Best Player not in the Hall of Fame?

[Bill Burgess]

Where the heck do you get this? I've seen Pitcher's OOB Average/Percent but never the Relative version

I don't know any place to get them. I had to calculate them, one at a time. I simply took a pitcher's OOB Average and divided it by the league's average. That gave me the Relative OOB Ave. Below, I call Relative OOB = Ratio*.

It is more exacting than Whip because it includes Hit by a Pitch and another category. Below shows some of my hard work. Took a while to do all that manually.



Greatest Pitching Seasons:

I give highest original presumption to ERA+, but do not use only 1 stat. I also look at innings worked, W-L, awards, league leads, etc. This list is in order of sequence according to ERA+.

For convenience, I high-lighted in red the post 1920 seasons for us, for easy reference.

------Name----------yr.---ERA+--Inn.---W-L---ShO--CG-Ratio*-WS*-TPR**

Pedro Martinez-----2000---285---217---18-6----7----4--.617--29--7.3
Greg Maddux--------1995---259---209---19-2---10----3--.609--30--6.2
Walter Johnson-----1913---258---346---36-7---11---29--.667--54--8.0
Bob Gibson---------1968---258---305---22-9---13---28--.771--36--7.0
Mordecai Brown-----1906---253---277---26-6---10---27--.812--35--4.9
Dwight Gooden------1985---226---276---24-4----8---16--.791--33--7.0
Grover Alexander---1915---224---376---31-10--12---36--.757--43--7.0
Christy Mathewson--1909---223---275---25-6----8---26--.735--34--5.8
Lefty Grove--------1931---218---289---31-4----4---27--.787--42--6.3
Cy Young-----------1901---217---371---33-10---5---38--.768--41--5.7
Ron Guidry---------1978---208---273---25-3----9---16--.759--31--5.7
Addie Joss---------1908---205---325---24-11---9---29--.741--35--5.0
Jack Taylor--------1902---203---324---22-11--10---33--.830--32--5.1
Dean Chance--------1964---199---278---20-9---11---15--.825--32--4.6
Spud Chandler------1943---197---253---20-4----5---20--.810--29--5.0
Hal Newhouser------1945---194---313---25-9----8---29--.864--36--6.6
Mort Cooper--------1942---193---279---22-7---10---22--.811--29--5.0
Carl Hubbell-------1933---193---309---23-12--10---22--.820--33--5.1
Tom Seaver---------1971---193---286---20-10---4---21--.795--32--5.7
Randy Johnson------2002---190---260---24-5----8----4--.827--29--6.3
Ed Walsh-----------1910---189---369---18-20---7---33--.733--36--5.8
Warren Spahn-------1953---187---266---23-7----5---24--.805--31--5.3
Lefty Gomez--------1934---185---281---26-5----6---25--.803--31--4.3
Luis Tiant---------1968---185---258---21-0----9---19--.779--28--3.6
Vida Blue----------1971---183---312---24-8----8---24--.787--30--4.8
Jack Coombs--------1910---182---353---31-9---13---35--.886--37--4.2
Steve Carlton------1972---182---346---27-10---8---30--.817--40--6.8
Rube Waddell-------1905---180---328---26-11---7---27--.882--35--5.7
Orvie Overall------1909---179---285---20-11---9---23--.845--30--4.5
Joe Wood-----------1912---178---344---34-5---10---35--.816--44--6.9
Joe McGinnity------1904---178---408---35-8----9---38--.836--42--4.3
Dazzy Vance--------1924---176---309---28-6----3---30--.798--36--6.0
Dizzy Dean---------1934---170---324---30-7----3---29--.867--37--5.3
Stan Coveleski-----1917---167---298---19-14---9---24--.820--29--2.4
Roger Clemens------1986---166---254---24-4----1---10--.762--29--4.9
Ed Walsh-----------1908---163---464---40-15--11---42--.789--47--8.1
Jack Chesbro-------1904---158---454---41-12---6---48--.854--53--4.6
Denny McLain-------1968---157---336---31-6----6---28--.812--33--4.4
Sandy Koufax-------1965---156---335---26-8----8---27--.728--33--4.8
Dave McNally-------1968---154---273---22-10---5---18--.782--26--3.2
Orel Hershiser-----1988---148---267---23-8----8---15--.865--25--3.7
Bob Feller---------1946---145---371---26-15--10---36--.887--32--4.7
George Uhle--------1926---143---318---27-11---3---32--.934--32--3.9
Robin Roberts------1952---141---330---28-7----3---30--.814--32--3.7
Urban Shocker------1922---140---348---24-17---2---29--.873--29--3.7
Don Newcombe-------1956---130---268---27-7----5---18--.793--27--3.1
Nolan Ryan---------1972---120---284---19-16---9---20--.948--24--2.0
Whitey Ford--------1961---117---283---25-4----3---11--.882--22--0.9


*ratio = Relative Onbase Ave.; Opponent's Onbase Ave / L. onbase ave.
*WS = Bill James' Win Shares
**TPR = Total Baseball's Total Player Rating------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/COLOR]

[RuthMayBond]

I don't know any place to get them. I had to calculate them, one at a time. I simply took a pitcher's OOB Average and divided it by the league's average. That gave me the Relative OOB Ave. Bill, you realize you could make lots of $ patenting ROOB ;)
Seriously, great job on a lot of hard work :clapping

[terribledude]

Can you explain how you picked the seasons and/or pitchers for that list

At first glance it seems like a bunch of stuff is missing

[Bill Burgess]

Can you explain how you picked the seasons and/or pitchers for that list

At first glance it seems like a bunch of stuff is missing

I was obsessed with baseball from 1957-65. I chose most of the older seasons prior to 1965 in that time period. I added the ones post 1965 around about 1985 to now.

My intention was not so much to rank the very best in order, but to remind myself of most of the famous ones. I originally looked for lowest ERA, and later ERA+. But I also wanted to include seasons like Chesbro's 1904, Coombs 1910, etc.

I periodically add seasons when someone pressures me to. I stress my list is NOT intended to be a systematic, scientific evaluation of the best in order. So you are quite right that many are no doubt absent.

Bill

[vasprtsfn]

Jim Rice. BTW, who in the world really thinks Roger Maris is a HOFer? Had he not hit those 61 HRs in 1961, no one outside of New York would have ever heard of him.

[538280]

Jim Rice. BTW, who in the world really thinks Roger Maris is a HOFer? Had he not hit those 61 HRs in 1961, no one outside of New York would have ever heard of him.

Roger Maris does not even deserve to be a candidate. Jim Rice doesn't deserve hardly any support at all either. I'm yet to see anyone make a persuasive case as to why he belongs. Mostly it's just people going by traditional statistics, without league and park adjustments, saying things like "no other player has had three consecutive years with 200+ hits, 30+ homers, and 100+ RBI!". That's absolute poppycock IMO and doesn't even begin to explain what Jim Rice actually did for his team. I'm just interested, why exactly does Jim Rice belong in the HOF? This is a post I made before on him:

I am firmly opposed to putting Jim Rice in the HOF. His supposedly great, great peak really wasn't all that great when Fenway, GIDP, and all contexts are taken into consideration. After that peak and into his 30s he really wasn't a very valuable hitter.

The way I see the Jim Rice debate is that the people arguing for him are largely those who are unwilling to look beyond raw, unadjusted numbers, and mostly look at the triple crown stats. The people against him are those who are willing to make all adjustments neccessary and then look at the player after all those adjustments are made. The latter group will always be much, much more accurate and come up with a better picture of the overall player, and with Jim Rice they're hit the nail on the head.

When I was talking about Craig Biggio, I mentioned "little stats" (HBP, GIDP, sac hits) that by themselves don't mean much but if a player's little stats are all outstanding (like in the case of Biggio) it can make a BIG difference about how valuable the player is. Call Jim Rice the anti-Craig Biggio.

Think about it this way:

1.Jim Rice's OPS+ is 128. That's pretty good, and for a corner OF with a pretty long career and a good peak like Rice that could be enough to get him in the HOF, not as a slam dunk but it could. But, let's look at his offensive value outside of OPS+. Like Gee Walker said, Rice was a GIDP machine. The amont of DPs he grounded into was really ridiculous, and those GIDPs are horrible for a team. They pretty much eliminate a team's chances of scoring for an inning, and Rice was doing it 15+ times every single year, and most of the time he was over 20! He owns the two highest GIDP marks in history, and also the #6 season.

2.Jim Rice was an okay fielder, could be good in his younger days but overall not much better than average, probably slightly below. It's hard to see how his fielding increases any of his HOF credentials. He never really stole any bases either.

3.Rice wasn't really a good intangilble player. He got along horribly with reporters, of course. That's not the best way to judge intangibles (some players just don't do well with the media but are actually good in the clubhouse), but Jim Rice was known to even his teammates/managers to not be a nice guy. Here's a quote from one of Rice's former teammates, Bill Lee:

"No one could like Jim Rice. Jim Rice had one of the biggest egos I've ever seen. He treated people so abruptly, just had no neeed for anybody, gave no time back to the fans, just was not a nice person."

Now, not saying that being a bad guy disqualifies Rice for the HOF. There are jerks in the HOF, and certainly a few people who were worse than Rice. But, when you're on the fringe (like Rice is), this is a mark against you.

What do we have? A 128 OPS+ corner OF with little to no value outside of his hitting. In addition, because his "little stats" were so bad he was almost certainly a worse hitter than that OPS+ indicates. I don't see him as an HOF caliber player.

There is one more thing to address. One of things you most often hear a proponent of Rice mention is how he was "regarded as the best hitter in the game in the late 70s and early 80s". Well, with new methods we know now that he wasn't, except for probably in 1978. There's a difference between perception and reality. Even if he was thought of in that way it doesn't mean he actually was, and he wasn't.

[sturg1dj]

everyone talks about how great a player Maris was. He had 2 MVP's.....he hit 61 HR's and he played a great RF. The excuse we always get about his career is that during the '61 season the pressure was so great he was never the same. Well you know what? Great players can handle pressure. The only differences between what Ruth, DiMaggio, or Mantle went through was that some of it was negative towards him. But do you think that Ruth or DiMaggio had less pressure put on them?

The greats can handle it, and this guy, who was talented redneck (no disrespect, just trying to paint a picture) from South Dakota didn't have what it takes.

[RuthMayBond]

Call Jim Rice the anti-Craig Biggio.I'm sorry, john1972 already has that title sewed up :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

[mtortolero]

Only MLB players:
Bert Blyleven
Bill Dahlen
Sherry Magge
Dick Allen
Minnie Minoso
Goose Gosagge
Joe Gordon
Ron Santo
Stan Hack
Dale Murphy
Bob Johnson
Dave Parker
Joe Torre
Ted Simmons
Bill Freehan
Alan Trammell
Lou Whitaker
Bobby Veach
Pete Browning
Paul Hines
Harry Stovey
George Van Haltren
Bob Caruthers
Luke Easter

Short carrers but amazing numbers :
Albert Belle
Jack Fournier
Hal Trostky
Deacon Phillipe
Dave Orr
Bill Lange
Lefty O´Doul
Tip O´Neill
Al Rosen
Charlie Keller
Bill Joyce
Mike Tiernan
Charley Jones
Denny Lyons
Benny Kauff

[RuthMayBond]

Only MLB players:
Luke EasterBased on his MLB career?

[mtortolero]

Nope, I am considering Easter by all his carrer which includes very nice years during his brief time on the mlb when he was old, similar case of Minoso.
For example, Sam Jethroe, who was comtemporary of Easter and was in the mlb at the same time looks as was not a great MLB level player when he played there.

[Bigrcube]

Has to be a vote for Gil Hodges. During a 12-year span he AVERAGED:
.279 -- 28+ HRs -- 99 RBI with a fielding percentage @ .992.
What more can I say. And he was such a nice and likeable guy.
He played in 7 W.S. and has 2 rings AND one W.S. ring as manager.
I'd say that's a BODY of work.

[RuthMayBond]

Has to be a vote for Gil Hodges. During a 12-year span he AVERAGED:
.279 -- 28+ HRs -- 99 RBI with a fielding percentage @ .992.
What more can I say.

That just among 1B there are four guys with a better OPS+ AND more plate apps who aren't in

<He played in 7 W.S. and has 2 rings AND one W.S. ring as manager>

And I'm guessing he didn't do this all by himself

[Captain Cold Nose]

That just among 1B there are four guys with a better OPS+ AND more plate apps who aren't in

<He played in 7 W.S. and has 2 rings AND one W.S. ring as manager>

And I'm guessing he didn't do this all by himself
At least this is here and not a new thread. ;)

[rwolfe09]

Only MLB players:
Goose Gosagge
Joe Torre


Gossage will go in soon. I dont know about 2007 because of Gwynn and Ripken but Gossage will end up in the HOF. And Torre..I feel he will end up in the HOF as a manager, not a player. I mean look at all the success he's had. I'm a Red Sox fan and a Yankee Hater but I still feel he belongs in the HOF as a manager.

[terribledude]

He doesn't impress me as a manager. Managers are overrated in general, but if he was "good" at managing in any way, he should be winning 120 games/yr with the teams he gets.

[Appling]

Has to be a vote for Gil Hodges. During a 12-year span he AVERAGED:
.279 -- 28+ HRs -- 99 RBI with a fielding percentage @ .992.
What more can I say. And he was such a nice and likeable guy.
He played in 7 W.S. and has 2 rings AND one W.S. ring as manager.
I'd say that's a BODY of work.
Gil Hodges was a GOOD first baseman who played mostly in the 1950's.
From 1950 thru 1959 his 310 homeruns ranked first among 1B, and his 1001 RBI in that decade was also best of all first basemen. Ted Kluzewski was second in both departments with 239 HR and 823 RBI.

He never had a single great Homerun Season -- his best was 42 HR in 1954. There were 12 first basemen with better HR seasons in the decade 1950-59.

But he was a great RBI man. In the decade 1950-1959 Gil had six straight seasons with 100 or more RBI: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955. In that decade there was a total of 29 first basemen who had 100+ RBI seasons, and Gil had 20% of those. However, Gil played on some great teams and had lots of RBI opportunities.

Over his total career (1947-1963) Hodges hit 370 HR and drove in 1274 runs. His 370 HR is #60 and his 1274 RBI ranks #99 on the career total list.

Good ball player, but in my opinion not quite HOF.

[CardinalsForever]

Bert Blyleven,

He has tons of wins (287), strikeouts (3701), and games played (692). He has won more than 15 games in a year 10 times. He has never got the respect that he deserves.

[Sliding Billy]

Has to be a vote for Gil Hodges. During a 12-year span he AVERAGED:
.279 -- 28+ HRs -- 99 RBI with a fielding percentage @ .992.
What more can I say. And he was such a nice and likeable guy.
He played in 7 W.S. and has 2 rings AND one W.S. ring as manager.
I'd say that's a BODY of work.
Gil Hodges was my favorite Brooklyn Dodger, and I always knew that he wasn't quite a Hall-of-Famer. (I didn't know at the time how many other not-quite-Hall-of Famers were actually in the Hall and no idea how many were going in fifteen years later.)

But, you know what? So what? His not being in the Hall of Fame doesn't take away a single play that he made or diminish his character in any way at all. Taken all in all, I'd guess that people familiar with both Hodges and the Hall of Fame have more respect for the former. The Veteran's Committee didn't do Fred Lindstrom or George Kelly any favors by inducting them. They changed them from good ballplayers, remembered and respected by fans with a sense of baseball history, into bad punch lines.

Speaking generally, and not about Bigrcube's argument, which is as good as you can make for Hodges, I don't understand why people argue for their players' induction. If you follow that thinking to its conclusion, it's like being a fan only of Hall-of-Famers, which is like not being a fan at all.

[Bronxbombers]

I am firmly opposed to putting Jim Rice in the HOF. His supposedly great, great peak really wasn't all that great when Fenway, GIDP, and all contexts are taken into consideration. After that peak and into his 30s he really wasn't a very valuable hitter.

The way I see the Jim Rice debate is that the people arguing for him are largely those who are unwilling to look beyond raw, unadjusted numbers, and mostly look at the triple crown stats. The people against him are those who are willing to make all adjustments neccessary and then look at the player after all those adjustments are made. The latter group will always be much, much more accurate and come up with a better picture of the overall player, and with Jim Rice they're hit the nail on the head.

When I was talking about Craig Biggio, I mentioned "little stats" (HBP, GIDP, sac hits) that by themselves don't mean much but if a player's little stats are all outstanding (like in the case of Biggio) it can make a BIG difference about how valuable the player is. Call Jim Rice the anti-Craig Biggio.

Think about it this way:

1.Jim Rice's OPS+ is 128. That's pretty good, and for a corner OF with a pretty long career and a good peak like Rice that could be enough to get him in the HOF, not as a slam dunk but it could. But, let's look at his offensive value outside of OPS+. Like Gee Walker said, Rice was a GIDP machine. The amont of DPs he grounded into was really ridiculous, and those GIDPs are horrible for a team. They pretty much eliminate a team's chances of scoring for an inning, and Rice was doing it 15+ times every single year, and most of the time he was over 20! He owns the two highest GIDP marks in history, and also the #6 season.

2.Jim Rice was an okay fielder, could be good in his younger days but overall not much better than average, probably slightly below. It's hard to see how his fielding increases any of his HOF credentials. He never really stole any bases either.

3.Rice wasn't really a good intangilble player. He got along horribly with reporters, of course. That's not the best way to judge intangibles (some players just don't do well with the media but are actually good in the clubhouse), but Jim Rice was known to even his teammates/managers to not be a nice guy. Here's a quote from one of Rice's former teammates, Bill Lee:

"No one could like Jim Rice. Jim Rice had one of the biggest egos I've ever seen. He treated people so abruptly, just had no neeed for anybody, gave no time back to the fans, just was not a nice person."

Now, not saying that being a bad guy disqualifies Rice for the HOF. There are jerks in the HOF, and certainly a few people who were worse than Rice. But, when you're on the fringe (like Rice is), this is a mark against you.

What do we have? A 128 OPS+ corner OF with little to no value outside of his hitting. In addition, because his "little stats" were so bad he was almost certainly a worse hitter than that OPS+ indicates. I don't see him as an HOF caliber player.

There is one more thing to address. One of things you most often hear a proponent of Rice mention is how he was "regarded as the best hitter in the game in the late 70s and early 80s". Well, with new methods we know now that he wasn't, except for probably in 1978. There's a difference between perception and reality. Even if he was thought of in that way it doesn't mean he actually was, and he wasn't.


I don't really buy into some of the arguments that you presented. Not too many of Rice's supporters are lobbying for his induction based on his career totals, they are focusing on his peak. The OPS+ of 128 is really irrelevant in such a context because his OPS+ career mark was lowered by his last three seasons, in which he posted 101,102,and 90 OPS+'s respectively. More importantly, he had OPS+'s of 148,158,and 154 in his three years of greatness, which validates his supporters claims. In 1982 and 1983 he posted 131 and 141 OPS+'s. If you look at his adjusted OPS numbers, he might not have been the game's best slugger during his peak, but he was certainly one of the premier sluggers in the league.

His fielding was league average. He had a career .980 FP, the league average was .981 for his career. His RF is 2.10, the league average was 2.13. He was below average in 1976-77, but he was .13 above league average in 1978.(RF that is) He also recorded 137 OF assists, including 21 in 1978. He was an adequate fielder.

Relationship with the media has a role in determining whether a person WILL be inducted into the hall, not whether he SHOULD, which this thread is all about.

About the double plays- it certainly was an achilles heel for him. But, he did have a few thousand at bats in double play situations. It is not like he hit into a double play everytime he was up, it was caused in part by his large number of at bats in double play situations.

[iPod]

I don't really buy into some of the arguments that you presented. Not too many of Rice's supporters are lobbying for his induction based on his career totals, they are focusing on his peak. The OPS+ of 128 is really irrelevant in such a context because his OPS+ career mark was lowered by his last three seasons, in which he posted 101,102,and 90 OPS+'s respectively. More importantly, he had OPS+'s of 148,158,and 154 in his three years of greatness, which validates his supporters claims. In 1982 and 1983 he posted 131 and 141 OPS+'s. If you look at his adjusted OPS numbers, he might not have been the game's best slugger during his peak, but he was certainly one of the premier sluggers in the league.


Everyone's rates get pulled down when they go through their decline phase. That's not unusual at all. Unless he hung on for a reeeeally long time, far past when he should have played, like Pete Rose or Reggie Jackson, that's not really a factor that has much weight. Furthermore, there have been lots of guys who have put up OPS+'s around 150 for a couple of years; that's not terribly unusual either, at least not unusual enough to be relevant in a Hall of Fame discussion.

[538280]

I don't really buy into some of the arguments that you presented. Not too many of Rice's supporters are lobbying for his induction based on his career totals, they are focusing on his peak. The OPS+ of 128 is really irrelevant in such a context because his OPS+ career mark was lowered by his last three seasons, in which he posted 101,102,and 90 OPS+'s respectively. More importantly, he had OPS+'s of 148,158,and 154 in his three years of greatness, which validates his supporters claims. In 1982 and 1983 he posted 131 and 141 OPS+'s. If you look at his adjusted OPS numbers, he might not have been the game's best slugger during his peak, but he was certainly one of the premier sluggers in the league.

148, 158, and 154 in a peak for a corner OFer is NOT impressive. Being one of the premier sluggers in the league for three seasons in your peak is not really that great for a supposed HOF corner OF either. Neither of those things are realy HOF caliber. About his OPS+ too, like I said, even it on it's own isn't that impressive, and it doesn't deal with the fact JIm Rice had some of the worst "little stats" of all time.

His fielding was league average. He had a career .980 FP, the league average was .981 for his career. His RF is 2.10, the league average was 2.13. He was below average in 1976-77, but he was .13 above league average in 1978.(RF that is) He also recorded 137 OF assists, including 21 in 1978. He was an adequate fielder.

I would agree that he was just about an average fielder. That is not a HOF endorsement. I said in my post he doesn't get any bonuses for his defense, and being an average corner OF isn't going to get you any bonuses.

Relationship with the media has a role in determining whether a person WILL be inducted into the hall, not whether he SHOULD, which this thread is all about.

About the double plays- it certainly was an achilles heel for him. But, he did have a few thousand at bats in double play situations. It is not like he hit into a double play everytime he was up, it was caused in part by his large number of at bats in double play situations.

Every time he GIDPs thats an extra out, and is basically one less time on base. People toss that aside as being irrelevent, it really isn't. Using the technical RC formula (not the basic one on BBRef, which really isn't that accurate), Rice created 1382 runs. Factor out the GIDPs and he created 1533. That's almost 200 runs on his career. Very significant. HIs RC/27 using the real formula is 6.00. Factor out the GIDPs and it's 7.01. Over a full season, that's a difference of 164 runs.

[Bronxbombers]

Everyone's rates get pulled down when they go through their decline phase. That's not unusual at all. Unless he hung on for a reeeeally long time, far past when he should have played, like Pete Rose or Reggie Jackson, that's not really a factor that has much weight. Furthermore, there have been lots of guys who have put up OPS+'s around 150 for a couple of years; that's not terribly unusual either, at least not unusual enough to be relevant in a Hall of Fame discussion.


You missed the point but 538820 said it fine.

[538280]

So anyone have any Jim Rice arguments? I feel like talking Jim Rice today.

[RuthMayBond]

So anyone have any Jim Rice arguments? I feel like talking Jim Rice today.I once had the hotel front desk call up to his room after a rained-out game, and he argued that he wouldn't even have a ball sent up alone to his room so he could sign it for one of his biggest fans. OK, one of his ex-fans :grouchy

[Bronxbombers]

So anyone have any Jim Rice arguments? I feel like talking Jim Rice today.


What about tomorrow?

[Honus Wagner]

I once had the hotel front desk call up to his room after a rained-out game, and he argued that he wouldn't even have a ball sent up alone to his room so he could sign it for one of his biggest fans. OK, one of his ex-fans :grouchy

I had a much better experience w/Rice and autographs late 70's...before the game Big Jim Ed was the only player signing...he wasn't necessarily amiable or friendly, but he stayed for as long as he could signing away...my mom was very greatful when he signed both my sister's and my scorebooks...i can't be sure and it might just be selective memory, but i think he smiled when mom thanked him

[Bronxbombers]

Well, since you want to debate Jim Rice so bad i'll put something together.

During his career, Rice amassed a 74.30 JAWS score, a respectable total for a borderline hall of famer. His Blank Ink total of 33 is 49th all time. His Gray Ink and HOF Monitor are both top 100 all time, which falls well within HOF range. He compares favorably with Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. He is better than many hall of famers offensively. He won a MVP award and his 3,15 mvp shares ranks 29th highest all time. He twice led the league in slugging, even led in triples, led the league in Runs Created in 1978, thrice led the league in homers, and finished top 7 in ba 6 times. He was selected to 8 all star games, and had the most stolen bases on his team twice.

[Skin & Bones]

Well, since you want to debate Jim Rice so bad i'll put something together.

During his career, Rice amassed a 74.30 JAWS score, a respectable total for a borderline hall of famer. His Blank Ink total of 33 is 49th all time. His Gray Ink and HOF Monitor are both top 100 all time, which falls well within HOF range. He compares favorably with Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. He is better than many hall of famers offensively. He won a MVP award and his 3,15 mvp shares ranks 29th highest all time. He twice led the league in slugging, even led in triples, led the league in Runs Created in 1978, thrice led the league in homers, and finished top 7 in ba 6 times. He was selected to 8 all star games, and had the most stolen bases on his team twice.


Rice amassed a 74.30 JAWS score

Why should Jay Jaffe's so-called " system " have any stock put into it ?

JAWS score proves nothing, just a way to try and look at peak value. His system is nothing nobody-else doesn't do on their own when trying to look at peak value. Not to mention that he changed it a bit because he felt the " old " way was harder to calculate.

[1905 Giants]

Well, for arguments sake, here's what Ted Williams had to say about him in "Ted William's Hit List":

"Jim Rice-He hit as if he had two strikes on him all the time. He was as strong as a bull, but he swinging when he left the bench. When you do that you hit the pitchers pitch-and if you don't think the pitcher knows that, you're fooling yourself. He just says 'Hell, I'm not giving this guy anything to hit until I have to.' The result is that you're hitting something tough all the time."

[RuthMayBond]

I had a much better experience w/Rice and autographs late 70's...He was still kinda new then. Mine was in 1984

[538280]

Well, since you want to debate Jim Rice so bad i'll put something together.

During his career, Rice amassed a 74.30 JAWS score, a respectable total for a borderline hall of famer.

Read what S&B said.

His Blank Ink total of 33 is 49th all time. His Gray Ink and HOF Monitor are both top 100 all time, which falls well within HOF range.

Black and Gray INk have no place in evaluating a player's value, they really don't, and they're exactly the types of things that horribly overrate Jim Rice. You have to realize, the system makes no park adjustment, a huge problem on its own, and it encorages the triple crown was of interpreting baseball stats, which is AWFUL at approximating value. The systems were put together trying to PREDICT who would make the HOF, based on trends in voting, not in judging whether or not a player is deserving. I started a thread about that recently in the stat forum.

He compares favorably with Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell.

With Cepeda, Williams, and Stargell, he only appears comparable to them because he played in a much higher run context. Those guys all played in the 60s or early to mid 70s, when offense was very low, and in pitcher's parks. Rice came onto the scene in the late 70s and 80s, when offense was much higher, and spent his entire career in Fenway Park, an extreme hitter's park.

I don't really see how Rice is comparable to Snider. Snider did play in a very high run context, like Rice, but adjusting for that his OPS+ is 140, much higher than Rice's 128, and he was a center fielder, changing the standard. Not to mention the large fielding edge he has.

He is better than many hall of famers offensively.

This is just not true. Jim Rice's OPS+ was 127, to begin with. There aren't many corner OF in the HOF with a mark lower than that that aren't considered to be mistakes. Then you get into the fact that OPS+ actually considerably overrates him as an offensive player, with all his GIDP and little contribution on the basepaths. Like I said, Jim Rice has some of the worst "little stats" of all time, and this makes his offensive value considerably lower than what would be shown in his OPS+. He was NOT an extremely valuable offensive player, and any in depth statistical analysis will show this.

He won a MVP award and his 3,15 mvp shares ranks 29th highest all time. He twice led the league in slugging, even led in triples, led the league in Runs Created in 1978, thrice led the league in homers, and finished top 7 in ba 6 times. He was selected to 8 all star games, and had the most stolen bases on his team twice.

These things are again influenced by faulty perception. Jim Rice was supposed to be the best of his time due to misinterpretation of statistics, nothing else. Failure to look at his lack of walks or his huge GIDP totals, failure to park adjust. If people looked at statistics the proper way, they'd realize that Jim Rice was not a great player.

[iPod]

You missed the point but 538820 said it fine.

No, I don't think I missed the point. I think I said exactly what 538820 said.

[mtortolero]

Bill Dahlen looks as a consensus in this thread. However I would like to read any opinions about the rank so low (No. 21) gave to him by Bill James in his last Historical Abstract regarding SS, which is under guys as Jim Fregosi (No. 18) for example. Is Fregosi a HOF?

[538280]

Bill Dahlen looks as a consensus in this thread. However I would like to read any opinions about the rank so low (No. 21) gave to him by Bill James in his last Historical Abstract regarding SS, which is under guys as Jim Fregosi (No. 18) for example. Is Fregosi a HOF?

I started a thread on Fregosi a while ago. He ranks ahead simply because James' system puts him there. One thing I have realized about Bill James' ratings though is that he generally does not be fair to 19th century players by prorating their schedules out to modern lengths. Do that and I suspect Dahlen would be comfortably ahead. I certainly support Dahlen for the HOF, though I think he is far from the best outside.

[W_Marone]

I know who it is...and only because he isnt five years removed from the league....Jonny Gomes! I call for a special Gomes rule that lets him into the hall why he is still playing...hahaha....but in all seriousness, best player not in? I'll just go with Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. Oh wait....out of the poll guys? I'd say Roger Maris, just because I'm Bias and like him....even though I hate the yankess go figure.