Does this mean Rice and Gossage have a shot?

Barndog · January 9, 2007 5:00AM

does HOF voting history support their future election to the Hall? Here's what they got this year:

Rich Gossage got 388 votes (71.2 % of the ballots)

Jim Rice got 346 votes (63.5% of the ballots)

Brian48 · January 9, 2007 5:12AM

Isn't this Rice's last year on the ballot?

kcballboy · January 9, 2007 5:12AM

Rice still has 2 years

gregmo32 · January 9, 2007 5:13AM

If I remember this correctly, no player who has ever gotten 60 % of the vote in a year has ever NOT been inducted eventually. So it looks good for those guys...

IrishMike · January 9, 2007 5:24AM

Nellie Fox got 74.6% of the vote and had to be put in by the Veteran's Committee.

ziggy29 · January 9, 2007 5:27AM

It gives them a reasonable chance to get in during years that don't have two "locks" like Ripken and Gwynn.

It also means they have a reasonable shot with the Veterans' Committee.

Still can't figure out Blyleven's exclusion, either.

SDSportsFan · January 9, 2007 9:29AM

Actually, no player has ever received 50% or more of the vote in any year and not eventually been inducted.

Steve

softparade · January 9, 2007 10:12AM

This must be the 100th thread about this already ....... seems like it (between all the forums)

IMO,

Jim Rice (very very deservedly) gets in in 2008 along with Rich Gossage. My sentimental fav. is Jack Morris. I don't see it happening but it would be great

viking7 · January 9, 2007 11:08AM

I hope Jack Morris makes it in too.

bri2327 · January 9, 2007 11:24AM

Gossage and Blyleven got the shaft once again.

If they are passed over next year I will officially give up on the voting process.

Anyone who thinks Morris deserves a second look before Bert is comfortably enshrined is out of their mind.

Bosox1976 · January 9, 2007 11:26AM

Rice got more votes (total) than last year, but a smaller overall percentage. We'll see.

WinPitcher · January 9, 2007 11:28AM

Rice only gets in after Ron Fairly.

Steve

softparade · January 9, 2007 11:40AM

<< Gossage and Blyleven got the shaft once again.

If they are passed over next year I will officially give up on the voting process.

Anyone who thinks Morris deserves a second look before Bert is comfortably enshrined is out of their mind. >>

guess I am out of my mind

Jack over Bert

dallasactuary · January 9, 2007 11:56AM

<< Rice only gets in after Ron Fairly.

Steve

>>

Amen. And 100 other more deserving players.

I will say that while there may be 100 more deserving players than Rice (and I'm not exaggerating), that pales in comparison to the several hundred more deserving than Morris.

softparade · January 9, 2007 12:02PM

<< 
I will say that while there may be 100 more deserving players than Rice (and I'm not exaggerating), that pales in comparison to the several hundred more deserving than Morris. >>

everybody has their "deserving" list. I hear what you are saying ..... except I have no idea how you think that Jim Rice does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Then again ...... its YOUR list and not MINE.

ctsoxfan · January 9, 2007 12:40PM

Jim Rice deserves to be in the Hall. Rich Gossage deserves to be in the Hall. They both should be part of the 2008 class, and probably should have been part of the 2007 class. Simple as that.

This fat guy looks like he ate Jim Rice and Rich Gossage -

Darin · January 9, 2007 12:51PM

George Brett was in the habit of blasting monumental, late inning, dramatic home runs off Goose Gossage which may be hurting his chances.

viking7 · January 9, 2007 1:11PM

I don't recall saying Bert shouldn't get in. In fact in a different post regarding Blyleven I gave Bert my vote. Morris was baseball's winningest pitcher in the 80's. So todays post is about Jack Morris
not the other players I think should make it in. Mind boggling isn't it?

dallasactuary · January 9, 2007 1:17PM

<< ..... except I have no idea how you think that Jim Rice does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. >>

I've explained my position enough, I won't bore everyone again; skinpinch posted an absolutely devastating analysis of Rice; Bill James wrote an essay explaining in excruciating detail why Roy White was a better player than Rice (and he's right). If you're open to hearing how good Rice really was, there is no shortage of commentary.

But here's a simple test. We all agree that there are people in the HOF who absolutely do not belong; often, they were put in by the VC in the 70's. Guys like George Kelly, etc. Using whatever definition of "deserve" that you think is appropriate, imagine the HOF is emptied of all of the outfielders that you think do not "deserve" to be there - whether that's 5 players or 50. Now, of the players remaining, which ones do you think were not as good as Jim Rice? Put another way, complete this sentence: "_______________ is in the HOF, he deserves to be in the HOF, and Jim Rice is better than him."

When I go through this exercise - and I'm fairly generous about who "deserves" to be in the HOF compared to many of you - I come up blank. I'm interested who those of you who support Rice come up with.

Skinpinch · January 9, 2007 1:31PM

Dallas, luckily doctors still don't adhere to old fashioned medicine practices...like sports people do with their analytical tools

Backers of Rice simply ignore the stuff that doesn't fit with their perception. I wish I had Rice's ability, but he simply isn't as good as many players from his own era who are not in either...let alone guys who are in already.

Since it is called FAME, all sorts of cases can be made for inclusion...but it then renders it a tad trivial. Strictly speaking on who was better, and who was responsible for more runs, and saving more runs...Rice simply doesn't hold up to other more deserving players from his own time. Put him in, fine! But then you have to put the others in too. Welcome JAck Clark, welcome Dave Parker, Hernandez etc...

If he is being measured as the one time holder of the most famous of UNCLE BEN's namesakes, then he has a shot. Jerry, now has that title of course.

fandango · January 9, 2007 1:57PM

How should Jim rice get in before Don mAttingly?

isnt this the hall of FAME, not the hall of minimum stat requierments....

When was Rice ever considered the best in the game? never to my recollection....MAttingly was considered the best in the game (and the best chance for the triple crown) for 5 years....eventhough it was only a short time, Mattingly was by far the most Famous, most respected, Best fielding, best Team Captain, Best CLutch hitting of any players still on the Hall of Fame list.......

just because Jim rice may have more accumulated counting stats than mattingly, doesnt make him more worthy of the hall....

ps...mattingly's votes went up this year , a good sign!

grote15 · January 9, 2007 2:19PM

ps...mattingly's votes went up this year , a good sign!

As much as I like Don mattingly the player, the only way he'll ever get into the HOF is if he buys a ticket.

dallasactuary · January 9, 2007 3:15PM

Don Mattingly was a fine player but even with Mattingly it is difficult to name HOF first basemen - DESERVING HOF first basemen - who were not as good as Mattingly. Come to think of it, he was better than Cepeda and I think Cepeda belongs so there you go. {If anyone is going to tell me Cepeda does NOT belong but Rice does, please warn me first so my Coke doesn't come out my nose. Thank you.}

Maybe the lateness of the hour explains the deafening silence from Rice's supporters, but I really am interested in how the Rice backers complete the sentence from my previous post. Or at least hear someone explain why Rice, even though he would be the worst outfielder in the HOF who isn't considered a joke, "deserves" to be there anyway.

I can complete that sentence for Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo several times over; I can do it for Bobby Grich, Dick Allen, Bill Freehan, Darrell Evans, Alan Trammell, Minnie Minoso, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and quite a few more. Completing that sentence is not, in and of itself, necessarily sufficient to mean that a player deserves to be in the HOF. But if you can't complete it for a player, then by what reasoning does he belong in the HOF?

zef204 · January 9, 2007 3:20PM

What about Dale Murphy?

ctsoxfan · January 9, 2007 4:27PM

I have no idea why you have this axe to grind against Jim Rice dallasactuary, but you can't possibly believe some of the stuff you write, can you? You have an ally in skinpinch, who I'm sure if you ask him to, will whip up a 27 paragraph post about the most obscure statistics he can find (which will be a sure-fire cure for my insomnia) showing why Rice couldn't hit left-handers from Idaho on the fourth Tuesday's of every other month. You pull names from a hat, and say they are all better than Rice, and invent odd comparisons that leave me speechless. It's late for me to drudge up statistics, but remember this - Rice is the only player in history with 35 or more homers and 200 or more hits in three consecutive seasons. He's one of only 31 players with more than 350 homers and a .290-plus career batting average. You like Cepeda? Great, Look at this -

Lifetime Stats

Cepeda .297 379 HR's 1365 RBI's (17 seasons)
Rice .298 382 HR's 1451 RBI's (16 seasons)

How about Tony Perez?

Perez .279 379 HR's 1652 RBI's (in 23 seasons!)

Rice, along with Eddie Murray and probably Dave Winfield, was the most dominating slugger of the mid 70's to the mid 80's. The only way to disprove that is to invent some crazy statistics that simply don't compare to the very basic statistics shown above.

ctsoxfan · January 9, 2007 4:36PM

Actually, I did have this - Dick Bresciani, Vice President of Publications & Archives with the Boston Red Sox, compiled this on Rice's behalf (it's only an excerpt) -

CAREER (1974-1989)

Led A.L. with 382 HR and 1451 RBI in his 16-year career, all with Boston.

Rare Power & Average: Seventeen players with 300+ HR and a career AVG as high as Rice have been on the HOF ballot. All but Rice are HOF:

Aaron, Brett, DiMaggio, Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Hornsby, Klein, Mantle, Mays, Mize, Musial, Ott, Rice, Ruth, A. Simmons, T. Williams.

8-time All-Star
8-time 100 RBI
7-time .300 hitter
6-time Top 5 in A.L. MVP – more than anyone else during Rice’s career (Murray 5)
4-time A.L. TB leader
3-time A.L. HR leader

1978 A.L. MVP (.315 AVG, 46 HR, 139 RBI, 406 TB, .600 SLG, 213 H, 15 3B)
Only M.L. player to lead either league outright in 3B, HR, and RBI
Only A.L. player with 400+ TB since 1937 (Joe DiMaggio)
A.L. record for biggest margin in TB (113 over Murray)
Only A.L. player with 46+ HR between ’69 (Killebrew) and ’87 (McGwire)

3-YEAR STRETCH (1977-1979)

Only player in M.L. history with 3 straight seasons of 35+ HR and 200+ hits
Tied A.L. record of 3 consecutive years as TB leader (Williams, Cobb)
Ruth and Foxx are the others in A.L. with 3+ straight 39+ HR, .315 seasons.

A DOZEN YEARS OF DOMINANCE (1975-1986)

Twenty M.L. players have hit .300+ with 350+ HR over a 12-season stretch (Babe Ruth was the first, from 1915-1926), but Jim Rice stands alone in his dozen years (1975-86).

He is the only M.L. player of his generation who accomplished the feat (linking 1974, when Hank Aaron became the career HR leader, to 2001, when Barry Bonds became the single-season HR leader). All players on the following list who have been on the Hall of Fame ballot have been elected – except for Jim Rice.

The list: .300+ with 350+ HR over a 12-season stretch
(Date listed indicates final year of stretch)

1926 Ruth
1927 Ruth 1967 Aaron, Mantle, Mays, F. Robinson
1928 Ruth 1968 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1929 Ruth 1969 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1930 Ruth 1970 Aaron, Mays, F. Robinson
1931 Ruth 1971 Aaron, F. Robinson
1932 Ruth 1972 Aaron, F. Robinson
1933 Ruth 1973 Aaron
1934 Gehrig, Ruth 1974 Aaron
1935 Gehrig, Ruth 1975
1936 Gehrig 1976
1937 Foxx, Gehrig 1977
1938 Foxx, Gehrig 1978
1939 Foxx, Gehrig, Ott 1979
1940 Foxx, Ott 1980
1941 Foxx, Ott 1981
1942 Foxx, Ott 1982
1943 Foxx 1983
1944 Foxx 1984
1945 Foxx 1985
1946 1986 Rice
1947 1987
1948 1988
1949 1989
1950 1990
1951 1991
1952 1992
1953 1993
1954 Williams 1994
1955 Williams 1995
1956 Williams 1996
1957 Williams 1997
1958 Williams 1998
1959 Snider, Williams 1999
1960 Snider 2000
1961 Snider 2001 Bonds
1962 Mantle 2002 Bagwell, Bonds, Thomas
1963 Mantle, Mays 2003 Bagwell, Bonds, Gonzalez, Piazza, Sheffield, Thomas
1964 Mantle, Mays 2004 Bagwell, Bonds, Gonzalez, Piazza, Ramirez, Sheffield, Thomas
1965 Aaron, Mantle, Mays 2005 Bonds, Piazza, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield
1966 Aaron, Mantle, Mays 2006 Bonds, C. Jones, Piazza, Ramirez, Rodriguez, Sheffield

(Does not count military service against anyone in World War II and/or Korea)

From 1975 to 1986 Jim Rice was the most dominant player in the American League. During that 12-year stretch he led the league in 12 categories and ranked among the top five in two others. His numbers are indicative of a player who was dangerous in nearly every situation.

He led the league over that period with 350 home runs but unlike most sluggers of his day, he ranked fourth with a .304 batting average. He collected the most hits over that time period and also ranked first with a .520 slugging percentage. He legged-out 73 triples, including 15 in 1977 and 1978, and he was the most dangerous outfielder to run on in the American League. In every category he ranks above or among existing Hall of Famers.

IrishMike · January 9, 2007 7:47PM

Good presentation ctsoxfan, even tho your sox are the wrong color.

Of all the names bandied about in this thread, two stick out to me, Rice and Morris. Enough has been pointed out about Rice, what folks overlook about Morris was his ability to not only win big games, but to absolutely dominate them. This guy was a pitche in every sense of the word, if he had an 8 run lead he saved his arm to the detriment of his stats. Personally I could never stand this guy, but he deserves to be a Hall of Famer.

ziggy29 · January 9, 2007 9:45PM

<< Cepeda .297 379 HR's 1365 RBI's (17 seasons)
Rice .298 382 HR's 1451 RBI's (16 seasons) >>

Rice played in a more offensive era than Cepeda.

Skinpinch · January 9, 2007 11:13PM

CTSOX, Step back pal.

FIrst you made a snide comment earlier about my abacus, in a thread I wasn't even part of.

Now you make comments regarding the fourth Thursday in Idaho, and then continue to say I will write a multi paragraph posts that will put you to sleep. THat nails the problem right there. You haven't read the posts, or comprehended them, otherwise there is no way in the world that the fourth Thursday in Idaho analogy holds water. That shows ignorance is just beaming out of Boston right now.

As for the SOx PR guy, I saw that list too...and laughed.

There isn't one thing accounting for the ballpark factor, AND,

I don't see anything accounting for the negative effect of the outs made that result from his high at bat totals to achieve those counting numbers. Why doesn't that guy post the double plays he hit into? Does he think those don't make a difference to scoring runs and winning games? Those type of negative offensive events outweigh a lot of his positive offensive events, which ultimately leads to the inevitible conlclusion...

HE ISN'T AS GOOD AS YOU OR MANY MISINFORMED PEOPLE THINK.

If those two factors are not strongly accounted for, then the list is meaningless, much like the figures you have used

.

Also, weren't those basic statistics invented at some time too?????? After all, Putouts were recorded before RBI. So I guess your crazy RBI statistic that was invented to better putouts is worthless. So stop using it. (It is NOW worthless though). They were used in generations when BETTER information was not available. But that is not hte case now. It isn't crazy measurements, BUT SIMPLY MORE ACCURATE.

WinPitcher · January 9, 2007 11:39PM

Do some of you guys realise that of the thousands of ballplayers less then 300 have made it to the HOF? So instead of saying this guy or that guy is not Hall worthy we should be just listing where they fit in. Even the worst guy in (Ferrell)? is worthy simply because somewhere along the way he got in.

As for Jim Rice, why some of you insist on devaluing his career because of the park he played in is ridiculous. He played in the park that he had to play in, had he played in another park no one can say for CERTAIN what he stats would have been. To compare anyone (Fairly) to him is IMO unfair as well. First off Fairly played on teams where he was the GUY, so of course he would have the stats (for his team) Numbers should play only a part in evaluating a player not the whole ball of wax. Sorry I just do not buy into some of the stats that you guys spout as end all. Just too many variables.

Steve

Skinpinch · January 9, 2007 11:49PM

Win, if one is not buying the use of stats because they feel attitude, leadership etc.. impact the game, then you have a point. But then a very strong case must be made for thos intangible items. The variables of intangibles are much higher though. And I don't think anyone has ever confused Jim Rice as being one of those types of players.

HOWEVER, if one is devaluing the best stats, by using OTHER STATS that are simply not as accurate, then that makes no sense at all. If a strongly accurate stat has a couple of variables, then the basic ones have multiple times of variables.

As for the ballpark, this topic has been covered, and there is no question Rice benefitted from it. THe amount can depend...ranging from a great deal, to a lot...or somewhere in between. Looking at all the informatin and studying it and baseball to a great degree, I'm not sure a sane man can dispute that it helped. I would agree on the more dificulty of nailing down the degree, but it doesn't vary to the extent you may be implying.

FInally, the Hall. The entire concept of the Hall of Fame is odd and is very ambiguous on its inclusion. What you are saying is true about where guys fit in. We already see all the examples of equal players, where one is in, and one is not. THen the guys that are extremely close are viewed as step children behind the guys in...and in reality they aren't as far away as the Hall says. One is a Hall of Famer...exhault him oh lord. The other is not...who is that guy oh lord? Yes, you are right.

Skinpinch · January 9, 2007 11:57PM

Steve, I replied above. But I forgot to add one thing.

I don't agree with the, its his park and it isn't his fault etc..

What if you and me were hired by a company to make free throws, and we were to be paid on how well we made them....only your free throw line was 40 feet away, and mine 15. Would you be happy come pay day when I got the accolades, and the only explanation to you was..."it wasn't my fault, I did what I could do in the situation I was put, and there is no absolute guarantee that I wouldn't have done just as well at the 40 foot line." That rationale would be true, but it wouldn't be just at all.

dallasactuary · January 10, 2007 12:14AM

Jerry, the list of Rice's accomplishments proves either that he was great or that he hit right-handed in Fenway smack in the middle of a great lineup. I suspect it was the latter.

But let's assume it was the former; which outfielders in the HOF are you saying not only deserve to be there but also were not as good as Rice?

And Steve, we do know how well Rice played in other ballparks - he played half his career in them. For an almost carbon copy look at how he did, see Chili Davis. Now I'm not saying Chili Davis wasn't a good player - he was - but he sure wasn't a HOFer and Jim Rice was no better than him.

Writer11 · January 10, 2007 2:17AM

I still don't see how anyone voting for Blyleven (287 wins) can not also vote for Tommy John (290 wins)?

I agree with softy on Jack Morris. The guy was the ace on three different World Series teams.

reiny81 · January 10, 2007 3:02AM

<< 

<< Gossage and Blyleven got the shaft once again.

If they are passed over next year I will officially give up on the voting process.

Anyone who thinks Morris deserves a second look before Bert is comfortably enshrined is out of their mind. >>

guess I am out of my mind

Jack over Bert >>

Bert Blyleven won 287 games to Morris' 254. Blyleven had 242 complete games. Blyeleven had 60 career shutouts. This is more than twice as many as Morris who has 28. Blyleven has 3701 strikeouts to 2478 for Morris. On top of which Blyleven only gave up 1322 walks compared to 1390 for Morris. The real kicker is Blyleven's career era which is 3.31. Morris' career era is 3.90. This is a difference of 2/3rds of a run. It is not even close Blyleven over Morris.

markj111 · January 10, 2007 3:13AM

<< I still don't see how anyone voting for Blyleven (287 wins) can not also vote for Tommy John (290 wins)?

I agree with softy on Jack Morris. The guy was the ace on three different World Series teams. >>

You had better do a little research. In his 3rd world series he was 0-2 with an ERA above 8.

markj111 · January 10, 2007 3:24AM

Neyer's 1/10 column from ESPN.com.

ESPN.com: Hall of Fame 2007 [Print without images]

Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Raines, Murphy rank above Rice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com

Let's cut through the claptrap and get to the heart of the thing, shall we? The Hall of Fame is supposed to be about greatness, and greatness is a function of translating performance into runs, both produced and prevented. Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig are Hall of Famers because they produced great numbers of runs; Steve Carlton and Ozzie Smith are Hall of Famers because they prevented great numbers of runs. Further, in the spirit of simplicity we might consider only three things for each Hall of Fame candidate: (1) career length, (2) runs produced and (3) everything else, with everything else consisting mostly of runs prevented.
With all that in mind, I would like to look at three outfielders of the 1980s, all of whom will appear on the 2008 Hall of Fame ballot presented to the voters next winter: Jim Rice, Dale Murphy and first-timer Tim Raines.

First, career length, which is best measured by the simplest of measures: games played.

Games

Raines 2,502

Murphy 2,180

Rice 2,089

Of course, career length isn't everything. There's a reason Hank Greenberg is in the Hall of Fame and Ron Fairly is not. Quantity is important, but so is quality. And rather than looking at raw hitting stats such as runs and home runs and runs batted in, which of course are heavily influenced by your home ballpark and your teammates, let's instead look at something called adjusted OPS, which is essentially on-base percentage plus slugging percentage adjusted to reflect a player's home ballpark and his league, with 100 representing the league average.

OPS+

Rice 128

Raines 123

Murphy 121

When we "adjust" OPS, Rice takes a hit because of Fenway Park, which certainly boosted his raw stats significantly. But he still leads this group, which supports the oft-said notion that he was a dominant hitter (even if the notion that he was "the most-feared hitter in the American League for a decade" is classic claptrap).

Dig a bit deeper, though, and you discover the difference between these three is negligible, at best. Rice ranked in the top 10 in his league in OPS+ five times; Raines and Murphy did it six times apiece. Yes, Rice was feared. He finished in the top 10 in slugging percentage eight times, and pitchers fear sluggers. But pitchers also should fear players who reach base, and Raines finished in the top 10 in on-base percentage seven times. Murphy? He finished in the top 10 in one of those categories 11 times, more than either Rice (10) or Raines (8). Objectively speaking, Rice was no more dominant than Murphy or Raines.

And finally, what about the "other stuff"? Let's see how these players fare in two different "comprehensive" statistics, WARP (wins above replacement player) and win shares, both of which include stolen bases and defensive value (but don't include baserunning, aside from the steals):

WARP Shares

Raines 128 390

Murphy 90 294

Rice 87 282

Rice was a really good hitter, of course, but he contributed little in left field or on the bases. Murphy was a solid center fielder, and Raines was a good left fielder who also ranks as one of the more valuable baserunners of all time. I'm surprised by those numbers a bit. I didn't expect Raines to outdistance Murphy to the extent that he does, and I did expect Murphy to have a big edge over Rice (he doesn't).

I would like to note that we've stuck to objective analysis. No blathering ("most-feared!") or carefully calculated time spans ("most home runs in the American League over these 11 seasons I've chosen specifically to make this hitter look good!"). Just a few cold facts, which usually is the best place to start. Rice was an excellent player for a few years and a very good one for a few more. He was, on balance, roughly as good over the course of his career as two of his contemporaries, left fielders Roy White and Jose Cruz.

But Rice wasn't quite as good as Murphy, who was deemed a Hall of Famer by only 9 percent of the voters this year. Rice wasn't nearly as good as Raines, and next year, Raines is going to fall well short of election. That's fine. I'm all for maintaining the Hall's high standards. But Rice was named on nearly two-thirds of the ballots this year, and he stands an excellent chance of being elected at some point in the next two years. That's fine, too. But if Rice is the new standard for Hall of Fame outfielders, we need to make room for not only Raines and Murphy but a few dozen other players as well.

Senior writer Rob Neyer writes for Insider three times most weeks during the season. You can reach him via rob.neyer@dig.com, and his new book, "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders," is available everywhere.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ctsoxfan · January 10, 2007 4:04AM

Skinpinch - relax, I'm just having fun with you. Believe me, I do read your posts, and think you have some nice insights into the game which you present well. Your main issue with Rice seems to be his home ballpark, which as winpitcher mentioned, he obviously could not control. But, I did find this article that addresses the "Fenway factor" and also the influence of the era he played in, on his numbers:

Why Rice deserves a Cooperstown plaque
Dayn Perry / Special to FOXSports.com

In baseball, collective attention is gradually shifting from hot stove goings-on to annual Hall of Fame debates.

In recent years, one recurring and particularly feverish argument is the one over the status of Jim Rice. Depending on your perspective, Rice is either a deserving candidate whose numbers have been unfairly blunted by the steroids-era bestowals or a justified omission whose productivity was aided greatly by Fenway Park. When it comes to Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy, not many straddle the fence. So let's wander into this issue and examine whether Jim Rice merits induction into Cooperstown.

Rice, of course, toiled for 16 years as the Red Sox's left fielder, and he had the misfortune of following up the wildly popular Carl Yastrzemski as the man charged with manning the Green Monster. Rice was never fully embraced by the Boston fans, and his treatment by them and the media often had the whiff of racism about it. Still, despite being terminally neglected, Rice put up some tremendous numbers over the years.

To place those numbers in context, let's take a look at how Rice's career compares to that of the average Hall-of-Fame left fielder. At present, there are 19 players in the Hall as left fielders, and 18 of them have complete statistical records.

How Rice stacks up ...
Category Avg. Hall of Fame LF Rice
Games 2,196 2,089
At-bats 8,269 8,225
Runs 1,450 1,249
Hits 2,598 2,452
Doubles 462 373
Triples 132 79
Home runs 244 382
RBIs 1,349 1,451
Stolen bases 308 58
Walks 932 670
Batting average .314 .298
On-base percentage .386 .352
Slugging percentage .495 .502
Total bases 4,092 4,129

As you can see, Rice's best argument is his power production: he easily tops the average Cooperstown left fielder in home runs, and he also edges them in RBI, slugging percentage and total bases. However, he's significantly below the mean in OBP, walks, hits and runs scored. Of course, the above numbers include players who played across many different eras and in starkly different home parks. That means varied run-scoring environments that defy simple comparisons. Thanks to the irreplaceable Baseball-Reference.com, we can correct for these inconsistencies.

The folks at Baseball-Reference have "neutralized" the stat lines of every player by placing their numbers in a context that's free of the influences of park, league and schedule. This allows us to compare a hitter from, say, the dead-ball era of the teens to one from the power game of 1990s. So here's how Rice's translated numbers compare to the translated numbers of the aforementioned 18 Hall-of-Fame left fielders:

How Rice stacks up ("neutralized" numbers)
Category Avg. Hall of Fame LF Rice
Games 2,403 2,149
At-bats 9,064 8,552
Runs 1,559 1,338
Hits 2,817 2,602
Doubles 498 397
Triples 143 80
Home runs 257 404
RBIs 1,433 1,560
Walks 994 711
Stolen bases 240 59
Batting average .311 .304
On-base percentage .382 .358
Slugging percentage .488 .511

Once the variables are leveled, Rice fares a bit better. His career is often pilloried because he was a right-handed batter playing half his games in Fenway (he hit 208 of his 382 career home runs in Boston), but once you adjust for all contexts — Rice played most of his career in an era of modest run scoring — he comes off looking much better. Rice's home park helped him but not as much as his era hurt him.

Rice's defense was long maligned, but in reality he was an above-average defender who eventually learned to play those peculiar Green Monster caroms quite well. If there's a serious point against him, it's that he hit into an inordinate number of double plays. However, Rice for much of his career batted behind "molasses going uphill" teammates like Wade Boggs, Bill Buckner and Dwight Evans. So while all the DPs are certainly problematic, they weren't entirely his fault.

Some other points in Rice's favor:

He was an eight-time All-Star.

He won the AL MVP in 1978 and five other times finished in the top five.

He led the league in slugging percentage two times, led the league in total bases four times, led the league in hits once, claimed three home run titles, twice led the league in RBI, once led the league in times on base, once led the league in extra-base hits and once led the league in triples.

In 1978, he tallied 406 bases, which remains highest AL total since Joe DiMaggio racked up 418 in 1937. That year, Rice also became the first player in major league history to lead both leagues in home runs, triples and RBI in the same season. He's also the only player in history to have at least 200 hits and 35 homers for three straight seasons.

For his career, Rice hit .308 AVG/.371 OBP/.501 SLG with runners in scoring position, and in his lone World Series appearance (1986 against the Mets), Rice authored a batting line of .333 AVG/.455 OBP/.444 SLG.

He ranks in the top 100 all-time for career slugging percentage, hits, total bases, home runs, RBI, extra-base hits and sac flies.
Overall, you have a player whose power numbers compare exceptionally well to Hall-of-Fame left fielders. Rice, in his day, was regarded as one of the deadliest hitters in the game, and he was even more productive in RBI situations. As well, the Red Sox during Rice's years had 14 winnings seasons and only two losing campaigns.

Rice clearly isn't an "inner circle" Hall of Famer, and he's not even the most neglected non-Hall of Famer on the ballot (that would be Bert Blyleven). However, based on the established standards for Hall-of-Fame left fielders he merits induction, and what we know about the contemporary steroids era should make Rice's numbers look even more impressive. It's time for the voters to wake up to this fact. Jim Rice deserves a plaque in Cooperstown.

ctsoxfan · January 10, 2007 4:18AM

dallas - I'm not dodging your question, but you are asking me to pick Hall Of Fame players that Rice is "better" than. We all know that there are several outfielders in the Hall who are there for various reasons (not always for pure stats), and if you put Rice's stats up against theirs, it might look like Rice was a "better" player - but I don't think that is necessarily relevant. Off the top of my head, I mentioned Cepeda and Perez as having comparable numbers, and as far as players from his era, I would think Rice compares to guys like Stargell and Winfield who are in. I don't think Rice has to be "better" than any of them to be in - and "better" is of course open to interpretation.

Everyone (who has a case against Rice) likes to mention he hit right handed in Fenway as part of a strong lineup. So what? What was he supposed to do? And, for that matter, how many great players have benefited from a strong team or favorable ballpark? That's often what makes you a great player - taking advantage of the situation you are presented with, and maximizing the results.

aro13 · January 10, 2007 4:57AM

I am very much enjoying the debate on Rice.

Skinpinch - Do you have Jim Rice's road splits versus left-handed and right-handed pitching?

Skinpinch · January 10, 2007 5:42AM

ctsox, I'm relaxed

If you were following my recent posts on the era's, you would suspect that I would be more inclined to give Rice more props for coming from the competitive era...and I do!

Here is the rub on that guys study.

1) His next step would be to do the same for Jack Clark, Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez, Ken singleton etc...

2)He didn't list outs made in any of the counting totals. If he wants to use raw counting totals, then total outs made must be used to. OB% and SLG% start to incorporate outs made. You don't even need all those other totals, just use the OB and SLG as they already incorporate all those events.

3) He recognizes teammate function with double play, and blames it partly on Wade Boggs. First, the hitter is at least 90% responsible for double plays. I sure wish he would have recognized Wade Boggs for the one function he helped Rice immensely in...getting on base and inflating his RBI!
He fails to recognize teammate function in RBI, and Rice benefitted from a ton of base runners.

4)Longevity. Being that he used key figures such as OB% and SLG%, he must realize that Rice retired early and did not experience the old man years drop, wheras a lot of hte guys he is comparing him to did. The resulting effect of more years by Rice would be a drop in those figures, and he already is below in the OB%.

5)Park factor again. First, if you and I were hired for a company to make free throw, and mine was at 15 feet, and yours at 40...and we were paid according to our percentage made...I think you would have a problem with me saying, "It isn't my fault I was put in htat situation, I just took advantage of my situation." It doesn't bother me that Rice benefitted from Fenway, but If I am Jack Clark, or Keith Hernandez, I would be pissed that people don't see this.

6) If the man would have hit better on the road(like the other Hall of Famers of his era), then he would be in the Hall of Fame, and deservedly so.

7) The notion that hitters adapt to their park to that great a degree like people say of Rice, then how come that phenomenon is exclusive to Fenway and Wrigley in that era...and Coors in this one? I would suspect that if players could adapt to home parks, then why doesn't every hitter to play at memorial stadium see drastice home/road splits, like all the good hitters that played at Fenway did? Why? Because they don't adapt. If Rice had such an ability to adapt, that would be remarkable...and I sure wish he would have used it elsewhere(he did play long enough at other parks to adapt at least a little, don't you think?).

dallasactuary · January 10, 2007 7:42AM

<< dallas - I'm not dodging your question, but you are asking me to pick Hall Of Fame players that Rice is "better" than. We all know that there are several outfielders in the Hall who are there for various reasons (not always for pure stats), and if you put Rice's stats up against theirs, it might look like Rice was a "better" player - but I don't think that is necessarily relevant. Off the top of my head, I mentioned Cepeda and Perez as having comparable numbers, and as far as players from his era, I would think Rice compares to guys like Stargell and Winfield who are in. I don't think Rice has to be "better" than any of them to be in - and "better" is of course open to interpretation.

Everyone (who has a case against Rice) likes to mention he hit right handed in Fenway as part of a strong lineup. So what? What was he supposed to do? And, for that matter, how many great players have benefited from a strong team or favorable ballpark? That's often what makes you a great player - taking advantage of the situation you are presented with, and maximizing the results. >>

Jerry, I appreciate that you are not dodging the question, but the exercise of finding a single other player at his position of whom you can simply state "Rice was better than him" shouldn't be that difficult - unless Rice does not, in fact, belong in the HOF. Ron Santo was better than Pie Traynor. Bobby Grich was better than Nellie Fox. It's easy if you have any confidence at all in the player you're supporting. So I'm not thinking you're dodging my question, I'm thinking you're having a hell of a time answering it because at some level you know there is no good answer.

And of course you can't ask more of a player than to do the best he can with what he's given, but that doesn't mean you can't expect more of a player who is given the equivalent of a 10-foot free throw line than you do of a player given a 40-foot line. A LOT more. Tony Armas stepped into the prime batting order spot and his numbers went through the roof; Dwight Evans numbers went up despite being in the decline phase of his career when he was given that spot. If everyone gets stats 20% higher in a given situation, then in what sense did Rice "take advantage" of his spot in the order when it inflated his stats by 20%? Rice didn't DO anything that anyone else before or after him hadn't done. "Take advantage" implies some active effort on Rice's part, and no extra effort is required to do what he did - it just happened to him, as it happened to Armas, Evans, Conigliaro, and a bunch of others.

As I've said before, it is frightening to imagine how many home runs Dave Kingman would have hit had he been given Jim Rice's at bats (he hit 13 in only 76 at bats at Fenway in his career); it is entirely possible that he would have retired with over 600 home runs and a short five-year wait to Cooperstown. If we (and the HOF voters) don't realize how artificial Fenway totals can be, then we will someday have a Dave Kingman in the HOF and that is just too depressing to contemplate. Rice certainly was not as bad a player as Dave Kingman, but every argument you have made says you think Dave Kingman would have been a great player if he had played at Fenway. Dave Kingman was a lousy player, and would have been lousy no matter where he played, no matter how many HRs he hit or RBI he accumulated.

Writer11 · January 10, 2007 7:47AM

<< 

<< I still don't see how anyone voting for Blyleven (287 wins) can not also vote for Tommy John (290 wins)?

I agree with softy on Jack Morris. The guy was the ace on three different World Series teams. >>

You had better do a little research. In his 3rd world series he was 0-2 with an ERA above 8. >>

I'm a hardcore Blue Jays fan, so yes, I remember well what Morris did in the 1992 World Series. But he was 21-6 for the Jays that season. My point was he was the Jays' ace heading into the World Series (started Game 1).

What are your feelings about Morris being inducted?

I see you are a Dale Murphy fan. He was my favorite player when I was growing up.

markj111 · January 10, 2007 8:10AM

I personally do not think Morris belongs. He definitely (in my mind) is behind Blyleven and Gossage. In game two of the 92 series, Sprague's HR landed one section over to my right. Reardon has been on my list since then.

softparade · January 10, 2007 8:38AM

<< 
Everyone (who has a case against Rice) likes to mention he hit right handed in Fenway as part of a strong lineup. So what? What was he supposed to do? And, for that matter, how many great players have benefited from a strong team or favorable ballpark? That's often what makes you a great player - taking advantage of the situation you are presented with, and maximizing the results. >>

Interesting. Jerry, Jim Rice is a HOF'er. Period. He will get in next year and deservedly so. I read all of skin's commentary and dallas's commentary all the time. Very good stuff from them. The bottom line is ..... its just commentary.

Now, if I ever see you post again about how a guy like Derek Jeter "benefits" from a strong lineup like you have so many times in the past trying to knock him I will be sure to point out your above post

dallasactuary · January 10, 2007 11:16AM

<< He will get in next year and deservedly so. >>

Dan - since you are using the word "deserve" can you explain what that means to you? Or, can you go on the record with an outfielder that you think is also a "deserving" HOFer - based on your definition - who you think was not as good as Rice? If you are relying on HR and RBI totals as part of why he deserves to be in the HOF, what is your opinion of Darrell Evans' worthiness? {I think Evans is HOF worthy, BTW, and I'll go on record that he was better than Jimmy Collins}

softparade · January 10, 2007 12:37PM

dallas,

Usually I stay out of these debates as much as I can. I DO NOT and NEVER WILL crunch numbers with the likes of you or skin ..... I base my opinions .... and that is all they are .... on what I saw from the player. Jim Rice was the most feared guy in the AL for the bulk of my childhood. Sure it has to do alot with the Yankee / Red Sox rivalry. Trust me, the last thing I want to do is step up for a freaking Boston Red Sox player. Jim Rice is the only one I will do that for. I know this will not be what you are looking for being the number and situation cruncher that you are. I can't compete with you there ..... I am glad I can't. To me, numbers can be twisted in any which way that fits the days agenda. With that said, Rice did not hit 500 home runs, he did not hit .300 for his career, he did not belt 40-50 doubles every year, he did not pile up 200 hit seasons (although he did have 4 of them), he only had one 40 plus HR season, he couldn't steal a base for the life of him, his OBP sucked really ...... but he was just fearsome. For many many many years.

aro13 · January 10, 2007 12:58PM

Based on many posts Yankee fans feared Jim Rice more than any player from the 70's and 80's, while maybe after George Brett.

There is a good reason for that. Rice mashed Yankee pitching. However, what is interesting is that he hit better against the Yankees at Yankee Stadium than he did in Fenway Park.

Rice at Yankee Stadium 280 at bats .336 BA .386 OBP .661 SLG
Rice at Fenway Park 363 at bats .325 BA .386 OBP .521 SLG

Small sample BUT Fred Lynn has the exact opposite effect as does Yaz. Why? The Yankees threw far more left-handed pitchers at the Stadium than they did at Fenway Park.

Although Fenway Park helped Rice out immensely he is punished somewhat in that he faced far less left-handed pitching there than he would have in virtually any other park and he crushed left-handed pitching. For his career Rice faced lefties in 25% of his bats. As an extreme example the other way Thurman Munson faced 45% left-handed pitching in his career.

Wondo · January 10, 2007 1:29PM

I think of Rice in the same context as Cash, Hodges, Foster, Mitchell, Howard, etc., all of which had more impact than Rice, save Mitchell.

dallasactuary · January 10, 2007 10:55PM

Wondo, you're exactly right. All of those players, except Mitchell, were better (contributed more runs to more wins) than Rice.

Dan, I appreciate the answer. Growing up in St. Louis, and therefore seeing Rice only a few times a year on the Game of the Week, I never thought of him as anything special, but I can see how a Yankee fan would. I do think it's interesting that even those who think it is obvious that Rice is a HOFer can't think of anyone else in the HOF they feel comfortable saying wasn't as good as Rice, but if that's not part of your standard then I guess there doesn't have to be an answer.

I remain haunted by the thought of Dave Kingman, though. I'm not hearing anything that indicates that anyone else's HOF standard would recognize that putting Kingman in Fenway would not make him a better player. If Rice had played for the Dodgers in the 60's I have almost no doubt that it would be me trying to convince the rest of you that he was actually much better than you think, although we would all agree that he was no HOFer. Getting into the HOF shouldn't depend on where and when you play or who your teammates are, but it is undeniably a very large part of the equation and I hope that changes.

Skinpinch · January 10, 2007 11:35PM

Aro, I have a lot of interest in the lefty/righty phenomonon...though it is mainly in the area of left handed hitters avoiding left handed pitchers.

A couple of things on your points. You mentioned it yourself, the sample size is small when looking at just a single road park. Afterall, I think it was cleveland stadium or something where he had some of his best road numbers. Why? Lots of randomness could be at work.

Though, your contention about not facing the same amount of left handed hitters, may have some merit, and could warrant further investigation. It could offset some of the park factor. But it isn't going to offset it much.

By the way, I don't have those numbers handy that you asked for. It would take a lot of figuring.

HOWEVER, even if Rice's numbers are taken at face value with no park adjustment, he still falls short.

The situational batter runs(the best measurement on the block), has him at 290 NON park adjusted runs. Wheras, the following contemporaries are at...

All Non Park adjusted
Jack Clark 414
George Foster 270
Keith Hernandez 386
AMong others, and just too lazy to look now. They were all posted previously.

The biggest thing about Jim Rice is his penchant for making outs....and often times TWO OF THEM in a single at bat. It took him a lot of at bats per year to achieve the high counting totals, and the result is he had to make a lot of negative outs, in order to get the positive hits. You have to weight hte positives with the negatives! Why people discount outs made as if it is some laughable result is crazy, yet on these boards people laugh when that is brought up. That is just a failure at understanding the dynmaics of run creation.

Does this mean Rice and Gossage have a shot?

Comments