOF is not suppose to be a joke or to play out some old sentimental promise.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
<< <i>That is just it. The HOF is not suppose to be a joke or to play out some old sentimental promise. >>
Indeed.
If he really did make the vote based upon a promise, the BBWA should revoke his membership immediately.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Here is an article from the Hardball Times about the IBB during Rice's famous 1975-86 run....Notice some of those players did not even play all those seasons during that stretch, yet still had more IBB.
"One thing I keep reading regarding the Hall of Fame candidacy of Jim Rice is that he was widely regarded as the dominant hitter in baseball, or "The Most Feared Hitter in the Game" for most of his career, 1975-1986. One way of measuring how feared he was might be to look at how many intentional walks he received. Now, I'm not saying that intentional walks are necessarily a good measure of hitting quality, but they should be a decent way to gauge if somebody was causing opposing pitchers to quake in fear as the batter strode to the plate. (BTW, looking at IBB for Rice is certainly not my idea. A quick google search will bring you to threads at Baseball Think Factory and Sons of Sam Horn on this very subject.)
Anyway, I have used the Retrosheet data to look at who had the most IBB from 1975 through 1986. I've not included IBB to number 8 hitters — lots of these guys are weak hitters who get intentionally walked to reach the even weaker hitting pitcher batting ninth. Rice received 72 intentional walks during that period, which means the "Most Feared Hitter in the Game" ranked 30th on our fearsomeness scale during those years. Of course, there are complications, like who was batting behind Rice and, say, Darrell Porter (who received more IBB than Rice). Still, 30th? "
Here's the list:
+-------------------+-----+ | name | ibb | +-------------------+-----+ | Schmidt, Mike | 155 | | Brett, George | 141 | | Simmons, Ted | 139 | | Winfield, Dave | 127 | | Parker, Dave | 124 | | Cruz, Jose | 120 | | Murray, Eddie | 117 | | Hernandez, Keith | 113 | | Madlock, Bill | 112 | | Carew, Rod | 110 | | Garvey, Steve | 100 | | Evans, Darrell | 98 | | Cey, Ron | 96 | | Carter, Gary | 95 | | Oglivie, Ben | 91 | | Oliver, Al | 90 | | Driessen, Dan | 89 | | Foster, George | 88 | | Murphy, Dale | 86 | | Cromartie, Warren | 85 | | Singleton, Ken | 85 | | Jackson, Reggie | 85 | | Durham, Leon | 84 | | Porter, Darrell | 82 | | Chambliss, Chris | 82 | | Luzinski, Greg | 78 | | Buckner, Bill | 78 | | Baylor, Don | 76 | | Clark, Jack | 73 | | Rice, Jim | 72 | +-------------------+-----+
Sorry for reposting this list, but I am still trying to figure out how this "most feared" tag was applied to Rice. The AL pitchers voiced whom they feared most, and the managers too...Rice wasn't even close.
Since when did intentional walks become the measuring stick of being the most feared hitter? Intentional walks are situational. They are issued based on the circumstances of the game. Yes, they are often issued to the most feared hitters - but are also issued to the #8 hitter in the line-up before the pitcher hits. Using them as a threshold for determining HOF worthyness is just plain dumb.
In my mind, a HOFer gains a HOF reputation as his career progresses. Back in the late 70's & early 80's - the BBWAA should have been asking themselves as they watched Jim Rice, is this player a potential HOFer? In my mind, the answer would have been 'yes.' Just like today as they watch someone - lets say - David Wright - Am I watching a potential HOFer? The question should be considered as the player is playing, not long after they retired.
Lets say I just don't like the process. The BBWAA are writers probably because they couldn't throw a ball 60 ft 6 inches with any accuracy much less hit a fastball or judge where a fly ball is going to come back to earth.
<< <i>Since when did intentional walks become the measuring stick of being the most feared hitter? Intentional walks are situational. They are issued based on the circumstances of the game. Yes, they are often issued to the most feared hitters - but are also issued to the #8 hitter in the line-up before the pitcher hits. Using them as a threshold for determining HOF worthyness is just plain dumb.
In my mind, a HOFer gains a HOF reputation as his career progresses. Back in the late 70's & early 80's - the BBWAA should have been asking themselves as they watched Jim Rice, is this player a potential HOFer? In my mind, the answer would have been 'yes.' Just like today as they watch someone - lets say - David Wright - Am I watching a potential HOFer? The question should be considered as the player is playing, not long after they retired.
Lets say I just don't like the process. The BBWAA are writers probably because they couldn't throw a ball 60 ft 6 inches with any accuracy much less hit a fastball or judge where a fly ball is going to come back to earth. >>
IBB are not being used to determine HOF worthiness. There is enough evidence for a big NO already for that for Jim Rice. They are being used to try and figure where this MOST FEARED hitter in the game comes from, for the period of 1975-1986, as many often claim.
The other thing was that the AL pitchers actually voted on who the most feared hitter was...and Rice was way down, just as he was in IBB.
So where did people come up with this notion of most feared? It certainly was not shared by the AL managers and Pitchers. It comes from the fact that Rice had a lot of RBI. But, as you pointed out with the lack of IBB, you said that a bad hitter behind you can get you more IBB, and thus introduced the lineup as a key factor in determining certain results of a player.
However, once you recognize the lineup factor, you can no longer use RIce's RBI or Runs Scored totals without taking into account to the lineup factor...yet that is exactly what people did/do. They post those high totals, and ignore WHY they occured(because of the lineup and park). You can't all of a sudden recognize a lineup factor when it comes to lack of IBB, and then ignore it when it comes to his Runs scored or RBI. It cant be both ways.
Then of course, the Fenway factor makes it even more against Rice...no need to rehash why, it is already outlined. Of course, many dismiss it...but they somehow don't dismiss it when it comes to other parks...hmmm.
According to the August 1978 Baseball Digest, Jim Rice was a pretty "feared" hitter.
The following April, Baseball Digest revealed that Rice had been named the American League’s “Most Dangerous Hitter” by a poll of players, executives, and writers. That same month, he graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. The magazine’s feature story on Rice focused primarily on his harsh relationship with writers, but it also set the mold for the feared descriptive that these days so nauseatingly often comes up in arguments about his degree of worth for the Hall of Fame, your support or lack thereof for Rice, might be revealed by whether or not you enclose the somewhat meaningless FEAR adjective in caustic air quotes, and disregard league leading seasons and notable achievements.
While interesting, I dont place very much significance on unofficial, somewhat anonymous polling, which try to measure a mental perception, which may be created by a baseball player.
Although not perfect, nor all-telling, specific quotes which can be verified, from other players, can often be much more indicative, Rich Gossage, Johnny Pesky, Reggie Jackson, and Hank Aaron, who raved, “This kid’s gonna break the home-run record.”, are just a few examples of an impression generated.
What can actually be measured, and are much more meaningful, are the officially recorded MLB stats, HR, Total bases, Slg Pct, and maybe BA, would likely generate "Fear" in pitchers. Irrespective of the impression derived from those specific stats, they and other figures are available for evaluation, adjustment, weighting, interpretation, and perhaps additional calculations, to help form a personal opinion, which may, or may not agree, with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
While interesting, I dont place very much significance on unofficial, somewhat anonymous polling, which try to measure a mental perception, which may be created by a baseball player. >>
Despite me posting a poll, I would say that is a very accurate assessment.
I don't think anybody would have a problem calling Jim Rice the best, or most dangerous, based on his 1978-1979 time span...that span is the time where he actually did live up to the acclaim he gets. It is when people use the time frame of 1975-1986 where it simply does not add up.
Baseball, I am sorry you feel, any insertion of a article, to contrast another "poll" which was supposed to be absolute proof of something, is somehow an unwarranted "defense", rather another perspective on the same aspect.
Alternate views, opinions, and evaluation methods do exist, mentioning them should not be unwelcome, if everyone shared your exact views on Jay Cutler's toughness, or Jim Rice's lack of HOF credentials, for example, there would be much less conversation and good natured discussion.
WAR is certainly not the only valid method, for evaluation, it itself has several variations which may produce different results. There are countless factors which many use, and try to weigh properly, among those might be comparison to other HOF members already inducted as players. Tommy McCarthy, Harry Hooper, Chick Haffey, Lloyd Waner, and others are among OFers, who are "borderline", as well as Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Rabbit Maranville, and several other position players, not even considering hurlers, for those interested enough in the entire history of baseball, and the HOF precedents set.
If only one player gets the vast, near exclusive brunt of the, shall we say, "attack", might it be far more balanced and open-minded, if he could garner a small amount of verifiable "attack-defense" ? There is no possibility to ever discard or remove any present HOF inductee. Might it seem, all the venom, research, intensity, and repetious posting only negatively about just one single HOFer, might be better directed at promoting the inclusion of a deserving candidate or two ?
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I don't think we should have to dig deep to include or exclude anyone from the Hall of Fame. Jim Rice had nice HR, Rbi's and batting average as well as some flashy hardware. The stats that were important during those days were the stats that I mentioned. Babe Ruth did not face black players...should this be counted against him? Josh Gibson did not regularly face white players....National league pitchers face the pitcher.------Managers///how can they be judged for the HOF...wins and losses? titles? Managers with great talent and a ton of wins should win, right?-They did not exceed expectations? We are coming up with too many stats and they are also being used on the field incorrectly. Walking Bonds like 3-4 each game is not in the essence of how the game is supposed to be played.
If only one player gets the vast, near exclusive brunt of the, shall we say, "attack", might it be far more balanced and open-minded, if he could garner a small amount of verifiable "attack-defense" ? There is no possibility to ever discard or remove any present HOF inductee. Might it seem, all the venom, research, intensity, and repetious posting only negatively about just one single HOFer, might be better directed at promoting the inclusion of a deserving candidate or two ?
>>
Jaxxr, that may not be possible. With Rice being one of the lower level members of the HOF he is always going to be brought up as a comparison when someone pines for another player to be voted in.
I read some blog before where a Rice fan hoped that Rice would NOT get voted in simply because he didn't want Rice to be the baseline for everyone to always compare to in order to make a case for the HOF.
To compound it, he is probably the worst HOF position player from the 70's/80's...and since many of his contemporaries still have a chance to get in, he will always be brought up. Especially since there are guys from his era(and from his team), that were actually better than him.
When the most accurate measurements of a player's ability are used, such as WinShares, WAR, BaseOuts, Situational Batter Runs, Standard Linear Weights, or Win Probability Added are used, Rice is always going to be at the bottom, of those many different ways to view a ballplayer, among HOFers...and many players outside the HOF will be well ahead of him.
It is a natural outcome that he is always brought up.
Not at the moment, if you would the entirety of this thread and many others, you would see many childish and vulgar insults, regarding my mathematical background, my mental illness, my sexual preferences, and other personal taunts.
Specifically, I certainly did not mean to infer you, yourself, were personally attacking me, I tried, unsuccessful it seems, to show the abundance of negative only comments to one particular HOFer, is/was something of an "attack" on him.
In the spirit of information disclosure, and not any ridiculous assumption that it is an absolute proof of anything, merely a possible chance to see the perception of Rice as a HOFer, is not as totally outlandish as some might feel, There are, roughly 60, outfielders officially in the baseball HOF, via the OPS statistic, Jim Rice with a fine .854 ranks about 29th or 30th, right in middle, a typical , average, quite common HOF OFer, by that one evaluator. Via Slg Pct, Rice's .502 ranks him about 22nd among all HOF outfielders, slightly above the typical, or average HOF fly chaser.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
From your informative list, Richie Allen and Ron Santo are truly deserving IMHO, and why not Keith Hernandez as a firstbase counterpart to the immortal Bill Maz ?
But, of course you know it not a Hall exclusively of accumulated career total WAR, using one of several possible WAR methodologies, however is a baseball Hall of Fame, somewhat based on other notable aspects of a player, as well.
Many, unfortunately in my view, can see Santo never was a league leader in any of the popular hitting triple crown stats, never won an MVP, and as a cleanup hitter primarily, often did not lead his own team in HR or Slg Pct, and perhaps adding to his lack of support, another Cub thirdbaseman , Stan Hack a near equal defender, was a better leadoff man in comparison to his peers, than Santo was as a no 4 hitter, to his peers, and has some solid support as the all time Cub thirdbaseman. Perhaps his recent passing will evoke more interest in his qualifications as a superior quality thirdbaseman, then again, maybe more Jim Rice bashing will better aid Santo's cause.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Perhaps part of his MLB "lore" might his constant high ranking in the very well publicized annual official MVP award ?
The official MVP designation began about 1933, so some old timers are excluded, however Rice does well in comparison to other HOF outfielders, per his calculated MVP shares. Even if one wishes to include a non-elected Barry Bonds, there would be only 9 other HOF outfielders who garnered more MVP shares, thus Rice is nowhere near the bottom in being an MVP caliber HOF outfielder, which may likely contribute to his overall impression and "lore".
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
The "Fenway Factor" is real and cant be totally dismissed, however, perhaps interesting,
Jim Rice was primarily a HR hitter, how the Green Monster wall reduced his HR potential is not easily calculated. Jim averaged about 2 more HR per year at home, than on the road, he had several seasons hitting more HR away. During Rice's prime seasons, not once in a full 162 game season, did the elite Boston team ever lead the league in runs.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Ballpark factors can be tricky, and I question some of the bumps or detractions myself sometimes, however, when a ballpark helps nearly all the full time hitters, and the player in question himslf had a huge disparity in home/away, it is tough to argue against it.
His OPS at home was .920 His OPS on the road was .789
Fenway doesn't just help HR...it is the turning a would be fly ball out into a double or home run where it is of tremendous advantage, hence the large home/road splits for him.
If the Fenway factor was shown, but Rice really never saw that such a large disparity in his home/road splits, I could see a more serious question into the validity of it. Say his HOME and ROAD OPS were equal, and THEN a Fenway factor were applied to downgrade his run value, then I think a more serious question into it would be in order.
The Red Sox in runs scored from 1975 were 1st, 3rd,2nd,2nd,3rd.
Way earlier in the thread, a little more detail was provided on the topic of this.
.........................Home.......ROad Batted outs......2,080........2,270.......9.1% decrease Total Hits............1,304........1,148 Singles................845...........773.......9.3% increase Doubles..............207............166......24.6% increase Triples.................44...............35......25.7% increase Home Runs.........208............174.....19.5% increase
These are balls batted into play, not BB or SO, so it is only measuring the balls that were hit into play where Fenway would have the most influence.
The other quirk of Fenway is the limited foul territory down the lines. While this may not seem like a big deal, it does take away some fly ball outs and give the batter another chance to produce something else. The background behind the pitcher can play a role too.
Luck or chance could all play a role, make every Fenway hitter do better, and make Jim Rice do better at Fenway just by pure luck. BUt is that seriously a consideration?
Just look how neatly that all stacks up and fits together.
Knowing all the pieces, it is really tough to argue against the appropriate ballpark factors that are assigned to Rice's production.
P.S. If percentage stats are used for Rice, compared to players who were good enough to play much longer, that is not an accurate comparison.
Baseball, perhaps I do put more emphasis, weight, or notoriety, with a league leading performance, than may be deemed proper.
The omission of the 1981 season was not a "sly" attempt to lessen any achievement, but more a concern with the obvious inequality of a comparison base. In addition to missing about one third of a typical measurement/sample size, and not needing to adapt to late season durability requirements, all teams did not even play the same amount of games. A few played in 103 official contests, a few in 109 games, and many were in between. The incomplete schedule had many different, unintended proportions of home/away contests. The required amount and proportion of divisional and non-divisional games, which do have strict allotments, were not possible. To feel those 1981 seasonal performances were truly reflective, for teams and individuals, in relation to a normal season, is just not realistic.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Being the absolute best, whether the league leader, or the fastest runner, is always debatable, as to proper weight to be given.
The Olympics, I believe, have changed or are considering a change from a 5,3,1 system, to a 5,3,2 use, so as to not give the best performer, or leader, so great a margin over a potentially fairly close 3rd place fellow.
Still, I am impressed with HR titles, leading the league in Hits, Total Bases, RBI, OPS, OPS +, Triples, Slg Pct. and the multiple times being best in some of those areas. It is impossible to precisely weight in a quantifiable manner, for me at least, their proper significance or value, however they must merit some worthy consideration.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
It is fairly easy to put all those events into proper context...if they are being viewed from a scientifically valid and objective stand.
If something impresses someone, then, whatever floats your boat I guess.
If you ran a 4.2 40yd dash, and another man ran a 4.1 40 yd dash...only his distance was really only 35 yards..would you be impressed with that fella? And you would feel you were being evaluated fairly if others continually said that he was faster, or a better runner than you?
If you had a shooting contest with another fella, and you made 20 shots out of 25 attempts, would you be happy if a guy who made 22 shots received more accolade than you...and that most of those people didn't realize that he received 35 attempts to achieve his number?
If you were in a relay race, and one of your teammates dropped the baton at least once during every race, would you feel it was fair if a guy on another team(whom you were much faster than), continually walked around and said he was better than you because their team had a better time?
I grew up a Rice fan, and so seeing him as a HOFer is sort of a sentimental thing to me. I have no idea whether he personally was helped or hurt by the Green Monster. But, almost every teammate of his WAS helped by Fenway. So, while the Monster may have robbed him of a homer here and there (most likely turning them into doubles), he also had a huge amount of extra baserunners to drive in, because his teammates were on base in Fenway A LOT. This helps contribute to those lofty RBI totals. So, even if Fenway hurt him in one way (which I am not sure that it did), it most assuredly helped him in other ways.
Above are the career totals and breakdown for Rice's home/road performance. There are two factors that could cause him to have such a big home/road split....the park/environment or just plain randomness/luck.
If it were randomness/luck, one should expect two things...
1)At least a good portion of his teammates should have splits the complete opposite of him. However, the breakdown of his teammates from that time span showed a similar home/road split for his teammates. There is strong consistency in showing the park/environment are the primary cause for these splits. Punch and Judy hitters weren't really looked at.
2)His yearly consistency of home/road splits. Is it possible that his career splits are like that simply because there were three or four years skewing it one way or another?
Lets look at his yearly home/road OPS.
YEAR:Home/Road 1975...877/807 1976...847/746 1977.1.057/886 1978.1.105/837 1979.1.153/.809 1980...874/809 1981...853/701 1982...876/860 1983...918/903 1984...840/741 1985...931/743 1986...912/835 1987...838/700 1988...815/667 1989...611/632. Bingo, his first time he had better hitting on the road. However, he only had 228 plate appearances this year.
If Rice's career home/road splits were due to luck/randmoness, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that he would have at least ONE full season where he actually hit better on the road? Yet EVERY single full season he was better at home. He came close in 1982, and 1983.
I will do the simple math for the yearly difference of home/road OPS starting from '75 and to '89...
Comments
<< <i>stown,
I would presume they asked the question without a timeframe in mind. Just a guess. But he had come off a year in which he was fourth in MVP voting in 1983 and had a pretty strong 1984 season, based on the old way of looking at things. So I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think the poll is all that bias against Rice, if at all. >>
That's making a lot of assumptions without knowing anything about this poll but if that's the case, then again, the argument holds more water.
and would certainly be appreciated.
One might assume a pitcher would "fear"' facing a really good slugger, or possibly a true HR threat, or maybe a guy who gets a lot of base hits.
Steady Eddie Murray never did lead the league is slugging percentage, nor did he ever lead in HRs in a full 100 + game season, nor did he ever manage to garner 200+ hits, or lead the league, in any of his 20 different MLB seasons..
In 1984, the year of the famous poll, Eddie Murray was not even in the league's top ten in Slugging Pct., and actually, Steady Eddie did not even top his own team in slugging Pct. that season.
In 1984, 8 other AL players had more HR than Eddie.
In 1984, Eddie tied for 10th most base hits in the AL, with Jack Peronte and Damaso Garcia.
What was so fearsome, a link to that poll might explain what those pitchers were so afraid of from Eddie in 1984.
Really? Good lord. I think your last post really means I should never call you a name again...it puts your methods and thoughts in a better light than any adjective a human could think of. I shall just move on from there. Good luck with your Kingman/Wagner method. I see it is STILL in full force, LOL.
Stown, doubt there is a link. It is in an issue of a 1985 Sporting News. I will try and dig it up. Probably not till the weekend when I recover though.
Also, the heart of my point has to do with the acknowledging the lineup factor when dealing with intentional walks, and ignoring it when dealing with runs scored or RBI. That is the krux these people have put themselves in.
Then you STILL have people post things without regard to ballpark factor. Unbelievable, but still do.
A couple points brought up in the article that I found interesting included Jim Rice being quoted after four years in the big leagues that he estimated he had lost 100 home runs by hitting the Green Monster. That seems staggeringly high and is way higher than what we calculated earlier in the thread. Even aside from the obvious bias, it is interesting to me that Rice thinks he hit the Green Monster that many times that early in his career.
A Sports Illustrated article is also quoted that mentions that Rice was not the most physically imposing player but that his muscles and reflexes made up for his smaller size (compared to Parker and Howard). They also said that he was "fearless" because he'd stand his ground against the fiercest brushback pitches.
And this quote from the Texas manager, Billy Hunter, was telling of why Rice seemed to be perceived as feared: "Carew can single you to death. He might even beat you with a bunt. But Rice can win games with one swipe of his bat."
Anyway, anyone really interested in this discussion should take a look at the article. It's "fair and balanced" and provides an interesting historical context for this discussion.
Please recall, the famous 1984 post season poll, was not introduced by me, into this thread,
however it makes one wonder how voters measure "fear".
In 1984 the AL was topped with 43 HR, by Tony Armas, who got more than half of his league leading 43 away from ever popular Fenway with 22 dingers on the road, so the famous anti-BoSox cry doesn't work well this season.
Steady Eddie in 9th place for the AL, well behind the leader both raw and percentage-wise, had 29.
Slugging, commonly measured by the official Slg Pct stat, saw Harold Baines as the leagues best slugger, Cal Ripken Jr, was the best slugger on the Orioles that season, and Cal was the league's best offensive WAR position player that season as well, although I would guess most voters did consider WAR very much as a real "fear" factor.
Murray was not among the AL's top ten sluggers that season.
A key base hit can drive in a run or two, perhaps evoking fear in many a pitcher. The BA champ was Don Mattingly, who also led the league in OPS+, however most hurlers who voted on "fear" may not have been aware of such plus type calculations.
The most base hits were also produced by Matingly that year.
Murray was 8th in BA, and tied for 10th place in base hits for 1984.
"What batters would these pitchers least want to face? What hitters do pitchers fear the most? What sluggers would they rather avoid in the most pressurized situations?
To find out, major league correspondents of The Sporting News polled pitchers in both leagues. The pitchers were asked, simply, to identify what batter they FEARED most in their league. The answers turned out to be both predictable and surprising.
In the AL, the overwhelming winer was dangerous Eddie Murray of the Orioles. Of the 96 pitchers voting, Murray received 21.5 votes, far outdistancing KC's George Brett. Wade Boggs of Boston, the 1983 batting champ, was third with six and Lou Whitaker of Detroit and seven-time batting champ ROd Carew tied for fourth with five each.
In the NL Murphy nosed out Hernandez 20 t 14..." Then it talks about the rest of the finishers in the NL and throws all sorts of accolades on Murray and Murphy.
"Not even in contention were AL power men such as Boston's Jim Rice, the Yankees Don Baylor, and Oakland's Dave Kingman." Funny who Rice got grouped with there
Stown, your point of it being a couple years after RIce's prime peak has some merit, but it didn't hurt Rod Carew, or other player in a similar situation...and like I posted above, Rice led the AL in HR, RBI, and TB in 1983 and 1984 combined. We know how one of our posters continually posts those numbers in such a meaningful way, yet the pitchers Feared MURRAY over RICE, despite trailing in these 'all important' categories.
It was a very open ended question to the pitchers and the word "FEARED" is right there in black and white! In fact, Rice is not mentioned again in the article. No surprise that he wasn't higher. Nothing. If Rice, still in his supposed run of MOST FEARED hitter in baseball, then he should have been at the top of the vote, and if not, the writer would have expressed some surprise that the 'most feared' hitter wasn't getting any votes.
Guys receiving two votes, same as Rice were: Lance Parrish, Buckner, Baines, McRae, Baylor, and Cooper.
SOme notables receiving one vote: Mattingly, Fisk, Kingman(jaxxr's guy), Oglivie, Lemon, Gaetti, Ganter, Yount, Moore, Decinces, Roenicke, Easler.
THe NL board looked like this:
Murphy 20
Hernandez 14
Clark 6.5
Schmidt 4
Cruz 4
Madlock 3.5
Garvey 3
Gwynn 3
Guerrero 3
Driessen 3
Actually, based on the guys receiving votes, more older guys were getting the love. There were six guys in the top 11 in the AL leaderboard who started their career at or before Rice. In the NL the leaderboard had 7 of the top 10 starting their career at or before Rice. Clearly reputation played a role in many votes.
Lets remember now, the HOF writers clearly defnined the era that Rice was most feared in. They said from 1975-1986 he was the most feared hitter. This is in that time period, is it not? Rice was at the combined height of reputation and skill.
So who exactly was fearing Rice? He got less IBB walks than a bunch of guys NOT in the HOF...and remember IBB was introduced by Shaughnessey as a way to show FEAR, and one of the reasons he voted for him. This poll, and this writer, showed no fear factor either.
Jaxxr, your Kingman/Wagner method does not work. You are wasting your time using it. Spend your time creating the Dahlen thread, as I am interested in that topic.
Here is an article from the Hardball Times about the IBB during Rice's famous 1975-86 run....Notice some of those players did not even play all those seasons during that stretch, yet still had more IBB.
"One thing I keep reading regarding the Hall of Fame candidacy of Jim Rice is that he was widely regarded as the dominant hitter in baseball, or "The Most Feared Hitter in the Game" for most of his career, 1975-1986. One way of measuring how feared he was might be to look at how many intentional walks he received. Now, I'm not saying that intentional walks are necessarily a good measure of hitting quality, but they should be a decent way to gauge if somebody was causing opposing pitchers to quake in fear as the batter strode to the plate. (BTW, looking at IBB for Rice is certainly not my idea. A quick google search will bring you to threads at Baseball Think Factory and Sons of Sam Horn on this very subject.)
Anyway, I have used the Retrosheet data to look at who had the most IBB from 1975 through 1986. I've not included IBB to number 8 hitters — lots of these guys are weak hitters who get intentionally walked to reach the even weaker hitting pitcher batting ninth. Rice received 72 intentional walks during that period, which means the "Most Feared Hitter in the Game" ranked 30th on our fearsomeness scale during those years. Of course, there are complications, like who was batting behind Rice and, say, Darrell Porter (who received more IBB than Rice). Still, 30th? "
Here's the list:
+-------------------+-----+
| name | ibb |
+-------------------+-----+
| Schmidt, Mike | 155 |
| Brett, George | 141 |
| Simmons, Ted | 139 |
| Winfield, Dave | 127 |
| Parker, Dave | 124 |
| Cruz, Jose | 120 |
| Murray, Eddie | 117 |
| Hernandez, Keith | 113 |
| Madlock, Bill | 112 |
| Carew, Rod | 110 |
| Garvey, Steve | 100 |
| Evans, Darrell | 98 |
| Cey, Ron | 96 |
| Carter, Gary | 95 |
| Oglivie, Ben | 91 |
| Oliver, Al | 90 |
| Driessen, Dan | 89 |
| Foster, George | 88 |
| Murphy, Dale | 86 |
| Cromartie, Warren | 85 |
| Singleton, Ken | 85 |
| Jackson, Reggie | 85 |
| Durham, Leon | 84 |
| Porter, Darrell | 82 |
| Chambliss, Chris | 82 |
| Luzinski, Greg | 78 |
| Buckner, Bill | 78 |
| Baylor, Don | 76 |
| Clark, Jack | 73 |
| Rice, Jim | 72 |
+-------------------+-----+
All the attempted pleas for understanding with other posters,
or
All the references to the post, you yourself started where you as one of your many usernames compared Honus Wagner to Dave Kingman,
or
All the crude insults you spew towards me, or others who dare to disagree with your opinion,
or
All the constant, repetitious, boring failure to recognize any positive achievements of a HOF player you are obviously obsessed with,
Will NEVER change the fact that in real life MLB 1984,
not via my personal opinion, nor the result of any informal poll, but the actual official statistics,
Steady Eddie Murray was not a league leader in HR, nor BA, nor base hits, nor even a Baltimore Oriole team leader in Slugging Percentage.
I await your Dahlen thread so, perhaps, we have another topic to talk about.
Did you not find the quotes from the article on the FEAR poll interesting, or of good informational purposes, perhaps shedding light on a topic where no single statistical method could determine?
Was it off putting, that the writer, with good intention, put Jim Rice in a group with your guy Dave Kingman?
Or that pitchers, from their own mouth, not from an all inclusive statistical method, or any other perceived form of recognition, said that Jim Rice was only feared by 2 pitchers, and that other members of the league were much more feared, some twice as much, some five times as much, and one ten times as much, in REAL LIFE MLB?
Thanks so much,
Your personal opinion is, of course, very very important to me.
Congrats on your new Sig. line, quite telling about you, indeed.
I can not engage in a continuation of this very open-minded and meaningful discourse, for tonite at least, I am off to a traditional quite common style party, and look forward to perhaps discussing the true meaning of "fear" with other drunken party-goers.
May all have a happy and safe New Years.
Jaxxr, you do have a sense of humor, perhaps I have misread you all these times.
Happy New Year.
Another day, another time...I'm out soon as well.
Be safe.
The AL pitchers and managers had their reality, and they voiced it or showed it, with the poll, and with the IBB, or lack of IBB.
Obviously, the HOF writers were dealing with some sort of hallucinational reality when declaring Rice the MLB's most feared hitter in the minds of the opposing teams from 1975-1986.
<< <i>hallucinational reality >>
Good times.
They are not knowledgeable enough on analyzing baseball players, and have shown that they don't do the proper research...and are fooled by their own story making abilities(as in the case of Rice here).
You think ANYONE in the world would be more terrified by having to pitch to a good baseball hitter, than having a known child mass murderer stalking their streets, like the example that moron Stark used in his faulty Rice criteria??
Yeah, I know, it is a glorified analogy...but it shows what they are good at doing...creating hyperbole stuff like that, NOT analyzing baseball players! They do hook a lot of fans though...that can be seen first hand on these boards often.
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories.
They are not knowledgeable enough on analyzing baseball players, and have shown that they don't do the proper research...and are fooled by their own story making abilities(as in the case of Rice here).
You think ANYONE in the world would be more terrified by having to pitch to a good baseball hitter, than having a known child mass murderer stalking their streets, like that moron Stark used in his faulty Rice criteria??
Yeah, I know, it is a glorified analogy...but it shows what they are good at doing...creating hyperbole stuff like that, NOT analyzing baseball players! They do hook a lot of fans though...that can be seen first hand on these boards often. >>
I need to ask the question? What do you have against Jim Rice? Did he terrorize you as a kid or beat up one of your friends, sleep with an ex-girlfriend of yours?
It is the people that keep making the falsehoods, and using lazy and innnacurate methods, and penalizing more deserving players in the process, that I have a problem with.
Heck, if Rice wanted to, he could have joined me with my old girlfriend and we could of had a three way.
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories. >>
True. One of the ESPN guys voted for Surhoff. Your honor, we rest our case.
<< <i>
<< <i>Reviving a good thread because of the nut job ESPN voters, who showed once again they have no business doing HOF voting. They should stick only to the job they were hired for...creating or reporting stories. >>
True. One of the ESPN guys voted for Surhoff. Your honor, we rest our case. >>
I am more worried about the ones who did not vote for Raines.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Things are posted about Rice to show truth, justice, and the American way.
I'm still trying to figure out who exactly was fearing him all these years, certainly not the opposing managers, lol
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>That is just it. The HOF is not suppose to be a joke or to play out some old sentimental promise. >>
Indeed.
If he really did make the vote based upon a promise, the BBWA should revoke his membership immediately.
"One thing I keep reading regarding the Hall of Fame candidacy of Jim Rice is that he was widely regarded as the dominant hitter in baseball, or "The Most Feared Hitter in the Game" for most of his career, 1975-1986. One way of measuring how feared he was might be to look at how many intentional walks he received. Now, I'm not saying that intentional walks are necessarily a good measure of hitting quality, but they should be a decent way to gauge if somebody was causing opposing pitchers to quake in fear as the batter strode to the plate. (BTW, looking at IBB for Rice is certainly not my idea. A quick google search will bring you to threads at Baseball Think Factory and Sons of Sam Horn on this very subject.)
Anyway, I have used the Retrosheet data to look at who had the most IBB from 1975 through 1986. I've not included IBB to number 8 hitters — lots of these guys are weak hitters who get intentionally walked to reach the even weaker hitting pitcher batting ninth. Rice received 72 intentional walks during that period, which means the "Most Feared Hitter in the Game" ranked 30th on our fearsomeness scale during those years. Of course, there are complications, like who was batting behind Rice and, say, Darrell Porter (who received more IBB than Rice). Still, 30th? "
Here's the list:
+-------------------+-----+
| name | ibb |
+-------------------+-----+
| Schmidt, Mike | 155 |
| Brett, George | 141 |
| Simmons, Ted | 139 |
| Winfield, Dave | 127 |
| Parker, Dave | 124 |
| Cruz, Jose | 120 |
| Murray, Eddie | 117 |
| Hernandez, Keith | 113 |
| Madlock, Bill | 112 |
| Carew, Rod | 110 |
| Garvey, Steve | 100 |
| Evans, Darrell | 98 |
| Cey, Ron | 96 |
| Carter, Gary | 95 |
| Oglivie, Ben | 91 |
| Oliver, Al | 90 |
| Driessen, Dan | 89 |
| Foster, George | 88 |
| Murphy, Dale | 86 |
| Cromartie, Warren | 85 |
| Singleton, Ken | 85 |
| Jackson, Reggie | 85 |
| Durham, Leon | 84 |
| Porter, Darrell | 82 |
| Chambliss, Chris | 82 |
| Luzinski, Greg | 78 |
| Buckner, Bill | 78 |
| Baylor, Don | 76 |
| Clark, Jack | 73 |
| Rice, Jim | 72 |
+-------------------+-----+
Sorry for reposting this list, but I am still trying to figure out how this "most feared" tag was applied to Rice. The AL pitchers voiced whom they feared most, and the managers too...Rice wasn't even close.
In my mind, a HOFer gains a HOF reputation as his career progresses. Back in the late 70's & early 80's - the BBWAA should have been asking themselves as they watched Jim Rice, is this player a potential HOFer? In my mind, the answer would have been 'yes.' Just like today as they watch someone - lets say - David Wright - Am I watching a potential HOFer? The question should be considered as the player is playing, not long after they retired.
Lets say I just don't like the process. The BBWAA are writers probably because they couldn't throw a ball 60 ft 6 inches with any accuracy much less hit a fastball or judge where a fly ball is going to come back to earth.
<< <i>Since when did intentional walks become the measuring stick of being the most feared hitter? Intentional walks are situational. They are issued based on the circumstances of the game. Yes, they are often issued to the most feared hitters - but are also issued to the #8 hitter in the line-up before the pitcher hits. Using them as a threshold for determining HOF worthyness is just plain dumb.
In my mind, a HOFer gains a HOF reputation as his career progresses. Back in the late 70's & early 80's - the BBWAA should have been asking themselves as they watched Jim Rice, is this player a potential HOFer? In my mind, the answer would have been 'yes.' Just like today as they watch someone - lets say - David Wright - Am I watching a potential HOFer? The question should be considered as the player is playing, not long after they retired.
Lets say I just don't like the process. The BBWAA are writers probably because they couldn't throw a ball 60 ft 6 inches with any accuracy much less hit a fastball or judge where a fly ball is going to come back to earth. >>
IBB are not being used to determine HOF worthiness. There is enough evidence for a big NO already for that for Jim Rice. They are being used to try and figure where this MOST FEARED hitter in the game comes from, for the period of 1975-1986, as many often claim.
The other thing was that the AL pitchers actually voted on who the most feared hitter was...and Rice was way down, just as he was in IBB.
So where did people come up with this notion of most feared? It certainly was not shared by the AL managers and Pitchers. It comes from the fact that Rice had a lot of RBI. But, as you pointed out with the lack of IBB, you said that a bad hitter behind you can get you more IBB, and thus introduced the lineup as a key factor in determining certain results of a player.
However, once you recognize the lineup factor, you can no longer use RIce's RBI or Runs Scored totals without taking into account to the lineup factor...yet that is exactly what people did/do. They post those high totals, and ignore WHY they occured(because of the lineup and park). You can't all of a sudden recognize a lineup factor when it comes to lack of IBB, and then ignore it when it comes to his Runs scored or RBI. It cant be both ways.
Then of course, the Fenway factor makes it even more against Rice...no need to rehash why, it is already outlined. Of course, many dismiss it...but they somehow don't dismiss it when it comes to other parks...hmmm.
The following April, Baseball Digest revealed that Rice had been named the American League’s “Most Dangerous Hitter” by a poll of players, executives, and writers.
That same month, he graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. The magazine’s feature story on Rice focused primarily on his harsh relationship with writers, but it also set the mold for the feared descriptive that these days so nauseatingly often comes up in arguments about his degree of worth for the Hall of Fame, your support or lack thereof for Rice, might be revealed by whether or not you enclose the somewhat meaningless FEAR adjective in caustic air quotes, and disregard league leading seasons and notable achievements.
While interesting, I dont place very much significance on unofficial, somewhat anonymous polling, which try to measure a mental perception, which may be created by a baseball player.
Although not perfect, nor all-telling, specific quotes which can be verified, from other players, can often be much more indicative,
Rich Gossage, Johnny Pesky, Reggie Jackson, and Hank Aaron, who raved, “This kid’s gonna break the home-run record.”, are just a few examples of an impression generated.
What can actually be measured, and are much more meaningful, are the officially recorded MLB stats,
HR, Total bases, Slg Pct, and maybe BA, would likely generate "Fear" in pitchers.
Irrespective of the impression derived from those specific stats, they and other figures are available for evaluation, adjustment, weighting, interpretation, and perhaps additional calculations, to help form a personal opinion, which may, or may not agree, with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.
<< <i>
While interesting, I dont place very much significance on unofficial, somewhat anonymous polling, which try to measure a mental perception, which may be created by a baseball player.
>>
Despite me posting a poll, I would say that is a very accurate assessment.
I don't think anybody would have a problem calling Jim Rice the best, or most dangerous, based on his 1978-1979 time span...that span is the time where he actually did live up to the acclaim he gets. It is when people use the time frame of 1975-1986 where it simply does not add up.
I am sorry you feel, any insertion of a article, to contrast another "poll" which was supposed to be absolute proof of something, is somehow an unwarranted "defense", rather another perspective on the same aspect.
Alternate views, opinions, and evaluation methods do exist, mentioning them should not be unwelcome,
if everyone shared your exact views on Jay Cutler's toughness, or Jim Rice's lack of HOF credentials, for example,
there would be much less conversation and good natured discussion.
WAR is certainly not the only valid method, for evaluation, it itself has several variations which may produce different results.
There are countless factors which many use, and try to weigh properly, among those might be comparison to other HOF members already inducted as players. Tommy McCarthy, Harry Hooper, Chick Haffey, Lloyd Waner, and others are among OFers, who are "borderline", as well as Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Rabbit Maranville, and several other position players, not even considering hurlers, for those interested enough in the entire history of baseball, and the HOF precedents set.
If only one player gets the vast, near exclusive brunt of the, shall we say, "attack", might it be far more balanced and open-minded, if he could garner a small amount of verifiable "attack-defense" ?
There is no possibility to ever discard or remove any present HOF inductee. Might it seem, all the venom, research, intensity, and repetious posting only negatively about just one single HOFer, might be better directed at promoting the inclusion of a deserving candidate or two ?
<< <i>Baseball,
If only one player gets the vast, near exclusive brunt of the, shall we say, "attack", might it be far more balanced and open-minded, if he could garner a small amount of verifiable "attack-defense" ?
There is no possibility to ever discard or remove any present HOF inductee. Might it seem, all the venom, research, intensity, and repetious posting only negatively about just one single HOFer, might be better directed at promoting the inclusion of a deserving candidate or two ?
Jaxxr, that may not be possible. With Rice being one of the lower level members of the HOF he is always going to be brought up as a comparison when someone pines for another player to be voted in.
I read some blog before where a Rice fan hoped that Rice would NOT get voted in simply because he didn't want Rice to be the baseline for everyone to always compare to in order to make a case for the HOF.
To compound it, he is probably the worst HOF position player from the 70's/80's...and since many of his contemporaries still have a chance to get in, he will always be brought up. Especially since there are guys from his era(and from his team), that were actually better than him.
When the most accurate measurements of a player's ability are used, such as WinShares, WAR, BaseOuts, Situational Batter Runs, Standard Linear Weights, or Win Probability Added are used, Rice is always going to be at the bottom, of those many different ways to view a ballplayer, among HOFers...and many players outside the HOF will be well ahead of him.
It is a natural outcome that he is always brought up.
Not at the moment, if you would the entirety of this thread and many others, you would see many childish and vulgar insults, regarding my mathematical background, my mental illness, my sexual preferences, and other personal taunts.
Specifically, I certainly did not mean to infer you, yourself, were personally attacking me, I tried, unsuccessful it seems,
to show the abundance of negative only comments to one particular HOFer, is/was something of an "attack" on him.
In the spirit of information disclosure, and not any ridiculous assumption that it is an absolute proof of anything, merely a possible chance to see the perception of Rice as a HOFer, is not as totally outlandish as some might feel,
There are, roughly 60, outfielders officially in the baseball HOF,
via the OPS statistic, Jim Rice with a fine .854 ranks about 29th or 30th, right in middle, a typical , average, quite common HOF OFer, by that one evaluator.
Via Slg Pct, Rice's .502 ranks him about 22nd among all HOF outfielders, slightly above the typical, or average HOF fly chaser.
From your informative list, Richie Allen and Ron Santo are truly deserving IMHO, and why not Keith Hernandez as a firstbase counterpart to the immortal Bill Maz ?
But, of course you know it not a Hall exclusively of accumulated career total WAR, using one of several possible WAR methodologies,
however is a baseball Hall of Fame, somewhat based on other notable aspects of a player, as well.
Many, unfortunately in my view, can see Santo never was a league leader in any of the popular hitting triple crown stats, never won an MVP, and as a cleanup hitter primarily, often did not lead his own team in HR or Slg Pct, and perhaps adding to his lack of support, another Cub thirdbaseman , Stan Hack a near equal defender, was a better leadoff man in comparison to his peers, than Santo was as a no 4 hitter, to his peers, and has some solid support as the all time Cub thirdbaseman. Perhaps his recent passing will evoke more interest in his qualifications as a superior quality thirdbaseman, then again, maybe more Jim Rice bashing will better aid Santo's cause.
The official MVP designation began about 1933, so some old timers are excluded, however Rice does well in comparison to other HOF outfielders, per his calculated MVP shares. Even if one wishes to include a non-elected Barry Bonds, there would be only 9 other HOF outfielders who garnered more MVP shares, thus Rice is nowhere near the bottom in being an MVP caliber HOF outfielder, which may likely contribute to his overall impression and "lore".
Jim Rice was primarily a HR hitter, how the Green Monster wall reduced his HR potential is not easily calculated.
Jim averaged about 2 more HR per year at home, than on the road, he had several seasons hitting more HR away.
During Rice's prime seasons, not once in a full 162 game season, did the elite Boston team ever lead the league in runs.
His OPS at home was .920
His OPS on the road was .789
Fenway doesn't just help HR...it is the turning a would be fly ball out into a double or home run where it is of tremendous advantage, hence the large home/road splits for him.
If the Fenway factor was shown, but Rice really never saw that such a large disparity in his home/road splits, I could see a more serious question into the validity of it. Say his HOME and ROAD OPS were equal, and THEN a Fenway factor were applied to downgrade his run value, then I think a more serious question into it would be in order.
The Red Sox in runs scored from 1975 were 1st, 3rd,2nd,2nd,3rd.
Way earlier in the thread, a little more detail was provided on the topic of this.
.........................Home.......ROad
Batted outs......2,080........2,270.......9.1% decrease
Total Hits............1,304........1,148
Singles................845...........773.......9.3% increase
Doubles..............207............166......24.6% increase
Triples.................44...............35......25.7% increase
Home Runs.........208............174.....19.5% increase
These are balls batted into play, not BB or SO, so it is only measuring the balls that were hit into play where Fenway would have the most influence.
The other quirk of Fenway is the limited foul territory down the lines. While this may not seem like a big deal, it does take away some fly ball outs and give the batter another chance to produce something else. The background behind the pitcher can play a role too.
Luck or chance could all play a role, make every Fenway hitter do better, and make Jim Rice do better at Fenway just by pure luck. BUt is that seriously a consideration?
Just look how neatly that all stacks up and fits together.
Knowing all the pieces, it is really tough to argue against the appropriate ballpark factors that are assigned to Rice's production.
P.S. If percentage stats are used for Rice, compared to players who were good enough to play much longer, that is not an accurate comparison.
perhaps I do put more emphasis, weight, or notoriety, with a league leading performance, than may be deemed proper.
The omission of the 1981 season was not a "sly" attempt to lessen any achievement, but more a concern with the obvious inequality of
a comparison base.
In addition to missing about one third of a typical measurement/sample size, and not needing to adapt to late season durability requirements,
all teams did not even play the same amount of games. A few played in 103 official contests, a few in 109 games, and many were in between.
The incomplete schedule had many different, unintended proportions of home/away contests. The required amount and proportion of divisional and non-divisional games, which do have strict allotments, were not possible.
To feel those 1981 seasonal performances were truly reflective, for teams and individuals, in relation to a normal season, is just not realistic.
The Olympics, I believe, have changed or are considering a change from a 5,3,1 system, to a 5,3,2 use, so as to not give the best performer, or leader, so great a margin over a potentially fairly close 3rd place fellow.
Still, I am impressed with HR titles, leading the league in Hits, Total Bases, RBI, OPS, OPS +, Triples, Slg Pct. and the multiple times being best in some of those areas. It is impossible to precisely weight in a quantifiable manner, for me at least, their proper significance or value, however they must merit some worthy consideration.
If something impresses someone, then, whatever floats your boat I guess.
If you ran a 4.2 40yd dash, and another man ran a 4.1 40 yd dash...only his distance was really only 35 yards..would you be impressed with that fella? And you would feel you were being evaluated fairly if others continually said that he was faster, or a better runner than you?
If you had a shooting contest with another fella, and you made 20 shots out of 25 attempts, would you be happy if a guy who made 22 shots received more accolade than you...and that most of those people didn't realize that he received 35 attempts to achieve his number?
If you were in a relay race, and one of your teammates dropped the baton at least once during every race, would you feel it was fair if a guy on another team(whom you were much faster than), continually walked around and said he was better than you because their team had a better time?
I don't doubt at all that it took some would be homers and turned them into doubles.
I also don't doubt at all that it took would be fly ball outs and turned them into doubles and homers.
I don't don't at all that that he was given a 'second life' on would be foul outs.
The thing is, turning a HR into a double is a downgrade...but not a terrible one.
Turning a would be fly out into a HR is an absolute tremendous upgrade.
But, the breakdown above shows he was saved a lot of batted ball outs, and in return received a lot of extra doubles, triples, and home runs.
If it were randomness/luck, one should expect two things...
1)At least a good portion of his teammates should have splits the complete opposite of him. However, the breakdown of his teammates from that time span showed a similar home/road split for his teammates. There is strong consistency in showing the park/environment are the primary cause for these splits. Punch and Judy hitters weren't really looked at.
2)His yearly consistency of home/road splits. Is it possible that his career splits are like that simply because there were three or four years skewing it one way or another?
Lets look at his yearly home/road OPS.
YEAR:Home/Road
1975...877/807
1976...847/746
1977.1.057/886
1978.1.105/837
1979.1.153/.809
1980...874/809
1981...853/701
1982...876/860
1983...918/903
1984...840/741
1985...931/743
1986...912/835
1987...838/700
1988...815/667
1989...611/632. Bingo, his first time he had better hitting on the road. However, he only had 228 plate appearances this year.
If Rice's career home/road splits were due to luck/randmoness, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that he would have at least ONE full season where he actually hit better on the road? Yet EVERY single full season he was better at home. He came close in 1982, and 1983.
I will do the simple math for the yearly difference of home/road OPS starting from '75 and to '89...
1975: +70
+99
+171
+268
+344
+65
+152
+16
+15
+99
+188
+77
+138
+148
-22
for tits and giggles i compared Lynn, Dick Allen and Don Mattingly.
what a shock to discover they all hit better at home and tend to have a much higher .OPS at home....