Jim Rice?

[willshad]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[willshad]

sorry but Frank Howard has virtually no hall of fame case at all. He had the same OPS as Rice, but with far fewer at bats. he also was way less valuable defensively. You cant even argue that he was better and more dominant in his time, because if you look at their ink scores, they heavily favor Rice

Howard:
Black Ink: Batting - 17 (130) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 121 (156) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 26.3 (372) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 62.0 (294) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Rice:
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)

when you factor in Rice's defensive advantage, it isnt close at all. Howard may have a slight peak advantage, and thats about it. His best year was '69, when it seemed everybody hit well. If he had maintained his '69-'70 hitting a few more years, then we could talk.

[Captain Cold Nose]

sorry but Frank Howard has virtually no hall of fame case at all. He had the same OPS as Rice, but with far fewer at bats. he also was way less valuable defensively. You cant even argue that he was better and more dominant in his time, because if you look at their ink scores, they heavily favor Rice

Howard:
Black Ink: Batting - 17 (130) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 121 (156) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 26.3 (372) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 62.0 (294) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Rice:
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (113) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 146.5 (85) (Likely HOFer > 100)

when you factor in Rice's defensive advantage, it isnt close at all. Howard may have a slight peak advantage, and thats about it. His best year was '69, when it seemed everybody hit well. If he had maintained his '69-'70 hitting a few more years, then we could talk.

And if Howard had played in Fenway his entire career while Rice toiled away in Chavez Ravine and RFK, would it even be a discussion? I think that's what hellborn was getting at. Switch their situations and Howard comes out in Cooperstown and Rice becomes Del Ennis.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Rice's case for HOF is really built on his '77-79 seasons. In those three seasons, he;
had 82 HRs at Fenway
had 42 HRs on the road
had 230 RBI at Fenway
had 153 RBI on the road
slugged .683, .690, and .728 at Fenway
slugged .509, .512, and .472 on the road.

His OBP splits favor Fenway by almost 100 points in '78 and '79, but are even for '77. His road stats are not bad in the slightest, but not outstanding, either. He was not the GIDP machine in these seasons that he became later in his career.
Jim also had a fine years in '83 and '86, with fairly neutral splits (actually more power on the road in '83, but better BA and OBP at home). The rest of his career just doesn't stand out from the pack that much.
Rice was a fine player, but not a dominant hitter in a neutral context by any stretch. Fuzzy Bear is dead on, there are a lot of guys who were close to or better than Rice as hitters who will never get in.

I think that's what most people are missing here. Outside of Fenway, Rice wasn't a HoFer. Hell if Rice gets in they'll have a hard time justifying not letting in Albert Belle.

[iPod]

One can certainly make a case for Rice. I wouldn't buy it though.

I do hold the DPs as less of a knock than most of the SABR crowd though, one can't totally decry the RBI by noting that they are situational, and then bash a player for their GDP totals. It's internally inconsistent.

I just want to make one important point here. The "roles" of players as referenced in this discussion is a little misapplied. Every player, when on offense, has the same PRIMARY role - don't make an out. Upon that, there are different degrees of successes, and a very few situations in which one may happily trade an out for a run. Generally speaking though, the goal is not to make outs - the methods by which that goal is achieved are better or worse only relative to each other, and often a matter of taste when determining appreciation from afar.

The knock about Rice's OBP wasn't that he wasn't very good at walking, it does not imply that walking itself is a monumentally important skill, per se. The argument is that he didn't avoid making outs at the rate that most players in the HOF (for primarily offensive reasons) did. Walks shouldn't be viewed as opposed to hits, they should be viewed as opposed to outs.
[/LIST]

Interesting way of phrasing it. Maybe we should start tracking outs/PA and call it Fail Rate or something like that.

[willshad]

i dont know..i dont think its as easy to hit in fenway as everyone thinks..if that was the case then they have the best hitters and best offense every year..its nowhere near Coors field. Nobody else on the red Sox was hitting 40 homers or slugging as high as Rice consistently.

[ChrisLDuncan]

i dont know..i dont think its as easy to hit in fenway as everyone thinks..if that was the case then they have the best hitters and best offense every year..its nowhere near Coors field. Nobody else on the red Sox was hitting 40 homers or slugging as high as Rice consistently.

No one is saying that Rice sucked, I'm just saying that he was greatly assisted by Fenway. Rice was a good player, All-Star calibur, just not a Hall of Famer, and if you want to talk sluggers try Albert Belle on for size. He's easily just a great of a slugger.

[mtortolero]

...

Furthermore, if you are going to say that slugging can trump OBP when a player in exceptional at slugging but pedestrian at getting on base - that is fine. Jim Rice did that. Despite his average OBP skills in comparison to the league, he produced at a rather high level because his SLG ability was far above the league (granted,aided by his park, but still very good). However, this is a HOF argument. So when we compare him to his potential future peers, his OBP is no longer average-ish, but notable below. His SLG is no longer well above average, but simply average (below average probably amongst HOFers from "offensive positions.") Rice is not, "player B-ing" way into the Hall.
But with this asumption Joe Carter is a HOF, isn´t he?

[mtortolero]

... 2 outstanding seasons..a number of good ones, and good in the field. If he could have had a normal decline id give him a pretty good shot at the hall of fame, but he was done after age 31.
...
Some people thinks that this description fits like a glove for Rice, only changing good by bad and 31 by 33.

[OleMissCub]

No one is saying that Rice sucked, I'm just saying that he was greatly assisted by Fenway. Rice was a good player, All-Star calibur, just not a Hall of Famer, and if you want to talk sluggers try Albert Belle on for size. He's easily just a great of a slugger.

No kidding.

Albert Belle: 5853 AB's, 91.9 WARP3

Jim Rice: 8225 AB's, 83.2 WARP3

[digglahhh]

But with this asumption Joe Carter is a HOF, isn´t he?

No, in fact it is quite the opposite argument.

I don't support Rice, and I CERTAINLY would not support Joe Carter!

I'm just saying, you can be a pretty productive player with an average OBP, provided you hit for a lot of power.

But, it is almost impossible to ascend to an offense-based HOF case with an average OBP.

Jim Rice is actually a good example of that, as he was obviously very good, yet HOF borderline, at best

See one, could pose a hypothetical, and ask about a player with a .340 OBP who slugs .600+ over a long period of time. But that's actually pretty hard to achieve. One, because it's tough to slug .600 without hitting for a pretty high average, because all those singles help too - and once you get your BA into the .310 + range, you can post an unimpressive BB total and still hang around the .360+ mark.

Two, because it is tough to drive bad pitches for extra bases, and the less disciplined you are, the more poor pitches you are going to put in play.

[hellborn]

i dont know..i dont think its as easy to hit in fenway as everyone thinks..if that was the case then they have the best hitters and best offense every year..its nowhere near Coors field. Nobody else on the red Sox was hitting 40 homers or slugging as high as Rice consistently.

Well, Rice only hit 40 HRs the one time. He hit 39 three times, once in the same year as Fred Lynn, who generally enjoyed a massive advantage from hitting at Fenway (28 HRs at home, 11 on the road that year...it's not just for righties!). Tony Armas hit 36 and 43 HRs while playing with Rice, and actually had more HRs on the road, but substantially better overall hitting stats at Fenway. Dwight Evans had some 30 HR years with the Bosox, and generally hit better at home. I'd argue that Dwight had a better career than Rice even though he didn't match Rice's peak as a hitter, because he lasted longer and was an excellent RFer for most of his career.
Armas was clearly not the hitter that Rice was despite the power, but Lynn was similar in his Bosox years, and may have been a similarly controversial HOF case if he had finished up with Boston. Instead, he left as a FA, people saw what his "real" (neutral) level of play was, and realized that he wasn't an all time great. Just a really good player, like Rice.
Fenway definitely doesn't stand out as a hitter's park these days, and it was never as distorting as Coors. More hitter's parks have been built, and a lot of people say that the park itself plays differently since the 600 Club and new press box were built and the wind currents were affected. Doesn't mean that it didn't help Rice and company a lot with the hitting stats compared to their contemporaries.

[Los Bravos]

Lynn was similar in his Bosox years, and may have been a similarly controversial HOF case if he had finished up with Boston. Instead, he left as a FA, people saw what his "real" (neutral) level of play was, and realized that he wasn't an all time great. Not to pick nits, but Fred was traded to the Angels in the deal involving Tanana and Joe Rudi.

[hellborn]

Not to pick nits, but Fred was traded to the Angels in the deal involving Tanana and Joe Rudi.

Thanks for the correction...I was probably mixing him up with Fisk there.

[willshad]

I just feel that generally speaking sluggers with not great on base percentages are penalized more than leadoff guys with bad slugging percentages. Even someone like Joe Carter...say he had been a leadoff type guy with good on base percentages instead of slugging, and bad slugging instead of on base. IF his RBI were then traded for runs, he would be looked at as an ideal leadoff hitter. His flaws wouldnt matter to people, because leadoff guys arent 'expected' to hit for power..and if they do its considered a bonus. I see it as the same way for cleanup hitters. As long as they drive in the runs and hit for power theyre all good...if they can drive in the runs while also getting a great on base percentage then thats a bonus. This is also very difficult to do....as usually the big time walking cleanup type hitters dont drive in that many runs. In comparing Tim Raines to Jim Rice this shows up. Rice had slightly worse on base percentages, but MUCH higher slugging..and he drove in as many runs as Raines scored. His OpS+ scores were higher, but somehow this doesnt matter to people..Raines is easily forgiven for his lack of slugging, because he was a leadoff batter. People consider Raines an easy hall of famer, even though Rice had a higher OPS+,with only slightly fewer at bats, and was also a better fielder than Raines. Im not saying Rice is more qualified for the hall than Raines, but i dont see where the difference is as vast as people would lead us to believe..I think its just all a viewpoint based on the tendency for people to penalize the cleanup hitters who dont walk, while forgiving the leadoff hitters who have no power.

[willshad]

Some people thinks that this description fits like a glove for Rice, only changing good by bad and 31 by 33.

i dont think even Jim Rice's worst enemy would describe his career as having a couple of outstanding seasons, and a bunch of bad ones. he was clearly more qualified for the hall of fame than Frank Howard, as Ive shown above. If howard had played in Fenway MAYBE he would have been a hall of famer. But its not the Hall of Maybes..its based on what players DID, not on what they would have done or could have done in different circumstances.

[ChrisLDuncan]

No kidding.

Albert Belle: 5853 AB's, 91.9 WARP3

Jim Rice: 8225 AB's, 83.2 WARP3

PFFT those numbers are for suckers the real numbers you need to look at are HRs and RBIs. 381 HRs 1239 RBIs. over 2000 less ABs but only 9 less HRs and about 180 less RBIs than Rice.

[willshad]

PFFT those numbers are for suckers the real numbers you need to look at are HRs and RBIs. 381 HRs 1239 RBIs. over 2000 less ABs but only 9 less HRs and about 180 less RBIs than Rice.

I wonder how many more home runs and RBI Rice would have had if he corked his bat and taken steroids, and played in the '90s in the middle of some of the best lineups of all time.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I wonder how many more home runs and RBI Rice would have had if he corked his bat and taken steroids, and played in the '90s in the middle of some of the best lineups of all time.

I'd love to see what Belle could do in Fenway, how do we know Rice never corked a bat? It's also not like Rice played on craptacular offenses either...

[hellborn]

i dont think even Jim Rice's worst enemy would describe his career as having a couple of outstanding seasons, and a bunch of bad ones. he was clearly more qualified for the hall of fame than Frank Howard, as Ive shown above. If howard had played in Fenway MAYBE he would have been a hall of famer. But its not the Hall of Maybes..its based on what players DID, not on what they would have done or could have done in different circumstances.

Howard will never make the HOF due to the circumstances of his career. I feel that the evidence is clear that Howard was a substantially better hitter than Rice, but wouldn't lobby for him as a HOFer...I would just put him in long before Rice, if it were up to me.
I really feel like you don't have a good handle on context for a hitter's performance...how do you handle dead ball era guys? Did they all just stink? Did Goose Goslin just suddenly learn how to hit HRs when he moved from DC to Detroit? Did everybody who played in the Astrodome from the '60s to the '80s have a weak bat?

[BoofBonser26]

[...] how do we know Rice never corked a bat?
A complete and total lack of evidence.

[DoubleX]

Howard will never make the HOF due to the circumstances of his career. I feel that the evidence is clear that Howard was a substantially better hitter than Rice, but wouldn't lobby for him as a HOFer...I would just put him in long before Rice, if it were up to me.
I really feel like you don't have a good handle on context for a hitter's performance...how do you handle dead ball era guys? Did they all just stink? Did Goose Goslin just suddenly learn how to hit HRs when he moved from DC to Detroit? Did everybody who played in the Astrodome from the '60s to the '80s have a weak bat?

I agree with the Howard/Rice comparison. Howard was clearly a better hitter than Rice, and I think one of the most overlooked hitters of all time. Howard was hurt by his parks, which were terrible for hitters, and from playing in the worst era for hitters since the deadball era (granted, Rice's era wasn't great either for hitters, but it's still not as bad as it was during Howard's era, when a .301 BA could win the batting title; Rice also had a much more favorable home park, and he took advantage of it). Put Howard in most any other era or in better parks, and 425-450 homeruns with a respectable BA, in what was a pretty short career, would have been within reason.

However, I might actually vote for Rice for the Hall before Howard. I've said countless times, it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of statistics, and Rice has a big advantage over Howard in the subjective element. It's definitely unfair to some degree because Howard doesn't get the credit he deserves because of circumstances, whereas Rice might get more credit than he deserves for circumstances. But that's the way it is - Rice was considered as one of the most dominant hitters in the game during his time, and while we can look back now and say that the perception wasn't quite accurate, it was still there, and that's the kind of thing the Hall of Fame celebrates. Rice was a bonafide star for a decade, Howard really wasn't (though might have been in better circumstances).

I'm not saying subjectivity gets a lot of weight, just some, and for Rice it's a factor in his favor. Rice also had a longer career (about 1700 more plate appearances than Howard), and it's relatively short to begin with by Hall of Fame standards for a player without a Koufaxesque peak, so that's another knock against Howard for the Hall, at least in this comparison.

I would like to note though that while we're on the topic of Howard, in Ball Four, Jim Bouton, writing during the 1969 season, talks with great reverence for Howard's ability at the plate. The only other players that I remember Bouton similarly talking about were Harmon Killebrew, Carl Yastrzemski, and Reggie Jackson. Not bad company at all.

[BoofBonser26]

Rice comes 14 votes away from election at 72.2%. Based on voting trends, it looks like he's going in, sooner rather than later.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Rice comes 14 votes away from election at 72.2%. Based on voting trends, it looks like he's going in, sooner rather than later.

12 months, give or take a couple days.

[BoofBonser26]

12 months, give or take a couple days.
My bad, I forgot it was his last year. :rolleyes:

[Captain Cold Nose]

My bad, I forgot it was his last year. :rolleyes:

Next year is, but with that vote total, how much time on the ballot is nearly irrelevant. He's in the right place at the right time.

[mtortolero]

I agree with the Howard/Rice comparison. Howard was clearly a better hitter than Rice, and I think one of the most overlooked hitters of all time. Howard was hurt by his parks, which were terrible for hitters, and from playing in the worst era for hitters since the deadball era (granted, Rice's era wasn't great either for hitters, but it's still not as bad as it was during Howard's era, when a .301 BA could win the batting title; Rice also had a much more favorable home park, and he took advantage of it). Put Howard in most any other era or in better parks, and 425-450 homeruns with a respectable BA, in what was a pretty short career, would have been within reason.


Adding 530 games and 2256 PA as DH for Rice vs 76 games and 239 PA by Hondo. Very unlucky time and places when Howard played.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I've never really researched how Hall of Fame candidates who spent a long time on the ballot have fared from year to year. Based on this year's results and the fact that next year is his last year on the ballot, is it a fair assumption that Jim Rice should get in for sure next year? Who are the notable guys who will be eligable for the first time next year? Anyone besides Rickey Henderson?

[ChrisLDuncan]

I guess if Jim Rice gets in then we have to put Joe Carter in too. WS Hero, clutch hitter, and for 12 years he was the most dominant hitter in baseball (by the Jim Rice dominance standards) for 12 years he led all of baseball in HRs/RBIs

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've never really researched how Hall of Fame candidates who spent a long time on the ballot have fared from year to year. Based on this year's results and the fact that next year is his last year on the ballot, is it a fair assumption that Jim Rice should get in for sure next year? Who are the notable guys who will be eligable for the first time next year? Anyone besides Rickey Henderson?

Henderson is the Big Kahuna. He's a much different type of player than Rice, so that helps Rice somewhat.

In taking a look at the ballot performance of certain players, it appears that players build support as their time on the ballot approaches a close. Perhaps the writers view it as a separate distinction to be a 1st ballot pick, as opposed to be a last ballot pick. Once a player goes in the HOF, he's in; Lloyd Waner is just as much a HOFer as Babe Ruth. But it appears that the writers truly view some guys as being worthy, but "not on the first shot". It also appears that SOME sportswriters think it's OK to give a guy a vote on his last shot for the first time, especially if that candidate has been building support.

Support on the ballot, however, isn't a sudden spike. It's built over time. Or it stays at roughly the same level. A guy who's in the 30s-40s through year 13 on the ballot has little or no shot to make it the last two years. A guy who's in the high 50s in year 13 is a different story; Ralph Kiner was around 60 percent in years 13 and 14, and just eked it out on his last try. Lou Boudreau built his support 10 percent a year in the late sixties, before being elected in 1970.

[dgarza]

Who are the notable guys who will be eligable for the first time next year? Anyone besides Rickey Henderson?
Rickey Henderson is the only obvious choice.
There are a few others who may draw some support, but I would not think they'd be big factors : David Cone, Matt Williams, and both the Vaughns.

[philkid3]

anybody else agree that sportswriters are on good crack to not be inducting rice, i dont have his stats now, but go to baseball-almanac. he won 3 hr titles, 2 batting titles i think, he had a few gold gloves to

Going to Baseball Almanac, or Baseball Reference, or any other site that keeps track of Rice's actual results, is the best way to kill the argument that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[philkid3]

I guess if Jim Rice gets in then we have to put Joe Carter in too. WS Hero, clutch hitter, and for 12 years he was the most dominant hitter in baseball (by the Jim Rice dominance standards) for 12 years he led all of baseball in HRs/RBIs

This is my biggest fear: that if/when Rice gets in, he's going to become what of those test cases that waters down the Hall, or at least creates that argument.

[J W]

I guess if Jim Rice gets in then we have to put Joe Carter in too. WS Hero, clutch hitter, and for 12 years he was the most dominant hitter in baseball (by the Jim Rice dominance standards) for 12 years he led all of baseball in HRs/RBIs

This point was argued on ESPN by Keith Law and is a very good one. They're very similar (in fact, they have a similarity score of 866).

But Rice did one thing Carter never did; hit for average, Fenway Park or not. Carter was a .259 hitter and spent a good amount of time in the Juiced Era. So Rice's OPS+ dwarfs that of Carter, 128 to 105. Putting everything into context, Rice was "twice the hitter" that Carter was.

Jim Rice's closest comp is HOFer Orlando Cepeda (similarity 911), which IMO is a much more fair comparison (which Cepeda should win). Electing Carter would have been a gross mistake by HOF standards along the lines of Hooper, Youngs, McCarthy and Hafey... electing Rice won't lower the bar any for corner OFers.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I guess if Jim Rice gets in then we have to put Joe Carter in too. WS Hero, clutch hitter, and for 12 years he was the most dominant hitter in baseball (by the Jim Rice dominance standards) for 12 years he led all of baseball in HRs/RBIs

"If Rice, then Carter" is a fallacy, even if one goes along with such arguments.

Rice was much, much better than Carter. Rice has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .627. I grant you, that's not the greatest figure for a HOF corner outfielder, but it also takes into account his last 3 seasons, where his eye problems began to take their toll. A corner outfielder with a .627 Offensive Winning Percentage doesn't dumb down the HOF, although he doesn't really add to it, either.

Joe Carter, on the other hand, has a .514 career Offensive Winning Percentage. This would put him in the HOF if he were a Gold Glove middle infielder, but it's terrible for a HOF corner outfielder. Carter, unlike Rice, WOULD dumb down the HOF.

Carter and Rice are not truly comparable players. Carter not only didn't walk much, he also hit for a low BA. Rice hit for a much higher average than Carter; that's a HUGE difference. Rice is at least a borderline great player. Carter was never more than a minor star. If Carter WERE a .627 Offensive Winning Percentage corner outfielder, one might make the case of "If Rice, then Carter", but he's not. He's a long way from it.

[hellborn]

I agree with the Howard/Rice comparison. Howard was clearly a better hitter than Rice, and I think one of the most overlooked hitters of all time.
...
However, I might actually vote for Rice for the Hall before Howard...

XX, you make good points. Howard is famous in his own way, but mostly for being a huge strong guy who scared the crud out of people (mostly pitchers). I don't think that many people remember him as a player of vast potential who was kind of jobbed out of a good chunk of his career and blossomed late to be a really scary hitter. Even in the years where all people talked about was how he couldn't hit a curve, he was producing quite well for the time. Just seemed like what he was able to do in the difficult circumstances he was in wasn't good enough, even though it really was pretty good...his defense probably kept him out of the lineup a lot, he really wasn't suited to cover a big OF. He'd be a perfect DH candidate these days, or someone to be hidden in a safe OF spot like Manny.
Personally, I would still put Frank in my HOF before Jim, but I can understand why you might reverse them. "Fame" is the operative term.

[ChrisLDuncan]

"If Rice, then Carter" is a fallacy, even if one goes along with such arguments.

Rice was much, much better than Carter. Rice has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .627. I grant you, that's not the greatest figure for a HOF corner outfielder, but it also takes into account his last 3 seasons, where his eye problems began to take their toll. A corner outfielder with a .627 Offensive Winning Percentage doesn't dumb down the HOF, although he doesn't really add to it, either.

Joe Carter, on the other hand, has a .514 career Offensive Winning Percentage. This would put him in the HOF if he were a Gold Glove middle infielder, but it's terrible for a HOF corner outfielder. Carter, unlike Rice, WOULD dumb down the HOF.

Carter and Rice are not truly comparable players. Carter not only didn't walk much, he also hit for a low BA. Rice hit for a much higher average than Carter; that's a HUGE difference. Rice is at least a borderline great player. Carter was never more than a minor star. If Carter WERE a .627 Offensive Winning Percentage corner outfielder, one might make the case of "If Rice, then Carter", but he's not. He's a long way from it.

I wasn't saying if Rice, then Carter. I was saying the same argument applies to Joe Carter. The real thing is if Rice, then Giles; and if Rice, then Abreu; if Rice, then Belle.

[NewYork NewYork]

For a Corner OF'er who was poor defensively and on the basepaths and known for his power hitting, a 128 Career OPS+ doesn't look very impressive. He only had 4 years with an OPS+ over 140. His prime was impressive, but I just don't think he's Hall Worthy.

[ChrisLDuncan]

This is my biggest fear: that if/when Rice gets in, he's going to become what of those test cases that waters down the Hall, or at least creates that argument.

Abreu, Giles, Belle, the list goes on and on. I forgot where Jim Rice was on Bill James' list of LFs.

[willshad]

Howard will never make the HOF due to the circumstances of his career. I feel that the evidence is clear that Howard was a substantially better hitter than Rice, but wouldn't lobby for him as a HOFer...I would just put him in long before Rice, if it were up to me.
I really feel like you don't have a good handle on context for a hitter's performance...how do you handle dead ball era guys? Did they all just stink? Did Goose Goslin just suddenly learn how to hit HRs when he moved from DC to Detroit? Did everybody who played in the Astrodome from the '60s to the '80s have a weak bat?

I just think that a hall of famer will rise above his circumstances. Howard may have not had the best hitting circumstances, but neither did many of his contemporaries, who still managed to have hall of fame careers. He himself proved he could do it...from 1968-1970 he was a hall of fame hitter..he just couldnt sustain that level of hitting. Even in 1968..the biggest pitcher's year since the dead ball era, he had outstanding numbers. So its not really the circumstances that make the difference. The 1960s may have been harder hi hit in than the 1990s, but you still had players like Aaron, Mays, Killebrew, Mantle, Robinson etc who put up numbers similiar to the sluggers of the steroid era. Look at Perdo Martinez...he pitched in the middle of the steroid era in Fenway and still had stats that boggle the mind. I think the more you have to 'adjust' someones stats to make them seem like a hall of famer, the worse their case is. Look at Jim Wynn..I keep hearing how the Astrodome was killing him, but he actually hit better at home than on the road for his career. Ig he truly was a hall of famer who was suffering due to his home stadium,, then youd see that in his splits..hed have hall of fame numbers on the road and maybe worse numbers at home.

[Mattingly]

Next year is, but with that vote total, how much time on the ballot is nearly irrelevant. He's in the right place at the right time.
You're saying that after 2009, he'll have to rely upon the Vets Committee to get in? He last played in 1989, and when added to the 5-year wait and 15 years on the ballot before he's required to wait for the Veterans' Committee, I now see that you're right.

So 2009 is very much "do or die" for the tradition method of induction, until the Vets Committee brings him in? Not so good, but at least Gossage retired in 1994, so he had 5 years less waiting time than did Rice, and Blyleven tired in 1992.

I think that along with time on the ballot being relevant as to 2009 being Rice's "last chance", that the Class of 2009 would also be very relevant. That said, Rickey Henderson, the Man of Steal, would have to get in for 2009. To me, it's not even debatable. He has to get in on the first ballot. With 2008 being his final year to consider whether he wishes to remain retired or not, my question to you is this:

With Henderson on the 2009 ballot and Rice on the same, would they likely go in together? Or would Rice not get the nod in his final year of eligibility, then having to go in via the Veterans' Committee?

[stevebogus]

I just feel that generally speaking sluggers with not great on base percentages are penalized more than leadoff guys with bad slugging percentages. Even someone like Joe Carter...say he had been a leadoff type guy with good on base percentages instead of slugging, and bad slugging instead of on base. IF his RBI were then traded for runs, he would be looked at as an ideal leadoff hitter. His flaws wouldnt matter to people, because leadoff guys arent 'expected' to hit for power..and if they do its considered a bonus. I see it as the same way for cleanup hitters. As long as they drive in the runs and hit for power theyre all good...if they can drive in the runs while also getting a great on base percentage then thats a bonus. This is also very difficult to do....as usually the big time walking cleanup type hitters dont drive in that many runs. In comparing Tim Raines to Jim Rice this shows up. Rice had slightly worse on base percentages, but MUCH higher slugging..and he drove in as many runs as Raines scored. His OpS+ scores were higher, but somehow this doesnt matter to people..Raines is easily forgiven for his lack of slugging, because he was a leadoff batter. People consider Raines an easy hall of famer, even though Rice had a higher OPS+,with only slightly fewer at bats, and was also a better fielder than Raines. Im not saying Rice is more qualified for the hall than Raines, but i dont see where the difference is as vast as people would lead us to believe..I think its just all a viewpoint based on the tendency for people to penalize the cleanup hitters who dont walk, while forgiving the leadoff hitters who have no power.

If anything it is OBP that gets overlooked, at least by the sportswriters. It is very common for an RBI man to win the MVP and pretty rare for a leadoff-type hitter to win. This happens even when the RBI man is below average in every other skill that matters. Andre Dawson got his MVP because he led the NL in RBIs playing in a great hitters park (Wrigley Field), but he was much better player, and more valuable, when he was playing CF for the Expos. When Rickey Henderson scored 146 runs in 1985 (the most since Ted Williams scored 150 back in 1949) he didn't win the MVP, but the hitter a couple of slots down the lineup did. Why does the man driving in the run get more recognition than the guy who set him up?

Getting on base is the single most important skill for a batter. OPS treats OBP and Slugging like they are equally important, but they are not. From a run-generating standpoint (and the whole point of hitting is to produce runs) OBP is about 1.7 or 1.8 times as important as Slugging.

Tim Raines, over the course of his career, was an even more potent offensive force than Jim Rice. Using the Runs Created formula to make an estimate of his contributions, Raines for his career created 6.6 runs per 27 outs. Jim Rice created 6.0 runs per 27 outs. Raines gets dissed because he just wasn't an RBI man, and he didn't have the advantage of playing in a great hitters park. Even their peak years are of comparable value. Rice, from 1977-1979, created 421 runs while making 1404 outs. Expressed like a batting average, that comes out to .300, which is excellent. That is 8.1 runs per 27 outs. Raines, from 1985-1987, created 386 runs while making 1192 outs. That works out to .324 and 8.7 runs per 27 outs. Rice created 35 more runs, but used up an additional 212 of his team's outs doing so. If we credit those outs to Raines and he gives them to his teammates, the team would score an additional 30 runs or so. That is the "invisible" value of high OBP... your teammates get more opportunities.

Raines was a great player for about five seasons, from 1983-1987. But he played in Montreal, which may as well have been the minor leagues as far as the sports media was concerned. After 1987 he was still very good, but he lost about 50 points off his batting average and never managed to get it all back. I don't know if that was injury related or not (he missed around 50 games in 1988). His willingness to take walk a probably hurt his HOF chances. If he were a free-swinger like Kirby Puckett or Ichiro he'd probably have 3 or 4 200-hit seasons in his prime, which are the kind of benchmarks that many of the dumber voters look for.

[willshad]

Abreu, Giles, Belle, the list goes on and on. I forgot where Jim Rice was on Bill James' list of LFs.

Brian Giles????? He who has less than 300 home runs and 1000 RBI ib the sterois era, and is just about finished? With 2 black ink and 51 gray ink points, and a 47 on the hall of fame mionitor? um ok.Nobody seemed to mind that Kirby Puckett became the guy who everyone now says 'well if HE'S in, then surely THIS GUY should be in...'

Th bottom line is that, even after the big offensive era we have just gone through, there arent that many players with triple crown numbers like Rice, so I dont see that being a problem with him. The way I look at it is this: Jim Rice was basically Eddie Murray without the decline phase. At age 33 they were virtually identical. Were it not for his eyesight problems, theres no reason not to believe Rice would have ended up with the same stats that Murray did for his career. I dont see anyone trying to take Murray out of the hall. If one can say that without his sudden injury that Puckett would have had 3000 hits, etc, and that all he was lacking was a decline phase, etc, then you can say the same about Rice.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wasn't saying if Rice, then Carter. I was saying the same argument applies to Joe Carter. The real thing is if Rice, then Giles; and if Rice, then Abreu; if Rice, then Belle.

Brian Giles is much better than Rice; he has a career .690 Offensive Winnint Percentage (OWP). Giles is a better player than a whole slew of HOF outfielders.

Albert Belle has a career .656 OWP, significantly ahead of Rice.

Bobby Abreu is also a highly underrated player, with a .696 OWP, although he's now entering the decline phase of his career.

All three of these guys are better than Rice, and have career OWP in line with a good many corner outfield HOF selections.

[willshad]

If anything it is OBP that gets overlooked, at least by the sportswriters. It is very common for an RBI man to win the MVP and pretty rare for a leadoff-type hitter to win. This happens even when the RBI man is below average in every other skill that matters. Andre Dawson got his MVP because he led the NL in RBIs playing in a great hitters park (Wrigley Field), but he was much better player, and more valuable, when he was playing CF for the Expos. When Rickey Henderson scored 146 runs in 1985 (the most since Ted Williams scored 150 back in 1949) he didn't win the MVP, but the hitter a couple of slots down the lineup did. Why does the man driving in the run get more recognition than the guy who set him up?

Getting on base is the single most important skill for a batter. OPS treats OBP and Slugging like they are equally important, but they are not. From a run-generating standpoint (and the whole point of hitting is to produce runs) OBP is about 1.7 or 1.8 times as important as Slugging.

Tim Raines, over the course of his career, was an even more potent offensive force than Jim Rice. Using the Runs Created formula to make an estimate of his contributions, Raines for his career created 6.6 runs per 27 outs. Jim Rice created 6.0 runs per 27 outs. Raines gets dissed because he just wasn't an RBI man, and he didn't have the advantage of playing in a great hitters park. Even their peak years are of comparable value. Rice, from 1977-1979, created 421 runs while making 1404 outs. Expressed like a batting average, that comes out to .300, which is excellent. That is 8.1 runs per 27 outs. Raines, from 1985-1987, created 386 runs while making 1192 outs. That works out to .324 and 8.7 runs per 27 outs. Rice created 35 more runs, but used up an additional 212 of his team's outs doing so. If we credit those outs to Raines and he gives them to his teammates, the team would score an additional 30 runs or so. That is the "invisible" value of high OBP... your teammates get more opportunities.

Raines was a great player for about five seasons, from 1983-1987. But he played in Montreal, which may as well have been the minor leagues as far as the sports media was concerned. After 1987 he was still very good, but he lost about 50 points off his batting average and never managed to get it all back. I don't know if that was injury related or not (he missed around 50 games in 1988). His willingness to take walk a probably hurt his HOF chances. If he were a free-swinger like Kirby Puckett or Ichiro he'd probably have 3 or 4 200-hit seasons in his prime, which are the kind of benchmarks that many of the dumber voters look for.


I think youre missing my point. I just dont think its fair that the flaws in the game of someone like Raines are overlooked just because leadoff batters arent 'supposed' to hit for power. Rice may not have had great on base percentages..but his on base percentages were better compared to the average than Raines' slugging percentages were. Whether you value on base percentage well over slugging is not really relevant. They are both important in producing runs, and being good at one and not the other is to display flaws in your game. You wouldnt want Tim Raines as your number 4 hitter, nor would you want Jim Rice as your leadoff hitter. If you say you want your cleanup hitter to have a .425 slugging percentage then youre lying. A cleanup hitter who did that would probably soon be out of a job, high on base percentage or not. But a leadoff hitter who had the on base percentage of Rice could still be considered great...heck Jose Reyes is considered the best in the game and his on base percentages the last couple years (prime years) were the same as Rice had for his CAREER. Why do people still say how great Jose reyes is , and how Rice couldnt get on base? Rice got on just as much as reyes, an elite leadoff hitter, whose job it is to get on base. That doesnt even take into account his STRONG point..his slugging.

[willshad]

Brian Giles is much better than Rice; he has a career .690 Offensive Winnint Percentage (OWP). Giles is a better player than a whole slew of HOF outfielders.

Albert Belle has a career .656 OWP, significantly ahead of Rice.

Bobby Abreu is also a highly underrated player, with a .696 OWP, although he's now entering the decline phase of his career.

All three of these guys are better than Rice, and have career OWP in line with a good many corner outfield HOF selections.


yeah and because OWP is the only stat that matters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

yeah and because OWP is the only stat that matters.

I don't know if it's the only stat that matters, but it's a good stat to use to compare players from different eras.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think youre missing my point. I just dont think its fair that the flaws in the game of someone like Raines are overlooked just because leadoff batters arent 'supposed' to hit for power. Rice may not have had great on base percentages..but his on base percentages were better compared to the average than Raines' slugging percentages were. Whether you value on base percentage well over slugging is not really relevant. They are both important in producing runs, and being good at one and not the other is to display flaws in your game. You wouldnt want Tim Raines as your number 4 hitter, nor would you want Jim Rice as your leadoff hitter. If you say you want your cleanup hitter to have a .425 slugging percentage then youre lying. A cleanup hitter who did that would probably soon be out of a job, high on base percentage or not. But a leadoff hitter who had the on base percentage of Rice could still be considered great...heck Jose Reyes is considered the best in the game and his on base percentages the last couple years (prime years) were the same as Rice had for his CAREER. Why do people still say how great Jose reyes is , and how Rice couldnt get on base? Rice got on just as much as reyes, an elite leadoff hitter, whose job it is to get on base. That doesnt even take into account his STRONG point..his slugging.

RAINES:

Offensive Win%
1981 NL-.738-4
1983 NL-.712-5
1984 NL-.737-2
1985 NL-.767-2
1986 NL-.782-1
1987 NL-.781-3
1989 NL-.711-9


RICE:

Offensive Win%
1977 AL-.721-6
1978 AL-.756-1
1979 AL-.736-3
1986 AL-.670-6

Raines had the higher peak, the longer peak, and the value during his peak.

I think some people here overrate Raines. I'm not surprised he didn't make it in. But Raines WAS a more effective player than Rice at his best.

[Los Bravos]

Nobody seemed to mind that Kirby Puckett became the guy who everyone now says 'well if HE'S in, then surely THIS GUY should be in...'Ain't that the truth.

[willshad]

I don't know if it's the only stat that matters, but it's a good stat to use to compare players from different eras.

the way you worded it made it seem like 'Abreu and Giles had higher OWP than Rice, therefore they were much better. case closed.' Obviously neither player has the hall of fame credientials Rcice does.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Brian Giles????? He who has less than 300 home runs and 1000 RBI ib the sterois era, and is just about finished? With 2 black ink and 51 gray ink points, and a 47 on the hall of fame mionitor? um ok.Nobody seemed to mind that Kirby Puckett became the guy who everyone now says 'well if HE'S in, then surely THIS GUY should be in...'


Giles is a far superior player than Rice, compare their OBPs...it's not all about RBIs and HRs. Put him in Fenway for his career and in that Sox offense and see what happens. Inks scores are a waste of time, as is the HoF monitor. By the HoF monitor Honus Wagner isn't a top ten player and Rod Carew is better than Frank Robinson, George Brett, Rickey Henderson, and Mike Piazza, and Stan Musial is the best player ever. It assess how LIKELY a guy is to make the Hall not how deserving he is. If you want Rice in, then let Giles in...he is the better player. By Grey Ink, Hank Aaron is better than Willie Mays and Honus Wagner; and Cap Anson is better than Babe Ruth (he's actually 7th) By Black Ink, Dan Brouthers is better than Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle. Also the guy who created these tests was Bill James, who even himself says Rice isn't a Hall of Famer, he also does not even attempt to use these tests to assess how deserving a certain Hall of Famer is. As to Puckett, he was a sentimental pick, because of his illness, and he was a terrible pick...yet he is still a better player than Rice (he also had some awesome post season moments), the problem with Puckett is that he got in the Hall in 2001. Since then there really haven't been any CFs retire that have numbers that are better than his or would rival his. When it comes time for Bernie Williams to get his Hall votes, you can bet that there will be plenty of Yankee fans lobbying that Bernie is better than Puckett (which he is: a better hitter on a rate basis, more career value, AND a better peak) the next player that will likely use Kirby Puckett as the test will be Carlos Beltran.



Th bottom line is that, even after the big offensive era we have just gone through, there arent that many players with triple crown numbers like Rice, so I dont see that being a problem with him. The way I look at it is this: Jim Rice was basically Eddie Murray without the decline phase. At age 33 they were virtually identical. Were it not for his eyesight problems, theres no reason not to believe Rice would have ended up with the same stats that Murray did for his career. I dont see anyone trying to take Murray out of the hall. If one can say that without his sudden injury that Puckett would have had 3000 hits, etc, and that all he was lacking was a decline phase, etc, then you can say the same about Rice.

Triple Crown numbers are lame, you can use the "if not for the injury..." argument for so many players. Murray is a legit Hall of Famer, and far better than Rice. Murray has had five seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or higher, and one of 149; whereas Rice has only had two seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or higher. Also despite Murray's SIGNIFCANTLY longer career than Rice he STILL HAS A HIGHER OPS+, so there is plenty of reason to believe Rice would not end up with Murray's numbers.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ain't that the truth.
Wait until Bernie gets to the Hall vote.

[ChrisLDuncan]

the way you worded it made it seem like 'Abreu and Giles had higher OWP than Rice, therefore they were much better. case closed.' Obviously neither player has the hall of fame credientials Rcice does.

You're right they have better ones. Brian Giles has a higher WARP3, Abreu likely will after this season, and they both have higher EqAs.

[ChrisLDuncan]

yeah and because OWP is the only stat that matters.

More so than the ones you've listed.

[willshad]

RAINES:

Offensive Win%
1981 NL-.738-4
1983 NL-.712-5
1984 NL-.737-2
1985 NL-.767-2
1986 NL-.782-1
1987 NL-.781-3
1989 NL-.711-9


RICE:

Offensive Win%
1977 AL-.721-6
1978 AL-.756-1
1979 AL-.736-3
1986 AL-.670-6

Raines had the higher peak, the longer peak, and the value during his peak.

I think some people here overrate Raines. I'm not surprised he didn't make it in. But Raines WAS a more effective player than Rice at his best.


All his proves is that OWP is vey flawed. Look at 1989 for instance, this was Raines' stats:

G AB R H 2b 3b NR RBI BA OBP SLG
MON NL 145 517 76 148 29 6 9 60 .286 .395 .418

1984:
MON NL 160 622 106 192 38 9 8 60 .309 .393 .437

And lets not forget his amazing 41 RBI performance of 1985, or his 313 at bat epic season in 1981. If youre going to try and say these seasons were as good as Jim Rice in his prime then I dont even see the point of trying to debate with you.

[ChrisLDuncan]

This point was argued on ESPN by Keith Law and is a very good one. They're very similar (in fact, they have a similarity score of 866).

But Rice did one thing Carter never did; hit for average, Fenway Park or not. Carter was a .259 hitter and spent a good amount of time in the Juiced Era. So Rice's OPS+ dwarfs that of Carter, 128 to 105. Putting everything into context, Rice was "twice the hitter" that Carter was.

Jim Rice's closest comp is HOFer Orlando Cepeda (similarity 911), which IMO is a much more fair comparison (which Cepeda should win). Electing Carter would have been a gross mistake by HOF standards along the lines of Hooper, Youngs, McCarthy and Hafey... electing Rice won't lower the bar any for corner OFers.

My point was that, "LEAD TEH LEEGEE IN HRS AND ARE BEEE EYEz" is a good way of determining whether or not someone deserves to be in the Hall. Cepeda IMO, is borderline at best. Yes Rice is a better player than Carter was; but that's only if you use stats that are indictive of a player's actual performance, whcih the Rice supporters don't, so I think we are in agreement.

[ChrisLDuncan]

All his proves is that OWP is vey flawed. Look at 1989 for instance, this was Raines' stats:

G AB R H 2b 3b NR RBI BA OBP SLG
MON NL 145 517 76 148 29 6 9 60 .286 .395 .418

1984:
MON NL 160 622 106 192 38 9 8 60 .309 .393 .437

And lets not forget his amazing 41 RBI performance of 1985, or his 313 at bat epic season in 1981.


And this proves you don't know what you're talking about. From 84-87 Raines had a higher EqA than .320 which is higher than Rice's career best EqA of .319 (oddly enough that was Raines' 5th highest EqA) You want to talk about Rice's eye problems, what about the beating Raines' knees withstood from playing OF on the Olympic Sidewalk. If he played in a park like Fenway he'd have the end career numbers to compete with Rickey Henderson.


If youre going to try and say these seasons were as good as Jim Rice in his prime then I dont even see the point of trying to debate with you.


I don't either, you'll easily loose.

[willshad]

You're right they have better ones. Brian Giles has a higher WARP3, Abreu likely will after this season, and they both have higher EqAs.

do you want your hall of fame outfielders to have 1700 hits, and 1000 rbi and runs, while playing in the best offensive era ever? and its not like they have the dominance to make up for a very short career. Abreu's highest MVP showing was number 14(!) while Giles' was 9. Even if you give both guys a free MVP win and then add up their MVP shares it still falls short of Rice's total. If you add up the ink totals and hall of fame monitor scores for both players it still falls well short of Rice's totals as well. Neither man has any hall of fame case whatsoever. If you combine their careers into one player they have a better hall of fame case than Rice does,Ill admit that.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think youre missing my point.


I think you're missing point of the people who don't support Rice.



I just dont think its fair that the flaws in the game of someone like Raines are overlooked just because leadoff batters arent 'supposed' to hit for power. Rice may not have had great on base percentages..but his on base percentages were better compared to the average than Raines' slugging percentages were.



Wrong, Rice had a relative OBP of 1.04 compared to Raines' relative slugging of 1.06, that Raines' number goes up if you were to figure in his world class (maybe even the best ever) baserunning.


Whether you value on base percentage well over slugging is not really relevant. They are both important in producing runs, and being good at one and not the other is to display flaws in your game. You wouldnt want Tim Raines as your number 4 hitter, nor would you want Jim Rice as your leadoff hitter. If you say you want your cleanup hitter to have a .425 slugging percentage then youre lying.


However, I would rather have Tim Raines as my three hitter than Rice as my three hitter. He conserves more outs, and extends the inning more often than Rice would. You are forgetting another huge part of Raines' run production comes in his SBs, which typically a 4th hitter doesn't get a lot of because he usually has someone on base ahead of him, thus never gets the chance.


A cleanup hitter who did that would probably soon be out of a job, high on base percentage or not. But a leadoff hitter who had the on base percentage of Rice could still be considered great...heck Jose Reyes is considered the best in the game and his on base percentages the last couple years (prime years) were the same as Rice had for his CAREER. Why do people still say how great Jose reyes is , and how Rice couldnt get on base? Rice got on just as much as reyes, an elite leadoff hitter, whose job it is to get on base. That doesnt even take into account his STRONG point..his slugging.

Those who say Jose Reyes is that great are lying, he is not an elite leadoff hitter. He is still a good player, because he steals a lot of bases at a high rate, and he is a short stop with adequate defense, thus his offense is fine coming from him. Another reason why people say Reyes is great is because he's an exciting player to watch and plays in a big media market (Like a certain overrated player from Boston) whereas in Reyes' case the better shortstop plays in Florida. In Rice's case the better outfielder played acrossed from him.

[ChrisLDuncan]

do you want your hall of fame outfielders to have 1700 hits, and 1000 rbi and runs, while playing in the best offensive era ever? and its not like they have the dominance to make up for a very short career. Abreu's highest MVP showing was number 14(!) while Giles' was 9. If you add up the ink totals and hall of fame monitor scores for both players it still falls well short of Rice's totals.


I see you have been quoting the thread, but have you been reading it? Did you not just see me dismiss monitor and ink scores? Perhaps we should also go over why MVP voting is mostly irrelevant, and why HRs/RBIs aren't exactly the most important numbers.

Neither man has any hall of fame case whatsoever.

Yet a better case than Rice.

[Los Bravos]

Wait until Bernie gets to the Hall vote.I solemnly swear in front of all of you that if he gets in...I will go off on one very serious, epic rant.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I solemnly swear in front of all of you that if he gets in...I will go off on one very serious, epic rant.

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but he is a better player than Puckett.

[willshad]

I see you have been quoting the thread, but have you been reading it? Did you not just see me dismiss monitor and ink scores? Perhaps we should also go over why MVP voting is mostly irrelevant, and why HRs/RBIs aren't exactly the most important numbers.



Yet a better case than Rice.

I suppose we just have different definitions of what makes a hall of famer. To me the two most important factors are 1) longevity and 2 )dominance. The greater hits, home run, and RBI totals of Rice shows his better longevity (although to be fair Abreu and Giles are still playing, albeit in steep decline), and his ink scores, mvp votes, and hall monitor scores show dominance compared to his peers. The fact that Giles and Abreu played in the best offensive era ever and still has way less home runs and rbi does not exactly bode well for them. Apparently to you all that matters is efficiency. No matter how short the career, if the player created a fair amount of runs while not making a lot of outs, he is great. Yes, these types of players tend to be underrated. Yet to me the fact that Rice was considered (for the most part rightfully so) one of the 5 or so best hitters in the game over most of his career matters a lot. Abreau and Giles , while very good, efficient players, were not among the best in the game throughout their careers. Their raw stats were similiar to rice in some years, but they played during a time when a 35 115 .315 year with a 1.000 OPS could only get you 19th in the MVP voting. They just didnt stand out in any way, and that, to me, is part of what makes someone a hall of famer, not just who has the best WARP3 or offensive winning percentage.

[Los Bravos]

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but he is a better player than Puckett.No, I'm not being facetious.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No, I'm not being facetious.

He won't, and Williams is not a better player than Puckett.

[DoubleX]

XX, you make good points. Howard is famous in his own way, but mostly for being a huge strong guy who scared the crud out of people (mostly pitchers). I don't think that many people remember him as a player of vast potential who was kind of jobbed out of a good chunk of his career and blossomed late to be a really scary hitter. Even in the years where all people talked about was how he couldn't hit a curve, he was producing quite well for the time. Just seemed like what he was able to do in the difficult circumstances he was in wasn't good enough, even though it really was pretty good...his defense probably kept him out of the lineup a lot, he really wasn't suited to cover a big OF. He'd be a perfect DH candidate these days, or someone to be hidden in a safe OF spot like Manny.
Personally, I would still put Frank in my HOF before Jim, but I can understand why you might reverse them. "Fame" is the operative term.

I could really go either way on them, and it is clear to me that Howard was the more impressive player. Your post reminds me why I think it should be a hard sell for predominantly DH players to get in. You have generations of players who did not have that advantage to prolong their careers. Howard is a perfect example - had he been able to DH starting in his early 30s he probably could have extended his career and production, and that might have really helped his Hall of Fame case. For generations, even the best of hitters, as injuries and age robbed them of the ability to play effective defense, they found themselves in the lineup less frequently, and their careers ending. The DH could have really saved and augmented a number of careers.

Anyone, this is just an aside to the Rice conversation.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He won't, and Williams is not a better player than Puckett.

How so? Williams was a better hitter at his peak, has a higher adjusted EqA (over more 300 more games), and has a higher WARP3. Where is Puckett the better player than Bernie?

[mtortolero]

Let´s do some simple math adjusting Slg of Rice and Raines bases won and loss with SB and GDP:

Rice=4129 TB + 58 SB - 34 CS - 315 GDP= 3838 TB adj / 8225 AB= .467 slg adj
Raines=3771 TB + 808 SB - 146 CS - 142 GDP= 4291 TB / 8872 AB= .484 slg adj

Look as Raines was the most feared hitter by net bases reached.

[AstrosFan]

I know you're trying to keep it simple, mrtolero, but I decided to take your idea and some linear weights figures from Tango Tiger's website, and make my own adjustments.

The relationship of each event in relation to a single is as follows

1B - 1
2B - 1.6
3B - 2.2
HR - 3
NIBB - .7
HBP - .7
IBB - .4
SB - .4
CS - -.4
GDP - -.4

We multiply each weight by the appropriate figures, and get our linear weights total bases. This is important, because a home run is not worth four times as much as a single, it is worth three times as much. Years of scouring play-by-play data has shown this. With these figures, we can recalculate Raines's and Rice's slugging percentage.

But we're not done yet. We need to factor in CS and GDP into the PA. To recalculate PA, add H+BB+HBP+Outs-SH. Then divide times on base into the new PA.

Both players see their OBP drop, which is expected. But Raines's slugging shoots up to .503, while Rice's drops to .475. Rice loses points partly due to his baserunning, but also to the corrected relationship between offensive events. When the final figures are tallied, I have this.

Raines: OBP+ 113, SLG+ 126, OPS+ 140
Rice: OBP+ 101, SLG+ 117, OPS+ 117

Raines is ridiculously underrated. Rice is overrated, and is not a Hall of Famer.

[curveball]

Great stuff guys. I never examined Rice's career too much, so just based on what I knew of him, I thought he was a marginal Hofer at best.

There is great analysis all over this site. Honestly, there should be a law that all the BBWAA writers register at this site. They sure would learn a lot of things.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I suppose we just have different definitions of what makes a hall of famer. To me the two most important factors are 1) longevity and 2 )dominance. The greater hits, home run, and RBI totals of Rice shows his better longevity (although to be fair Abreu and Giles are still playing, albeit in steep decline), and his ink scores, mvp votes, and hall monitor scores show dominance compared to his peers. The fact that Giles and Abreu played in the best offensive era ever and still has way less home runs and rbi does not exactly bode well for them.

OK, let's leave Giles and Abreu out of it. Let's compare Rice to Dwight Evans, his teammate and contemporary.

Evans leads in career HRs, 385-382. Rice leads in RBI, 1451-1384. Rice leads in BA, .298-.272. Evans leads in OBP, .370-.352. Evans leads in Runs Scored, 1470-1249. Evans leads Rice in OWP, .646-.627. Rice leads Evans in OPS+, 128-127. Evans also has a defensive advantage; he was a nine (9) time Gold Glove winner in RF; Rice played an adequate LF.

These guys are pretty well matched, so why all the love for Rice, while Evans receives rather little support, especially given that the evidence suggests that Evans was the better player? If Rice was so much better, offensively, why does Evans, the guy with the longer career, still have a higher Offensive Winning Percentage? If Rice was a superior offensive player, why is Evans on base more often?

Was Evans the better player? I don't know, but I'm not sure he isn't. I'm not sure at all that Rice is superior. And that's what the HOF should be about; honoring the best players first. Baseball is a game where value can be achieved in a number of ways; if it were merely a HR and RBI counting game, Dave Kingman and Joe Carter would be in the Hall right now.

[Los Bravos]

These guys are pretty well matched, so why all the love for Rice, while Evans receives rather little support, especially given that the evidence suggests that Evans was the better player?If it makes you feel any better, they're both in for me.

[J W]

How so? Williams was a better hitter at his peak, has a higher adjusted EqA (over more 300 more games), and has a higher WARP3. Where is Puckett the better player than Bernie?

Good one. I for one have no problem with Puckett in the HOF, but he's so-so for a HOFer. Williams was a better player than people give him credit for, which is weird for a Yankee.

While we're at it, let's give a nod to Dale Murphy, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis and Cesar Cedeno. And probably a few other CFers too.

And this is the same problem with Rice. Where in fact is Frank Howard? Albert Belle (a recent snub)? How about Ken Singleton? Why is Dave Parker struggling? Anybody remember Jack Clark?

No, we're not talking about Tommy McCarthy or Lloyd Waner. Again, I don't think Rice (or Puckett) lowers the bar for the HOF. The HOF already includes players at or below (or far below) their level. They represent the grey area, where for reasons beyond my comprehension some players have little trouble while others are quickly shown the door.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Good one. I for one have no problem with Puckett in the HOF, but he's so-so for a HOFer. Williams was a better player than people give him credit for, which is weird for a Yankee.

While we're at it, let's give a nod to Dale Murphy, Fred Lynn, Amos Otis and Cesar Cedeno. And probably a few other CFers too.

And this is the same problem with Rice. Where in fact is Frank Howard? Albert Belle (a recent snub)? How about Ken Singleton? Why is Dave Parker struggling? Anybody remember Jack Clark?

No, we're not talking about Tommy McCarthy or Lloyd Waner. Again, I don't think Rice (or Puckett) lowers the bar for the HOF. The HOF already includes players at or below (or far below) their level. They represent the grey area, where for reasons beyond my comprehension some players have little trouble while others are quickly shown the door.

Cedeno probably deserves it, the Astrodome screwed up his career, Jimmie Wynn however definately deserves it. Also why do you think Puckett was better than Bernie?

[DoubleX]

I have no problem with Puckett in the Hall. He has the subjective factor going for him in spades - and like I've said a number of times, the Hall is about celebrating a lot more than just statistics. My rankings of who is worthy for the Hall does not exactly match my rankings of greatest players.

It really hasn't been that long, but I think a lot of us forget that Puckett for the better part of a decade, was really one of the faces of baseball. To many, he typified what was right about the game and how to play the game. He was good in just about all facets of the game, with one deficiency - taking walks (which is an unforgivable sin). But he had decent power, hit for good average, had decent speed, and was a very good fielder. Again, it's really only the walks thing holding him back, but other than that, he was a very skilled player, excelling at those simple things such as putting bat on ball and catching the ball that are so vital in the game and shouldn't be overlooked.

He was a perennial factor in MVP voting and is 48th in MVP shares, he was a fixture at the All Star game for a decade, six Gold Gloves and six Silver Sluggers, had very memorable postseason moments that were instrumental in helping his teams win two World Series, and he had pretty nice counting numbers despite a shortened career. The circumstances of why his career was truncated also made him a sympathetic figure. He was still going as good as ever and seemed a lock for zooming past 3000 hits, but disease suddenly ended his career. Put it all together, and I think Puckett is worthy of the Hall of Fame.

Also this isn't meant to be a knock at all on guys like Wynn, Williams, Cedeno, Murphy, Berger, Pinson, and others. This is just meant to explain why I have no problem with Puckett in the Hall, and such has no bearing on the cases of others. I would like to remind people though that Puckett was a very skilled all around player, lacking in just one department - walks.

[willshad]

Let´s do some simple math adjusting Slg of Rice and Raines bases won and loss with SB and GDP:

Rice=4129 TB + 58 SB - 34 CS - 315 GDP= 3838 TB adj / 8225 AB= .467 slg adj
Raines=3771 TB + 808 SB - 146 CS - 142 GDP= 4291 TB / 8872 AB= .484 slg adj

Look as Raines was the most feared hitter by net bases reached.

what does this prove? stolen bases and double plays have nothing to do with slugging, or even with hitting at all. So Jim Rice hit into a lot more double plays, How exactly should that be held against him that someone happened to be on first base when he grounded out? He also had many more RBI than Raines, so you could just as well add all his extra RBI to these totals.

[ChrisLDuncan]

what does this prove? stolen bases and double plays have nothing to do with slugging, or even with hitting at all. So Jim Rice hit into a lot more double plays, How exactly should that be held against him that someone happened to be on first base when he grounded out? He also had many more RBI than Raines, so you could just as well add all his extra RBI to these totals.

It means that he hurt his team by hitting into all those DPs, he was slow and a DP machine. Staying out of the DP is actually a skill, RBIs on the other hand aren't. If you want to talk about slugging prowlice, you are being entirely unfair to exclude Raines' world class baserunning. Raines created a ton of runs on the basepaths.

[willshad]

OK, let's leave Giles and Abreu out of it. Let's compare Rice to Dwight Evans, his teammate and contemporary.

Evans leads in career HRs, 385-382. Rice leads in RBI, 1451-1384. Rice leads in BA, .298-.272. Evans leads in OBP, .370-.352. Evans leads in Runs Scored, 1470-1249. Evans leads Rice in OWP, .646-.627. Rice leads Evans in OPS+, 128-127. Evans also has a defensive advantage; he was a nine (9) time Gold Glove winner in RF; Rice played an adequate LF.

These guys are pretty well matched, so why all the love for Rice, while Evans receives rather little support, especially given that the evidence suggests that Evans was the better player? If Rice was so much better, offensively, why does Evans, the guy with the longer career, still have a higher Offensive Winning Percentage? If Rice was a superior offensive player, why is Evans on base more often?

Was Evans the better player? I don't know, but I'm not sure he isn't. I'm not sure at all that Rice is superior. And that's what the HOF should be about; honoring the best players first. Baseball is a game where value can be achieved in a number of ways; if it were merely a HR and RBI counting game, Dave Kingman and Joe Carter would be in the Hall right now.


Its an interesting comparison. I agree that they are about even when it comes to total value for their career, but they are really opposites in many ways. They played on the same team at the same time frame, but whereas Rice started his career strongly and kind of fizzled, Evans, started his career as a pretty good but not great player, then for some reason got better as he got older. they never were a great 1-2 punch, as it seemed whenever one guy had a great year the other would have an off year. I think the general perception of what type of player they were was set into people's minds in 1980 or so, and that stuck with them, even though after that Evans was a much better player. People were already putting Rice in the hall of fame by that point, and Evans had alredy established himself as a good player, but several notches below Rice. i think what also helps Rice is that he is a notch above Evans in all 3 triple crown categories. fairly or not, that is what people look at first. Also, while Evans had some great seasons, he haver had what one would call a 'monster' season. 1987 was the closest he came, and that was the year everyone hit well, so he got overshadowed by other players...even teammate Wade Boggs had a better season. It just always seemed the Sox had someone beter than him..first Rice and Lynn in the 70s , then Boggs in the 80s..this gave the impression that he was a second tier star. His mere 3 all star game selections and 1.02 MVP shares seem to confirm this perception. Rice is a better hall candidate in my opinion.

[AstrosFan]

what does this prove? stolen bases and double plays have nothing to do with slugging, or even with hitting at all. So Jim Rice hit into a lot more double plays, How exactly should that be held against him that someone happened to be on first base when he grounded out? He also had many more RBI than Raines, so you could just as well add all his extra RBI to these totals.

First, the point of mrtolero's post is to show how the two affect offense, not slugging. He was just showing how you can use these stats to recreate slugging. Slugging percentage is calculated as total bases divided by at bats. What mrtolero has done is replace total bases with net bases. Now the slugging percentage isn't a measure of hitting, but a measure of total offense. I use a more complex measure, which I am still refining. But for a measure that's easy to calculate, mrtolero's method is great.

Second, your point about Rice's GDP totals is right. Rice's GDP is higher than we would expect it to be, he was poor at avoiding the double play. But there is some influence on his numbers by how many runners were on first when he was up to bat. When his GDP totals weren't especially high, he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him, low OBP guys. When his GDP totals were among the highest of all time, he had Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans batting in front of him, high OBP guys. Anyone who posts some of the highest GDP of all time is below average at avoiding the double play. But Rice's career totals would not be as high if he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him his whole career.

However, that also affects Rice's RBI totals. Some of those RBI totals are legit; his clutch hitting in 1978 was outstanding. But in 1984, he drove in 122 runs, despite a paltry OBP and a pedestrian SLG. Aside from his 28 HR, there's really no reason for him to have driven in that many runs. The reason for the 122? Evans had a .388 OBP and Boggs had a .407. Simple as that.

What makes Rice's case for the Hall so weak is that his OPS+ of 128 is not that impressive for someone with so short a career, his fielding and baserunning won't make up ground for him, and his peak, while great, was not any greater than a number of players who won't make the Hall, who have better overall credentials than Rice.

[AstrosFan]

Well, I think I'm being a little unfair to Rice. His clutch numbers were pretty good in 1984.

[willshad]

First, the point of mrtolero's post is to show how the two affect offense, not slugging. He was just showing how you can use these stats to recreate slugging. Slugging percentage is calculated as total bases divided by at bats. What mrtolero has done is replace total bases with net bases. Now the slugging percentage isn't a measure of hitting, but a measure of total offense. I use a more complex measure, which I am still refining. But for a measure that's easy to calculate, mrtolero's method is great.

Second, your point about Rice's GDP totals is right. Rice's GDP is higher than we would expect it to be, he was poor at avoiding the double play. But there is some influence on his numbers by how many runners were on first when he was up to bat. When his GDP totals weren't especially high, he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him, low OBP guys. When his GDP totals were among the highest of all time, he had Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans batting in front of him, high OBP guys. Anyone who posts some of the highest GDP of all time is below average at avoiding the double play. But Rice's career totals would not be as high if he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him his whole career.

However, that also affects Rice's RBI totals. Some of those RBI totals are legit; his clutch hitting in 1978 was outstanding. But in 1984, he drove in 122 runs, despite a paltry OBP and a pedestrian SLG. Aside from his 28 HR, there's really no reason for him to have driven in that many runs. The reason for the 122? Evans had a .388 OBP and Boggs had a .407. Simple as that.

What makes Rice's case for the Hall so weak is that his OPS+ of 128 is not that impressive for someone with so short a career, his fielding and baserunning won't make up ground for him, and his peak, while great, was not any greater than a number of players who won't make the Hall, who have better overall credentials than Rice.


agreed. This is why i see him as just a borderline candidate. But the fact is that almost everything you say about Rice in your last paragraph you can also say about Raines .except his OPS+ was even lower, in just a slightly longer career. Of course he gets credit for his baserunning, but he also probbaly loses ground due to his fielding. Assuming you see Raines as an easy hall of famer, and one of the 5 or 6 best left fielders ever (as most on this board seem to), , It appears that the entire reason for that is his baserunning skills. Im not saying that is wrong...it certainly makes him unique that he was stealing so much at such a great rate of success. I just dont think stolen bases alone can put him THAT MUCH ahead of Rice. To me they are both borderline candidates.

[AstrosFan]

Raines was a better fielder than Rice. When baserunning and fielding are taken into account, Raines's peak/prime beats Rice's rather comfortably. With his lead in career value, Tim Raines has a much better case for the Hall than Jim Rice.

[willshad]

Raines was a better fielder than Rice. When baserunning and fielding are taken into account, Raines's peak/prime beats Rice's rather comfortably. With his lead in career value, Tim Raines has a much better case for the Hall than Jim Rice.

how exctly was Raines better in the field?

[AstrosFan]

Staying very basic, Raines has a better fielding percentage and range factor, relative to the league, than Rice. Going more advanced:

Between the two, Raines holds eight of the top ten spots in defensive win shares.

From Baseball Prospectus, seasons with at least 10 FRAR - Raines 10, Rice 5.

Anywhere you look in the numbers, Raines beats Rice. And if you're not convinced, ask anyone who saw them play. Raines is usually seen as a good, not great fielder, while Rice is seen as adequate.

[Mattingly]

I'll ask again, this time in simplified format:

Does anyone here think that, with 2009 being Rice's last season for BBWAA eligibility, get in on the same ballot as Rickey Henderson? Yes or no?

Many thanks. :)

[four tool]

Since the 2 letters n-o are too short for a reply, I'll try this:

NO

[Mattingly]

Since the 2 letters n-o are too short for a reply, I'll try this:

NO
Thanks. I finally got a reply to this question.

Is this because you don't think that Rice had a Hall of Fame type of career re his worthiness, or do you believe that the writers would prefer to have Rickey Henderson go in without Rice's being on the same ballot?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'll ask again, this time in simplified format:

Does anyone here think that, with 2009 being Rice's last season for BBWAA eligibility, get in on the same ballot as Rickey Henderson? Yes or no?

Many thanks. :)

An absolute resounding yes. He's as much a lock as Gossage this year.

Whether or not he deserves it or not is another story. One's kool-aid is another's Hi C.

[hellborn]

how exctly was Raines better in the field?

Raines was not a very good LFer for such a fast guy and his arm wasn't much, but he had the speed to make up for his mediocre fly judgment. Rice probably matched Tim in his basic ability to track a ball and had a good arm early in his career, but I'll take the guy who can run a ball down and catch it over the guy who's going to play it on two hops and make a nice throw to the bases anyday.
You are dead on about how Evans' strange career progression and lack of a big year hurt the way he is perceived. He was certainly helped by Fenway as a hitter, too, but was a real defensive force before he got old...not really much faster than Rice, but got the most out of what speed he had with tremendous fly ball tracking and anticipation, plus he had a very strong and accurate arm.
Evans is in that category of players with a broad range of baseball strengths that never really get their due. Evans' only "weakness" was having average speed, just about everywhere else he was better than average over his career (guess his BA was just above average). I wouldn't push him for the HOF, but he deserves more respect than he usually gets.
I loved the end of his little pep talk to Damon before the '04 WS...
"Win it.
WIN IT.
WIN IT!!!!"

BTW, despite the presence of Rickey next year, I think that Rice will make the HOF. There will be a perception that it wouldn't be fair for him to fall short after being so close this year.

[mtortolero]

Second, your point about Rice's GDP totals is right. Rice's GDP is higher than we would expect it to be, he was poor at avoiding the double play. But there is some influence on his numbers by how many runners were on first when he was up to bat. When his GDP totals weren't especially high, he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him, low OBP guys. When his GDP totals were among the highest of all time, he had Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans batting in front of him, high OBP guys. Anyone who posts some of the highest GDP of all time is below average at avoiding the double play. But Rice's career totals would not be as high if he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him his whole career.


I can understand those circunstances the first year but look as Rice was not concerned about the damage he was producing to his team. He was leader four years in a row in GDP and three of those seasons are in the top ten seasons all time in GDP (and 1981 he was in good way to be the leader too).
In fact, in 1986 he reduce to 19 GDP with Evans and Boggs in the same lineup and Boston won the division.

[mtortolero]

Second, your point about Rice's GDP totals is right. Rice's GDP is higher than we would expect it to be, he was poor at avoiding the double play. But there is some influence on his numbers by how many runners were on first when he was up to bat. When his GDP totals weren't especially high, he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him, low OBP guys. When his GDP totals were among the highest of all time, he had Wade Boggs and Dwight Evans batting in front of him, high OBP guys. Anyone who posts some of the highest GDP of all time is below average at avoiding the double play. But Rice's career totals would not be as high if he had Jerry Remy and Rick Burleson batting in front of him his whole career.


I can understand those circunstances the first year but look as Rice was not very concerned about the damage he was producing to his team when was leader four years in a row in big leagues in GDP and three of those seasons are in the top ten seasons all time in GDP (and in 1981 he was in a nice track to be the leader too).
In fact, in 1986 when he reduced to 19 GDP his totals still with Evans and Boggs in the same lineup, Boston won the division.

[digglahhh]

I The 1960s may have been harder hi hit in than the 1990s, but you still had players like Aaron, Mays, Killebrew, Mantle, Robinson etc who put up numbers similiar to the sluggers of the steroid era. Look at Perdo Martinez...he pitched in the middle of the steroid era in Fenway and still had stats that boggle the mind.

Mays, Aaron, F-Robby, Mantle, Pedro...

You aren't just talking about HOFers here - you are talking about top tier, "inner circle" HOFers.

[digglahhh]

Th bottom line is that, even after the big offensive era we have just gone through, there arent that many players with triple crown numbers like Rice, so I dont see that being a problem with him.

But how poignant a commentary on Rice's actual level of performance are those sets of numbers?

That's kinda like me advocating a rapper for the (fictional) Hip Hop HOF on the basis of him having the dopest/most expensive chain, or the most album sales or something.

Why are we privileging the lowest common denominator above the more fundamentally sounds means of evaluation?

[digglahhh]

I've asked this before, I'll ask it again:

Why is okay for a player to do a poor job of not making outs because he serves a particular "role" on a team?

Scoring runs is a team goal! Making outs are the most efficient means to thwart that goal. Making outs decreases the likelihood of your team scoring runs!

So, again, why would it be okay for player to make outs because he hits in a certain spot in the order?

It becomes ironic when the proposed justification is that the player is a "run producer." Oh, so, you are pardoned for doing the thing that most efficiently prevents the scoring of runs if your job is to... produce runs?...

Tim Raines was a better run producer than Rice - simple as that.


Hey, does anybody study sociology - you know that at social gatherings people assume "roles" too, right.... So, would it be okay for me to puke on your couch at a party because my "role" happened to be "unpredictable drunk guy?" Even if it screwed up the party for several other guests...

[Fuzzy Bear]

I've asked this before, I'll ask it again:

Why is okay for a player to do a poor job of not making outs because he serves a particular "role" on a team?

Scoring runs is a team goal! Making outs are the most efficient means to thwart that goal. Making outs decreases the likelihood of your team scoring runs!

So, again, why would it be okay for player to make outs because he hits in a certain spot in the order?

It becomes ironic when the proposed justification is that the player is a "run producer." Oh, so, you are pardoned for doing the thing that most efficiently prevents the scoring of runs if your job is to... produce runs?...

Tim Raines was a better run producer than Rice - simple as that.

Rice deserves SOME discounting of his GIDP stats. A GIDP is not something Rice does all by himself; he also does it in conjunction with the runners on base ahead of him.

Rice was a power hitter who didn't strike out all that much; would he be considered a better player if we removed 20 GIDPs and replaced them with strikeouts? In a stat world, of course that would make him better. In the real world, if Rice struck out more and did less GIDP, he would have been a different type of player than he actually was, and that different type of player would have been less adept at putting the bat on the ball for a hit. That would have meant that Rice would have been hitting for a lower average , and hitting fewer ground outs that may have advanced runners, or even produced RBIs.

I don't know how you'd exactly adjust the stats, but Rice didn't choose where he was going to hit in the batting order. Rice hit 3rd in 882 games, 4th in 667 games, and the Red Sox weren't know for speed at the top of the order. Many of the GIDPs were hits that Rice hit hard, on the ground; if they were not hit as hard he'd have also had fewer GIDPs, but, again, you'd have a different kind of player. You'd have a guy with less power. Would 50 less career HRs have made Rice a better player, and if so, how many less GIDPs would be needed to accomplish that?

I do think Rice's case tests the limits of sabermetrics somewhat. I'm not sold on his candidacy, except to say that I'd rather have Tony Oliva in than Rice. But Rice's case dos show that sabermetric analysis isn't always exact, either.

[curveball]

I don't see how that would be a knock against sabermetrics.

Is it better to strike out or ground into a double play? That was a good question you brought up. I don't know the answer. On the surface, it would seem obvious that it would be better to strike out because that only results in one out, as opposed to two outs for the double play. Striking out doesn't give the base runners a chance to advance though.

How can this question be answered. It can only be answered with detailed analysis, and isn't that what sabermetrics tries to do?

[BoofBonser26]

I don't see how that would be a knock against sabermetrics.

Is it better to strike out or ground into a double play? That was a good question you brought up. I don't know the answer. On the surface, it would seem obvious that it would be better to strike out because that only results in one out, as opposed to two outs for the double play. Striking out doesn't give the base runners a chance to advance though.

How can this question be answered. It can only be answered with detailed analysis, and isn't that what sabermetrics tries to do?
Over the course of a long season, I remember reading the results of a study which said that there's no real disadvantage to striking out, because this cancels out the results of the far more rare but far more damaging GDP.

[BoofBonser26]

I found this on another forum where Rice was being discussed and found it highly interesting:

To wit: In Rice's best years, from 1975 to 1986, there were 173 seasons where a player had an OPS+ of 140 or better, where in the past 12 years, it was done 268 times. That seems like a significant difference to me.

Now it may be that that era just didn't have truly dominant hitters, and a whole crop of truly dominant hitters has played in the past 10-15 years. But another possibility is that OPS+ is flawed in some way -- specifically, that it's too linear, based on comparing the OBP and slugging to league averages as simple ratios. But what if simple ratios are not reflective of the real differences in ability? What if it was really harder to produce a 140+ OPS+ season in 1980 than it was in 2000?

[J W]

Cedeno probably deserves it, the Astrodome screwed up his career, Jimmie Wynn however definately deserves it. Also why do you think Puckett was better than Bernie?

I think they're about the same actually. I was comparing Puckett, not Williams, to Rice. It seems sometimes like we're splitting hairs with players of their caliber to me -- and yet some get an incredibly higher level of support than others.

I am in total agreement with Rob Neyer: how could someone vote for Jim Rice and not Dale Murphy? Roughly the same tenure, OPS+ in the 120s, Rice the better hitter, Murphy the better defender? Murphy has little time left and is waaaay behind Rice.

And honestly, what is the big difference between Rice and Dave Parker? A few home runs? Parker played three more seasons than Rice and drug his rate stats down because of it. He hit less home runs and more doubles, and both ended up with around 1500 RBI. Both won a single MVP award and finished several times in the top five. Parker was a slightly better defender and had a tremendous arm. He had his issues just like Rice did. I say any writer who votes for Rice and not Parker is on the bandwagon started by people with a Yanks/Sawx double standard. But here we are nonetheless:

Rice 72.2%
Parker 15.1%

:shrug:

[Fuzzy Bear]

And honestly, what is the big difference between Rice and Dave Parker? A few home runs? Parker played three more seasons than Rice and drug his rate stats down because of it. He hit less home runs and more doubles, and both ended up with around 1500 RBI. Both won a single MVP award and finished several times in the top five. Parker was a slightly better defender and had a tremendous arm. He had his issues just like Rice did. I say any writer who votes for Rice and not Parker is on the bandwagon started by people with a Yanks/Sawx double standard. But here we are nonetheless:

Rice 72.2%
Parker 15.1%

:shrug:

The difference is that Parker ruined a HOF career with a 3 year "time out for drugs" in the early 1980s. This accounts for the difference between Parker and Rice.

[Los Bravos]

I think of those two guys as being about even, myself. I might even give The Cobra half a point for that defensive uptick and his more active leadership skills.

[willshad]

how exactly is avoiding grounding into a double play a 'skill', and getting RBI NOT a skill? was Rice supposed to say 'hmm im slow and theres a guy on first with less than 2 outs...id better strike out on purpose so they cant get the double play...' That's ridiculous. As a hitter you get your pitch, you swing at it, hit it hard, and sometimes it's a hit and usually it is not. Are guys supposed to hit differently in double play situations? If this is a skill, can it not also be a skill to hit differently in RBI situations?

[willshad]

Mays, Aaron, F-Robby, Mantle, Pedro...

You aren't just talking about HOFers here - you are talking about top tier, "inner circle" HOFers.

Then what about Howard himself? He managed to hit at a hall of fame level for 3 seasons in a row, despite bad 'conditions' for hitters. Maybe if he were a true hall of famer he could have continued that pace maybe a couple more seasons, or developed into a top level player sooner.

[philkid3]

how exactly is avoiding grounding into a double play a 'skill', and getting RBI NOT a skill? was Rice supposed to say 'hmm im slow and theres a guy on first with less than 2 outs...id better strike out on purpose so they cant get the double play...' That's ridiculous. As a hitter you get your pitch, you swing at it, hit it hard, and sometimes it's a hit and usually it is not. Are guys supposed to hit differently in double play situations? If this is a skill, can it not also be a skill to hit differently in RBI situations?

If your argument is that getting RBIs is a skill and hitting differently in RBI situations is a skill (valid argument), that still doesn't make looking at RBIs worth anyone's time. You'd need to direct your attention towards soemthing like success rates with runners on.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If your argument is that getting RBIs is a skill and hitting differently in RBI situations is a skill (valid argument), that still doesn't make looking at RBIs worth anyone's time. You'd need to direct your attention towards soemthing like success rates with runners on.

Rice was slightly more successful with runners on than with the bases empty.


Situation AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SH SF XI ROE GDP SB CS AVG OBP SLG
None On 4097 199 1193 169 37 197 197 310 0 714 22 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 .291 .344 .495
Men On 4128 1050 1259 204 42 185 1254 360 77 709 42 5 94 0 51 315 58 34 .305 .359 .509
RISP 2338 859 719 116 23 97 1031 263 77 429 28 0 94 0 27 136 16 9 .308 .371 .501
Close & Late 1260 197 345 52 9 52 213 121 32 239 7 5 14 0 15 39 10 2 .274 .337 .453
Bases Loaded 172 169 52 5 1 8 157 11 0 33 1 0 30 0 2 25 0 0 .302 .299 .483

[HOOTIE]

One thing is clear. With the HOF vote, and the countless Rice for HOF over the years, Rice is a cult hero. Has any player generated this much attention? One thing seems clear, Rice is the most overrated player in the last 30 years.

Most hitters with under 300 win shares are borderline HOF players. Just as a comparision, the much better Raines has (390) to Rice (282).

Rbis are one of the most overrated offensive stats. Team dependent unless you homer.


Rice career road splits (.789 ops) = Andy Van Slyke.

Don't put alot into MVP voting. Done by writers who went to school for journalism, not evaluating MLB talent.


Here is a look at the candidates using win shares.


http://seamheads.com/blog/2007/12/03/2008-bbwaa-hall-of-fame-ballot/

[digglahhh]

Rice deserves SOME discounting of his GIDP stats. A GIDP is not something Rice does all by himself; he also does it in conjunction with the runners on base ahead of him.

Rice was a power hitter who didn't strike out all that much; would he be considered a better player if we removed 20 GIDPs and replaced them with strikeouts? In a stat world, of course that would make him better. In the real world, if Rice struck out more and did less GIDP, he would have been a different type of player than he actually was, and that different type of player would have been less adept at putting the bat on the ball for a hit. That would have meant that Rice would have been hitting for a lower average , and hitting fewer ground outs that may have advanced runners, or even produced RBIs.

I don't know how you'd exactly adjust the stats, but Rice didn't choose where he was going to hit in the batting order. Rice hit 3rd in 882 games, 4th in 667 games, and the Red Sox weren't know for speed at the top of the order. Many of the GIDPs were hits that Rice hit hard, on the ground; if they were not hit as hard he'd have also had fewer GIDPs, but, again, you'd have a different kind of player. You'd have a guy with less power. Would 50 less career HRs have made Rice a better player, and if so, how many less GIDPs would be needed to accomplish that?

I do think Rice's case tests the limits of sabermetrics somewhat. I'm not sold on his candidacy, except to say that I'd rather have Tony Oliva in than Rice. But Rice's case dos show that sabermetric analysis isn't always exact, either.

I think you're off base here.

My post didn't consist of "sabermetric analysis," unless you consider OBP some esoteric SABR construct.

I'm just saying that Rice made a lot of outs, and the fact that he was a "run-producer" by role doesn't mitigate that, in my book. In fact, it just points to the ironic misapplication of the term.

I said nothing about Rice's GDPs in my post. I'm on record, numerous times, downplaying the GDPs. I believe that if you are operating under the premise that RBI are contextual, then it is only consistent to consider GDPs circumstantial as well.

If Rice can't control if there's a runner on third when he hits a single, then he can't control if there's a runner on first when he hits a ground ball to the SS. He can try to change his approach in those situations, but that opens this discussion in a different way, so I'll leave that alone.

[AG2004]

I said nothing about Rice's GDPs in my post. I'm on record, numerous times, downplaying the GDPs. I believe that if you are operating under the premise that RBI are contextual, then it is only consistent to consider GDPs circumstantial as well.

If Rice can't control if there's a runner on third when he hits a single, then he can't control if there's a runner on first when he hits a ground ball to the SS. He can try to change his approach in those situations, but that opens this discussion in a different way, so I'll leave that alone.

I do see one important difference between GDPs and RBIs.

Given a player's other batting statistics and the number of opportunities available, we have formulas that give a good prediction of a player's RBI total. Most of the new information provided by adding indicates the number of opportunities available -- and this deals more with how good a player's teammates are than how good the player himself is.

However, given other offensive statistics and the number of opportunities available, we cannot make a good prediction of the player's GDP total. The new information GDP provides is not limited to the playing ability of teammates. Further, we can figure GDPs made per opportunities provided. This information tells us something new about the player in question, and thus has some value when we add it to the mix.

Rice may have not been able to control whether there was someone on first when he hit a ground ball to shortstop. But, if he was doing it more often per opportunity than other players who had similar offensive value apart from their GDP totals, that is an important fact to know.

[willshad]

One thing is clear. With the HOF vote, and the countless Rice for HOF over the years, Rice is a cult hero. Has any player generated this much attention? One thing seems clear, Rice is the most overrated player in the last 30 years.

Most hitters with under 300 win shares are borderline HOF players. Just as a comparision, the much better Raines has (390) to Rice (282).

Rbis are one of the most overrated offensive stats. Team dependent unless you homer.


Rice career road splits (.789 ops) = Andy Van Slyke.

Don't put alot into MVP voting. Done by writers who went to school for journalism, not evaluating MLB talent.


Here is a look at the candidates using win shares.


http://seamheads.com/blog/2007/12/03/2008-bbwaa-hall-of-fame-ballot/


I dont think anyone claims Rice is an inner circle hall of fame type. Ignroring the fact that win shares is terrible for comparing 2 players, you yourself claim that anyone with around 300 in a borderline hall of famer. If he is indeed a borderline hall of famer, he cant be THAT overrated...since thats about where most people see him (hence his showing in the voting). I think sabermetirc people just like to go against the grain for the sake of doing it. If Rice was an unknown during his time, or got knocked off the hall ballot the first time out (ala Will Clark, whose hall merits arent as good as Rice) theyd likely be saying how great he was. There are many far more overrated players than Rice the past 30 years. Tori Hunter is one that jumps to the top of my head . Derek Jeter is another. Just because Bill James says something that does not make it true.

[Cougar]

There are four OF who got on the ballot around the same time (mid-to-late nineties) and have been hanging around for several years since: Dawson, Murphy, Parker and Rice.

For the record, I'd put all four in the Hall. However, there are good arguments that Rice has the least impressive HOF resume...not a plus defender or baserunner like the others, lower counting stats for the most part, numbers inflated by Fenway, etc.

And yet Rice has had the most support -- setting aside Tim Raines.

This is paradoxical. I don't mind Rice getting in, as he presumably will, but I mind a little his jumping the line over these other fellows.

If you want to demerit Parker and Raines on the cocaine, well, that's your right. But it still leaves Dawson and Murphy who score pluses on the "character" clause. As pointed out above by Neyer and others, what's that about?

[ChrisLDuncan]

And honestly, what is the big difference between Rice and Dave Parker?:

The uniform.

[philkid3]

Don't put alot into MVP voting. Done by writers who went to school for journalism, not evaluating MLB talent.

Hey, a journalism major can still be an intelligent MLB evaluator. :mad:

[SamtheBravesFan]

Hey, a journalism major can still be an intelligent MLB evaluator. :mad:

Damn straight! :mad: *has a journalism degree*

[BoofBonser26]

Hey, a journalism major can still be an intelligent MLB evaluator. :mad:

Damn straight! :mad: *has a journalism degree*
I agree with you guys, but the original point still stands. MVP voting, although usually decent, is also usually off.

[Biofury]

Jim Rice is a borderline hall-of-famer. Borderline isn't good enough. Thats like refering to a team that "almost" won. But it didn't. "Almost" or borderline doesnt cut it. I hate seeing the Hall get water downed even more by players like this and then getting voted in because theres no one else on the ballot to vote for.:noidea.

If the player's not an obvious pick for the Hall, then he doesnt belong. If a bunch of voters have to stop and think and talk about what the player did and compare him to other "barely made it" types, then that is a sign the player is just "good" and not Hall of Fame caliber.

Its supposed to be the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of very good".

The only Rice going to the Hall of Fame is Jerry

[four tool]

The only Rice going to the Hall of Fame is Jerry

I knew he was the best, but the baseball hall of fame?:highfive::

[digglahhh]

I think sabermetirc people just like to go against the grain for the sake of doing it. If Rice was an unknown during his time, or got knocked off the hall ballot the first time out (ala Will Clark, whose hall merits arent as good as Rice) theyd likely be saying how great he was. There are many far more overrated players than Rice the past 30 years. Tori Hunter is one that jumps to the top of my head . Derek Jeter is another. Just because Bill James says something that does not make it true.

1. Nobody has said that Jamesian opinion is gospel, so you are arguing against a viewpoint that does not exist, or at least has not been stated.

2. Are you familiar with the term "cognitive dissonance?" It is a term that describes a tendency for people to conjure theories that explain things in a manner that fits their views, even in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary. Claiming that SABR-ites go against the grain for the sake of it is a prime example. Your grain is not the grain.

You are, in essence, insulting sabermetricians because your claim implies they are disingenuous, that they're true agenda (to fight for the little guy) is incongruent with their expressed agenda (to apply principles of the scientific method to the game of baseball in an attempt to create a different way to view the game).

Most people, traditional or SABR, feel that Rice is in the vicinity of the borderline. The fact that I have a pronounced and definitive opinion of Rice as not HOF-worthy does not mean that I do not see him as close.

I think you grossly overstate how far apart the two camps are on Rice.

[leecemark]

--I agree that even the most sabrminded person would be likely to agree that Rice is not THAT far away from being Hall of Fame quality. He would not be out of place amoung Hall of Fame Lfers. Certainly not up there with Williams and Musial or even Yaz, but comparable to the mid-level HoFer and definately better than some.
--Rice is in the class of guys of whom there are quite a few in Cooperstown - but also quite a few not in and never going to be in. IMO the perception of Rice as a great player when active lifts him into the former category, even though strictly by the numbers that is far from clear and there are guys who should be ahead of him in line. The fact that Rice is such a popular candidate with the main stream media and fans of a less studious nature is what makes him such a flash point for by the numbers fans/analysts. They object to his vault to the head of the line and demonize him far worse than he should be strictly on his merits. To anybody do a serious comparison of their value it is an outrage that Rice got 3 times the support of Raines this year - even though he is a reasonable canddidate when examined strictly on his own merits.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Jim Rice is a borderline hall-of-famer. Borderline isn't good enough. Thats like refering to a team that "almost" won. But it didn't. "Almost" or borderline doesnt cut it. I hate seeing the Hall get water downed even more by players like this and then getting voted in because theres no one else on the ballot to vote for.:noidea.

If the player's not an obvious pick for the Hall, then he doesnt belong. If a bunch of voters have to stop and think and talk about what the player did and compare him to other "barely made it" types, then that is a sign the player is just "good" and not Hall of Fame caliber.

Its supposed to be the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of very good".

The only Rice going to the Hall of Fame is Jerry


Did you miss him just falling 16 votes short a few days ago?

[leecemark]

Jim Rice is a borderline hall-of-famer. Borderline isn't good enough. Thats like refering to a team that "almost" won. But it didn't. "Almost" or borderline doesnt cut it. I hate seeing the Hall get water downed even more by players like this and then getting voted in because theres no one else on the ballot to vote for.:noidea.

If the player's not an obvious pick for the Hall, then he doesnt belong. If a bunch of voters have to stop and think and talk about what the player did and compare him to other "barely made it" types, then that is a sign the player is just "good" and not Hall of Fame caliber.

Its supposed to be the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of very good".

The only Rice going to the Hall of Fame is Jerry

--This would be fine if the Hall was half or less its current size. The truth is there are alot more borderline guys than obvious guys in Cooperstown. To start applying a much higher standard now is grossly unfair to modern players.

[OleMissCub]

I just cannot get over that 83.2 WARP3. That's such unmitigated crap. That's basically David Justice.

[leecemark]

--Well it could be that WARP3 is what is crap. Rice's score in that metric has fallen about 20% since he retired. Justice was never the player Rice was and if BP's timeline adjustment makes it seem so then that is a flaw in their methods. I don't make this point just to defend Rice. It doesn't make sense for many (most?) players.

[OleMissCub]

--Well it could be that WARP3 is what is crap. Rice's score in that metric has fallen about 20% since he retired. Justice was never the player Rice was and if BP's timeline adjustment makes it seem so then that is a flaw in their methods. I don't make this point just to defend Rice. It doesn't make sense for many (most?) players.

Well, all I know is that his WARP3 is crappy mccrap when you put him up against the big contemporaries of his time. These are the WARP3's of some of these men through their first 16 seasons (the length of Rice's career)

Murray: 127.9
Yount: 118.9
Winfield: 112.0
Schmidt: 155.3
Jackson: 112.8
Brett: 116.9

Rice: 83.2

[leecemark]

--Thats why they were the no-brainers and he is borderline. Although I think WARP3 underrates this whole generation.

[digglahhh]

--I agree that even the most sabrminded person would be likely to agree that Rice is not THAT far away from being Hall of Fame quality. He would not be out of place amoung Hall of Fame Lfers. Certainly not up there with Williams and Musial or even Yaz, but comparable to the mid-level HoFer and definately better than some.
--Rice is in the class of guys of whom there are quite a few in Cooperstown - but also quite a few not in and never going to be in. IMO the perception of Rice as a great player when active lifts him into the former category, even though strictly by the numbers that is far from clear and there are guys who should be ahead of him in line. The fact that Rice is such a popular candidate with the main stream media and fans of a less studious nature is what makes him such a flash point for by the numbers fans/analysts. They object to his vault to the head of the line and demonize him far worse than he should be strictly on his merits. To anybody do a serious comparison of their value it is an outrage that Rice got 3 times the support of Raines this year - even though he is a reasonable canddidate when examined strictly on his own merits.

Co-sign.

Very good post, Mark.

[iPod]

Well, all I know is that his WARP3 is crappy mccrap when you put him up against the big contemporaries of his time. These are the WARP3's of some of these men through their first 16 seasons (the length of Rice's career)

Murray: 127.9
Yount: 118.9
Winfield: 112.0
Schmidt: 155.3
Jackson: 112.8
Brett: 116.9

Rice: 83.2

Where are you getting those totals? I can never seem to find an online database that captures WARP3.

[OleMissCub]

Where are you getting those totals? I can never seem to find an online database that captures WARP3.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/

Just do a search for the player.

[AstrosFan]

Here's one of my favorites *sarcasm:

Tim Raines: 123.9 WARP3.

Oh yeah, got less than a third of the votes Rice did. Thank you BBWAA.

[OleMissCub]

Here's one of my favorites *sarcasm:

Tim Raines: 123.9 WARP3.

Oh yeah, got less than a third of the votes Rice did. Thank you BBWAA.


Complete travesty. Check out Trammell's WARP3 as well: 129.4

[Brad Harris]

After the next BBWAA election, all this will be a moot point.

[STLCards2]

Most people, traditional or SABR, feel that Rice is in the vicinity of the borderline. The fact that I have a pronounced and definitive opinion of Rice as not HOF-worthy does not mean that I do not see him as close.

I think you grossly overstate how far apart the two camps are on Rice.

Agreed, especialy when you consider the fact that up until next January at least, the non-sabermetric crowd has largely felt that Rice is undeserving as well.

[willshad]

Agreed, especialy when you consider the fact that up until next January at least, the non-sabermetric crowd has largely felt that Rice is undeserving as well.

I think most everyone , sabermetric or not, feels that Rice falls somewhere in between 'barely a hall of famer' and 'just not quite a hall of famer'. While the sabermetric crowd seems to think he was vastly overrated in terms of actual value, I would not believe that many of them would be so closed minded as to think that sabermetric value is the ONLY criteria to use. The fact is that Rice dominated his peers in terms of triple crown stats...he hit for power and average at a time when guys just didnt do that. From the early 70s until the early 90s you pretty much were a high average hitter or a power guy who didnt hit for average. Guys like Murray and Brett had decent power, but not quite as good as Rice. Guys like Schmidt and Jackson had power, but didnt really hit for average. Guys like Foster and Oglivie did it, but only for a year or two. Rice consistently hit for both power and average, and this uniqueness makes him a solid hall candidate, despite his lack of 'plate discipline'. And despite their ideas that players like Jim Wynn and Ken Singleton were actually 'better' than Rice, i dont think many would actually argue that they are more qualified for the hall than Rice is. Rice simply compares better to guys already in the hall than players like that do. And im not talking about win shares, or WARP3 scores..i mean actual numbers like hits, Homers, RBI , and batting average. Nearly 1500 RBI in a truncated career and in a low offense era is mighy impressive. He was like Joe Carter, except batting 40 points higher, and with even more power in a less offensive era. Im not saying carter is a hall of famer, or even close, but id imagine hed get much support if he was a .300 hitter for his career and/or had a .350 on base percentage.

[STLCards2]

I think most everyone , sabermetric or not, feels that Rice falls somewhere in between 'barely a hall of famer' and 'just not quite a hall of famer'. While the sabermetric crowd seems to think he was vastly overrated in terms of actual value, I would not believe that many of them would be so closed minded as to think that sabermetric value is the ONLY criteria to use. The fact is that Rice dominated his peers in terms of triple crown stats...he hit for power and average at a time when guys just didnt do that. From the early 70s until the early 90s you pretty much were a high average hitter or a power guy who didnt hit for average. Guys like Murray and Brett had decent power, but not quite as good as Rice. Guys like Schmidt and Jackson had power, but didnt really hit for average. Guys like Foster and Oglivie did it, but only for a year or two. Rice consistently hit for both power and average, and this uniqueness makes him a solid hall candidate, despite his lack of 'plate discipline'. And despite their ideas that players like Jim Wynn and Ken Singleton were actually 'better' than Rice, i dont think many would actually argue that they are more qualified for the hall than Rice is. Rice simply compares better to guys already in the hall than players like that do. And im not talking about win shares, or WARP3 scores..i mean actual numbers like hits, Homers, RBI , and batting average. Nearly 1500 RBI in a truncated career and in a low offense era is mighy impressive. He was like Joe Carter, except batting 40 points higher, and with even more power in a less offensive era. Im not saying carter is a hall of famer, or even close, but id imagine hed get much support if he was a .300 hitter for his career and/or had a .350 on base percentage.


Yes, your first statement seems to be the common ground all of us are taking on Rice. His lack of sexy counting numbers due to his short career hurts him with the non-saber crowd and his low OB%, (expressed by relatively weak OPS+) defense, ballpark advantage, and base running hurt him with the saber crowd. Either way, I hear nobody saying he wasn't a great player, nor do I hear anybody ready to place in upon the pantheon of greats. Very similar situation Dawson is in.

Well, thats one thing we can all agree on - Rice has a much better case than Joe Carter. Didn't somebody try to make a "Carter for the HOF" case a year or two back? What happened to that guy?

[willshad]

Im just wondering what would have happened if Carter had started his career a few years earlier (his first full season was age 26), and managed to get 2000 RBI, or very close to it. That would place him in pretty exclusive company.

[willshad]

--I agree that even the most sabrminded person would be likely to agree that Rice is not THAT far away from being Hall of Fame quality. He would not be out of place amoung Hall of Fame Lfers. Certainly not up there with Williams and Musial or even Yaz, but comparable to the mid-level HoFer and definately better than some.
--Rice is in the class of guys of whom there are quite a few in Cooperstown - but also quite a few not in and never going to be in. IMO the perception of Rice as a great player when active lifts him into the former category, even though strictly by the numbers that is far from clear and there are guys who should be ahead of him in line. The fact that Rice is such a popular candidate with the main stream media and fans of a less studious nature is what makes him such a flash point for by the numbers fans/analysts. They object to his vault to the head of the line and demonize him far worse than he should be strictly on his merits. To anybody do a serious comparison of their value it is an outrage that Rice got 3 times the support of Raines this year - even though he is a reasonable canddidate when examined strictly on his own merits.


I agree with you. I believe that sabermetric people try to put down Rice so much merely because he seems to be overrated by most people, and certainly was overrated during his time. If he had played in obscurity, gotten no hall of fame support, but had the exact same career, then I have no doubt that the same people who try to cut him down would all be saying how great he was.

[curveball]

I agree with you. I believe that sabermetric people try to put down Rice so much merely because he seems to be overrated by most people, and certainly was overrated during his time. If he had played in obscurity, gotten no hall of fame support, but had the exact same career, then I have no doubt that the same people who try to cut him down would all be saying how great he was.

I don't think sabermetric people are trying to put down Rice at all. They are simply stating that he was overrated, and perhaps vastly so. Had Rice played in obscurity, and been overlooked his entire career, then the sabermetric people would have claimed that he was much better than he was. I don't see anything wrong with that. Either way, I don't think they would have argued that he was a legitimate Hofer.

[willshad]

I don't think sabermetric people are trying to put down Rice at all. They are simply stating that he was overrated, and perhaps vastly so. Had Rice played in obscurity, and been overlooked his entire career, then the sabermetric people would have claimed that he was much better than he was. I don't see anything wrong with that. Either way, I don't think they would have argued that he was a legitimate Hofer.

I remember Bill james made a quote saying he was 'probably the most overrated player of the last 30 years', or something to that effect. Then he went on to try and argue that Roy White was better than him. Obviously neither statement is true, and James was merely trying to use hyperbole to make his point...that, when analyzed by sabermetrics, Rice is not as good as he seems. This singling out of Rice sure seems like trying to 'put him down' to me.

[curveball]

I remember Bill james made a quote saying he was 'probably the most overrated player of the last 30 years', or something to that effect. Then he went on to try and argue that Roy White was better than him. Obviously neither statement is true, and James was merely trying to use hyperbole to make his point...that, when analyzed by sabermetrics, Rice is not as good as he seems. This singling out of Rice sure seems like trying to 'put him down' to me.

I think James was trying to emphasize his opinion of how vastly overrated Rice was by comparing him to someone fairly oblivious like Roy White. I am not familiar with White or his era, so I would already have a bias towards Rice being better. Just because I have an initial bias and perception doesn't mean I wouldn't want to read another opinion or argument, particularly one that at least tries to use well researched data which I would expect from James.

Whether or not you believe White was better than Rice after you read his argument, I think the more lasting impression is that Rice is indeed vastly overrated, so to me he ends up getting his point across.

I think Nolan Ryan is one of the most overrated pitchers of all time. I still think he is a Hofer. I don't think Jack Morris has any business getting into the Hof. How he has even garnered 40% of the vote is unbelievable to me. I don't think I am necessarily trying to put Ryan or Morris down, I am simply trying to state my opinion, which I can back up with stats, that both players are vastly overrated.

[mtortolero]

...While the sabermetric crowd seems to think he was vastly overrated in terms of actual value, I would not believe that many of them would be so closed minded as to think that sabermetric value is the ONLY criteria to use. The fact is that Rice dominated his peers in terms of triple crown stats...
... Rice simply compares better to guys already in the hall than players like that do. And im not talking about win shares, or WARP3 scores..i mean actual numbers like hits, Homers, RBI , and batting average. Nearly 1500 RBI in a truncated career and in a low offense era is mighy impressive. He was like Joe Carter, except batting 40 points higher, and with even more power in a less offensive era. Im not saying carter is a hall of famer, or even close, but id imagine hed get much support if he was a .300 hitter for his career and/or had a .350 on base percentage.

Rice is overrated because traditional stats that are the main support of his case, as batting average or rbi, are overrated to qualify a player.
A player without any defensive value with negative issues as his GDP tendency, lack of speed running the bases or so huge difference in home/road splits, usually needs the use of hyperbole as "the feared hitter " to state the case and sabermetric crowd usually don´t like cases build around only in hyperbole phrases.

[Cowtipper]

These can be combined.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42860&highlight=rice