Jim Rice?

[NYYanks26]

Hi everyone, im new to the board as of today and I just wanted to see what everyones opinion of Mr. Rice's HOF status is. So, should he or shouldnt he? Thanks.

[southpaw]

i view him as being just short of hall-worthiness.

[Brad Harris]

Welcome to the board, NYYanks26!

Hope you stick around a while a treat us to some thoughtful baseball discussion. Please check out our "Baseball Fever Hall of Fame" threads and cast your vote in our current election. We'd love to hear your opinions!

As for Jim Rice, I guess the answer depends on what you feel the Hall of Fame's standards should be.

If you believe that only Ty Cobb, George Brett and Johnny Bench are the kinds of players we ought to be electing (not Ozzie Smith, Don Sutton or Phil Rizzuto), then Rice would be an automatic "no".

If you believe that there's room in the Hall for recognizing great player with shorter careers or very, very good players with really long careers, then you're probably going to say "yes" to Rice.

I've long felt that the Hall of Fame should be about the former, but realize that is is about the latter. So I've sat on the fence with regards to Rice for a long time. Just depends on the day you ask me.

Recently, however, I've been touting him for election by the BBWAA so you can put me down as a YES.

Rice was an outstanding player and one of the most feared sluggers in baseball in his prime. I think Rice deserves to be remembered as such with the honor of induction to Cooperstown.

[NYYanks26]

Since i first asked this question, ill throw my 2 cents in. Being only 20, I dont remember him as a player. However, from the raw offensive stats and stellar defensive numbers, i would certainly put him in. In an era when 35 to 40 HRs would lead the league more times than not he was at the top of that list 3 times as well as a nearly 300 lifetime batter. I thought being the best player or one of the top few for 8 to 10 years or more warrants easy election. I know i'll hear people complain about Rice as being not the nicest person around but neither was eddie murray or presently barry bonds. Im not going to compare rice to bonds cause there is no comparison. However, while he was the epitome of consistant, at both rice and murrays peak who would you be more afraid to face as an opposing pitcher? Yes I know the voters look at bottom line stats in which murray has it won by far but I definitely think Rice's total output is enough and his lack of election for the past 9? years is not fair by any means.

[Cougar]

I think Jim Rice should be in the HOF. However, he gets there pretty much solely on his bat; his defense was average at best. (I'm old enough to remember at least most of Rice's career.)

But Rice's offense is more than enough by all existing standards of HOF performance to merit induction. Peak value, career value, black ink...whatever you want to use. It's obvious enough that I'm confident he'll get in eventually.

[TXRangerFan]

Rice's numbers were much more impressive in comparison to his peers at the time of his retirement than they are now when compared to the numbers that have been put up since he retired.

I believe he was the player with the most home runs not elected to the HOF prior to Kingman.

I have long thought he should have been in the HOF and have wondered why he wasn't.....but as the years go by his numbers lose their luster at an astonishing rate even to his aredent supporters..I think the chances that he won't be elected grow greater...and to tell you the truth I lose less and less sleep over that fact as every year goes by.

No my big attentions are focused on Sandberg..it's a travesty he isn't in the HOF..I tell you it's amazing how quickly fans forget the differences in eras.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by TXRangerFan

I believe he was the player with the most home runs not elected to the HOF prior to Kingman.


A little hard to believe, seeing's how Kingman became eligible for the HOF BEFORE Rice.

[TXRangerFan]

Well there you go..see what the years to do numbers?

Maybe he had the most RBI of anyone not in the HOF..I know he had the most something at one point but dang if I can remember what it was.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by TXRangerFan
Well there you go..see what the years to do numbers?

Maybe he had the most RBI of anyone not in the HOF..

No, that would be Rusty Staub.

[TXRangerFan]

Hmmm maybe it was that he was the only guy with over 375 homers and 1400 RBI and a 298% BA not in the HOF..

Or maybe it was that he was the only guy to have lead the league in hits, triples, homers, SLG%, OPS, XBH and RBI and to win an MVP not in the HOF..

Or maybe it was that he was the only guy to lead the league in total bases at least 4 times not in the HOF.

He lead it in something..and BTW you didn't help Edgar's HOF chances :).

[Zeth]

Bill James pointed out in "The Politics of Glory" that you can make a group with arbitrary cutoffs like .298 BA, 375 and 1400 for just about anybody who was a good ballplayer and use that as a hall of fame argument. James did it, just to prove his point, making a couple of arguments for players like Frank White and Amos Otis.

I don't see that Jim Rice was a lot better than Reggie Smith, or Rusty Staub. Rice was a feared slugger, that's true. But hitting for power was about the only thing he did well.

Sandberg will get in, eventually. His qualifications are overwhelming. Then again, the same has been true of Ron Santo for a long time...

[Cougar]

Rice hit for both average and power exceptionally well.

The rest of his game was ordinary, true, but for a left fielder, that's basically all right -- the requirements of the LF position are essentially offensive. Defense and baserunning (of the sort you get from, say, Barry Bonds) is wonderful, but. generally, it's a bonus. (Shortstop or catcher would obviously be another story.) The offensive production is the baseline requirement, and Rice provided that plentifully.

Staub and Smith were both fine players (I'm not sure Rusty shouldn't get a look by Cooperstown), but Rice's peak production and career stats are pretty clearly superior, I think.

[Zeth]

Sure, Rice hit for power exceptionally well, and average too, I'll give you that. But take his road numbers and double them, and does that player look like a Hall of Famer left fielder to you, considering he's an average fielder and a poor baserunner? Rice has one of the highest GIDP rates in history, too, which is more important than people think.

If you want to see a man who has truly awesome hitting stats relative to his position and era, look up Vern Stephens. Most of the arguments that work for Jim Rice work for Junior Stephens, too. Rice had a longer career (Stephens drank/injured himself out of the game), but Stephens was a very good defensive shortstop. Neither, in my mind, is Hall of Fame worthy, because both were good players who were tremendously aided by Fenway Park.

[Cougar]

I've always been unmoved by the GIDP thing. Sure, it's really bad, but you've obviously got to be doing some awfully good things to compensate, or you won't stay in the lineup.

It's indisputable that Fenway helped Rice; I think the question is how much. I don't have his actual home/road splits; do you?

Anyway, I've always been a little leery of actually punishing a guy for where he happened to play. Teams acquire players that fit their park, and players tailor their games to their home field. It should be taken into consideration, sure, but one must be careful not to overdo it.

[Zeth]

Sure, you can't overdo it, but you can't ignore it, either. A player's home park *does* distort the perception of what kind of player he really was. In Jim Rice's case, it makes him appear at least a little better than he was. Now, if Jim Rice had hit .295 with 550 homers for his career, then obviously I wouldn't argue he shouldn't be a hall of famer because of Fenway.

But the thing is, Rice is a marginal HoF candidate even before you adjust for his home park. That's why, in my mind, when you take Fenway into consideration it moves him down a bit, into the category of not quite good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Don't get me wrong. Jim Rice can play for my team anytime, no matter what park I'm playing in. He was a very good player. But I don't think, all things considered, he was a great player.

(I only have the home/road splits in book form, and don't have the motivation to type them right now. They're not huge, not as huge as Gavy Cravath or somebody's, but they're big. I need to find a good place to reliably get this data, being too poor to purchase a CD with all the stats in history on it.)

[Cougar]

I guess that's where we disagree. I think Rice is a little better than marginal. His numbers compare favorably with HOF from any era. Look at the James ranking from baseball-reference.com:

Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (56) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 42.9 (116) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 147.0 (75) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Rice is a little low (not extremely low) in Standards due to his shorter-than-average career, but above average for everything else. I think he's hurt perceptually by his fast fade 1987-1989, but from 1975-1986, he was a monster offensive force.

[Zeth]

Yeah, everything you say about the raw numbers is right on target. I think where we're agreeing to disagree is on how much park effects has to do with that. Even the numbers you gave me... well, they don't qualify a guy to be an automatic Hall of Famer unless he's an extraordinary defensive player, baserunner, or something of the like. I still see him as marginal.

[TXRangerFan]

Originally posted by Zeth
Bill James pointed out in "The Politics of Glory" that you can make a group with arbitrary cutoffs like .298 BA, 375 and 1400 for just about anybody who was a good ballplayer and use that as a hall of fame argument. James did it, just to prove his point, making a couple of arguments for players like Frank White and Amos Otis.

I don't see that Jim Rice was a lot better than Reggie Smith, or Rusty Staub. Rice was a feared slugger, that's true. But hitting for power was about the only thing he did well.

Sandberg will get in, eventually. His qualifications are overwhelming. Then again, the same has been true of Ron Santo for a long time...


You are right..you can make up arbitrary cutoffs for just about anyone..and I am guilty of doing it and I get the feeling many do that when talking about certain players. ESPN is really bad about doing that BTW.

I think Rice's qualifications show beyond any arbitrary cut off though..His numbers have really lost their luster in todays era, they were much more impressive at the time of his retirement...

Leading the league in triples and HR in a career is an impressive feat in itself..what's the list of guys that have had that combo?

I know Sandberg did it..Ty Cobb, Willie Mays..but that's about it..maybe Musial..that's an impressive list for Rice to be a part of, arbitrarily cutoff or not..

Leading the league in total bases 4 different times in a career is equally impressive..no matter what method you like to use to judge players..Jamesian or more traditional methods..that stat is impressive.

I think it's pretty much a lost cause..even I don't get excited by Rice's totals looking at todays numbers...and as evidenced in this thread, I have forgotten quite a bit about why I thought he was Hall worthy in the first place..but at the time of his retirement, to me, he was a no brainer HOF'er...

I hope the same thing that happened to Rice doesn't happen to Sandberg...we say he'll get in..but it's been two years..two years and Sandberg still isn't in the Hall? That's stunning to me. What are they thinking?


A secondbaseman that was a HR champ? GG'er? Steals 54 bases in one season and hits 40 homers in another? Leads the league in triples..

No second baseman of any era does that..

Willie Mays and Barry Bonds don't even do that..

And he did it in the 80's?

I just wonder how I can be that out of touch with the HOF voters..I repeat..What in THE heck are they thinking..

Sorry didn't mean to high jack the thread..but I feel the same fate that befell Rice is also going to get Sandberg..

[fivemagics77]

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

[fivemagics77]

JIM RICE: 11th year on the ballot ... Played 16 seasons, all with the Boston Red Sox ... Named AL MVP by BBWAA and The Sporting News Player of the Year in 1978 ... Finished in top five MVP voting five other times: 1975 (3rd), '77 (4th), '79 (5th), '83 (4th), '86 (3rd) ... Finished 2nd in 1975 AL Rookie of the Year voting ... Eight All-Star teams (1977-'80, '83-'86); batted .200 in 20 ASG at-bats ... Led AL in HR three times (1977, '78, '83), RBI twice (1978, '83), slugging percentage twice (1977, '78), hits once (1978) and triples once (1978) ... Ranks 38th in career RBI, tied for 48th on all-time HR list, and tied for 40th in sacrifice flies ... Seven .300 seasons, four 200-plus hit seasons, three 100-plus run season (consecutively from 1977-'79), 30-plus doubles three times, 20-plus HR 11 times, 30-plus HR four times, 40-plus HR once, and 100-plus RBI eight times ... Two three-HR games (Aug. 29, 1977 and Aug. 29, 1983) ... Led AL in total bases four times in 1977 (382), '78 (406), '79 (369) and 1983 (344); his 1978 total of 406 total bases was the most since Stan Musial's 429 in 1948 ... Two AL Championship Series (1986, '88); batted .159 with seven RBI, two HR, and eight runs scored in 44 ALCS at-bats ... One World Series (1986); batted .333 with six runs scored in 27 WS at-bats.

YRS AVG G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB OBP SLG
1974-89 .298 2089 8225 1249 2452 373 79 382 1451 670 1423 58 .352 .502

[iPod]

I'd probably say no to Jim Rice, to be honest. He does get a decent amount of support here though, if memory serves.

To his credit, there is a solid argument behind him, and if he was selected it wouldn't be a bad pick. He was selected to 8 all-star teams and was in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times. I highly doubt that there are any non-Hall of Famers with 6 or more top 5 MVP finishes other than Rice, though I don't have any figures to back that up. I do know that players like Rickey Henderson, Frank Thomas, Mike Schmidt, and Ken Griffey Jr haven't done it, so even finishing in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times at all is pretty rare. He also has 33 black ink (49th all-time), and 176 gray ink (56th all-time), both figures well into Hall of Fame territory. Among his similar batters are Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. In his 15 years in the majors, he was most similar by age to a Hall of Famer 10 times. And, perhaps most importantly, for the period between 1977 and 1979, he was the most feared hitter in baseball, especially in 1978 when he was named MVP. Nearly everyone who saw him firsthand remembers him as being a great player, and he was a big reason that those Red Sox teams in the 1970s were as good as they were.

Players with at least 6 top 5 MVP finishes and at least 1 win:
Barry Bonds*
Henry Aaron*
Yogi Berra*
Willie Mays*
Ted Williams*
Stan Musial*
Joe DiMaggio*
Harmon Killebrew*
Frank Robinson*
Mickey Mantle*
Jim Rice

Not only are all those guys Hall of Famers, they're all inner circle Hall of Famers, with the exception of Killebrew. This list does strategically eliminate many players which are clearly better than Rice however, like Mike Schmidt, who won 3 MVP awards, played gold glove caliber third base, and has an extra 19 points of OPS+ on Rice but isn't in the group because he had only 5 top 5 MVP placings. Overall, though, Rice's showing in the MVP voting was very, very impressive, which is certainly a major point in his favor in my opinion, and is probably the #1 reason I wouldn't feel the Hall of Fame had been insulted if he ever got in.

Still, with all that in mind, there are plenty of reasons not to induct Jim Rice. First, his career OPS+ was only 128. I don't know how that ranks all-time, but nobody in the top 100 has one below 136. There are 29 retired players between #51-100 on the all-time OPS+ list who are not in the Hall of Fame, and 7 active players (Griffey, A-Rod, Chipper Jones, Bobby Abreu, Carlos Delgado, Larry Walker, and Jim Edmonds), some of whom will get to the Hall of Fame, some of whom won't. Rice's OPS+ is 7 points behind that of Gene Tenace, a catcher who hit .241 for his career and isn't within 10 miles of shouting distance of the Hall of Fame. It's 4 points behind Joe Morgan, who is in the Hall of Fame, but who was a wizard at 2nd base and stole nearly 700 bases. Its only 8 points ahead of Joe Gordon, who is also one of the best fielding 2nd baseman in baseball history, who was named to more all star teams than Rice (9), and who is not in the Hall of Fame. For a mediocre corner outfielder who doesn't run, a 128 OPS+ just isn't that impressive. And he was getting pretty much all of it from his adjusted slugging average, 1.236, which is measurably below Reggie Jackson's career adjusted slugging average of 1.283, which many people argued on the right fielder thread wasn't good enough for a pure slugger.

Even his peak isn't all that impressive, in terms of OPS+. His best year was his MVP year, 1978, when he led the league with a 158. After that, his best years were 154 (1979), 148 (1977), 141 (1983), 137 (1986), and 131 (1982). In his 16 year career, those were his only 6 years where he posted an OPS+ above his career average. A 158 OPS+ is pretty good, but its below the career OPS+ of 15 players, 1 of whom is eligible for the Hall of Fame but isn't in (Browning), and another who is only ineligible because he didn't play enough, but had he played enough wouldn't be in anyway (Orr). Rice only placed in the top ten in his league in OPS+ 5 times in 16 seasons. Kevin Mitchell, who had an OPS+ better than 158 four times in his career, had an OPS+ of 140 (12 points better than Rice) and won an MVP award of his own, became eligible for the Hall of Fame last year, received 2 votes, and was removed from the ballot. So, his OPS+, both in terms of peak and career, just isn't anything to get excited about.

Even if you just want to look at the traditional stats, which are summarized in stats like runs created and OPS+ anyway, and are inflated because of Fenway Park, he's still very borderline. He's got 382 home runs, 48th all-time and dropping. For a slugging outfielder in Fenway Park, its just not that amazing of a figure. Frank Howard also has 382 home runs with similar rate stats, but he played in Dodger and RFK Stadium in the 1960s, which is reflected in his much better career OPS+. Nobody wants to put Frank Howard into the Hall of Fame.

Rice did have many more hits and RBI than Howard, but Rice's totals in those stats aren't jaw-dropping either. He has 2452 hits, 91st all time. Ted Simmons, a contemporary of Rice's, had 2472 hits, was named to exactly as many all-star teams as Rice (8), and played catcher. Simmons isn't in the Hall of Fame. Ozzie Smith had 2460 hits in his career and was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his bat.

Rice had 1451 RBI, 48th all-time. This is a bit stronger evidence in support of him, since there are only a few players above him on the career RBI list who are not either already in the Hall or are locks to go to there. Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Dave Parker, and Rusty Staub are the only ones I see. Is he better than all those guys? He's better than Harold Baines, unless you really value longetivity. He's also probably better than the Cobra and Rusty Staub. But he's not better than Dawson, who was named to 8 all-star teams, won 8 gold gloves, hit 50 more home runs than him, stole 250 more bases than him, and also won an MVP award. And I wouldn't take Rice over Fred McGriff, who played respectable first base, hit 100 more homers than him, and has a better OPS+.

Setting aside his good counting stats, its important to remember Rice was a pretty one dimensional player. His career on-base percentage, .352, just really isn't that impressive, and it never rose above .384. He walked only 670 times in his career, while striking out 1423 times (49th all-time). And the thing that just kills me whenever I take a look at his stats is his GIDP numbers. He grounded into 315 double plays in his 16 year career, the 6th highest total of all time. #1-10 on the list had careers of 21 years, 23 years, 23 years, 22 years, 21 years, 16 years (Rice), 22 years, 23 years, 23 years, and 20 years respectively. I don't know for sure, but I bet Rice grounded into more double plays per game than anyone in the history of baseball, by a pretty wide margin. On the single season list, he holds the #1, #2, and #6 spots (36, 35, and 31). This led to a huge number of outs. In his MVP year, 1978, he was charged with 490 outs, which is not in the top 100 of all-time but its close. In 1984, when he grounded into 36 double plays, he was charged with 515 outs, 39th all-time. He made 6221 outs in his career, 95th all-time.

Its a close call, considering all this, but I just don't see some overwhelming, compelling reason why Jim Rice needs to go to the Hall of Fame.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Jim Rice retired in 1989 and is still not in the Hall of Fame. Rice's resume is very impressive with 2 silver sluggers, an m.v.p., 3 home run titles, 2 r.b.i. crowns, led the league in total bases 4 times including 400 in 1978, and 8 all-star teams in 10 years. 2450 hits, 380 homers, 1450 ribs. But was is the most telling and, surprisingly most overlooked qualification for hall consideration is the number of beast seasons. Whenever I check out a guy's career, that is by far the number that means the most to me. It separates the greats from the compilers. Compilers are guys that maybe hit a 170 hits every year, but play forever so they pile up 3,000 hits. A corner outfielder hitting in the middle of the order in Rice's generation would, for me, have to have a minimum of 90 runs, 180 hits, 25 2Bs, 25 HRs, 90 r.b.i., 90 walks, 285 AVG, and 375 OBP. To me, if a guy can get at least 3 of these qualifications in a season, he has himself a Hall caliber season. For example, 100 r.b.i., with 35 2Bs, and 195 hits is a H.O.F. season even if there are only 17 homers.

Rice, by my count, has himself 9 HOF seasons. I'll count 1982 since he's only 1 short in HRs and 2Bs. A very impressive number. Almost a full decade's worth of Hall caliber play. When you look at how big his biggest years were, which is also an important factor in my opinion, it becomes obvious that Rice is a no doubt about it hall of famer.

Since I have never heard anybody dispute Rice's credentials, is it safe to say that he's not in because the writers hate him personally? Or do any of you believe that Rice's career falls short?

[julusnc]

I have always felt Jim Rice is a worthy player for consideration for the Hall of Fame.

I would vote for him.

[The Dude]

I would vote for Rice as well. He's not an all-time great, but he's well above a border-line candidate IMHO.

One of the unlucky players iof the 70's and the 80's whose numbers were dwared by juicers and the juiced ball.

[abacab]

Rice's numbers are deflated by his era, but inflated by his home park, so it more or less balances. He was also a poor fielder. I feel he is borderline at best. I'd like to know why he has so much more support than Dale Murphy, a far superior candidate IMO. But that's off topic. If Rice was elected, I wouldn't call him a mistake, but I'd rather he was left out.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Murphy is most definitely a Hall of Fame player. Hell, if you want to run down a list of guys who deserve to be in but don't seem to have much(any?) support we can start with Dawson, Al Oliver, Keith Hernandez, Jim Kaat, and Don Mattingly. Come to think of it, who are your top 5, at the most, players who you feel are in legitimate danger of being overlooked for so long that they are eventually forgotten about and never get in?

Off the top of my head, mine is(in no particular order)
1) Keith Hernandez
2) Jim Rice
3) Dale Murphy
4) Andre Dawson
5) Bruce Sutter

[DoubleX]

Jim Rice retired in 1989 and is still not in the Hall of Fame. Rice's resume is very impressive with 2 silver sluggers, an m.v.p., 3 home run titles, 2 r.b.i. crowns, led the league in total bases 4 times including 400 in 1978, and 8 all-star teams in 10 years. 2450 hits, 380 homers, 1450 ribs. But was is the most telling and, surprisingly most overlooked qualification for hall consideration is the number of beast seasons. Whenever I check out a guy's career, that is by far the number that means the most to me. It separates the greats from the compilers. Compilers are guys that maybe hit a 170 hits every year, but play forever so they pile up 3,000 hits. A corner outfielder hitting in the middle of the order in Rice's generation would, for me, have to have a minimum of 90 runs, 180 hits, 25 2Bs, 25 HRs, 90 r.b.i., 90 walks, 285 AVG, and 375 OBP. To me, if a guy can get at least 3 of these qualifications in a season, he has himself a Hall caliber season. For example, 100 r.b.i., with 35 2Bs, and 195 hits is a H.O.F. season even if there are only 17 homers.

Rice, by my count, has himself 9 HOF seasons. I'll count 1982 since he's only 1 short in HRs and 2Bs. A very impressive number. Almost a full decade's worth of Hall caliber play. When you look at how big his biggest years were, which is also an important factor in my opinion, it becomes obvious that Rice is a no doubt about it hall of famer.

Since I have never heard anybody dispute Rice's credentials, is it safe to say that he's not in because the writers hate him personally? Or do any of you believe that Rice's career falls short?


At his best, he was one of the most feared and dominant hitters in the league, but he was a one-dimensional player who benefitted greatly from calling Fenway home for his entire career. He just misses for me, but will make a good VC candidate if it gets to that point as I feel he's in that tier of ambiguity with Ron Santo (who should unquestionably be in), Ron Santo, Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso, Ken Boyer, Vada Pinson, Joe Gordon, and a few others.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Rice's numbers are deflated by his era, but inflated by his home park, so it more or less balances. He was also a poor fielder. I feel he is borderline at best. I'd like to know why he has so much more support than Dale Murphy, a far superior candidate IMO. But that's off topic. If Rice was elected, I wouldn't call him a mistake, but I'd rather he was left out.

I have to say no to Rice. He was a terrible deensice player, didn't draw and walks and grounded in a huge number of doubles. Inereteing note. Rices career BA is over 30 points higher than Jose. "steroid boy" Canseco. Yet his Carrer OBP and SLG are lower than Jose's..

[leecemark]

--Rice was not a terrible fielder. He wasn't a Gold Glover or anything, but he was solid out there most of his career. Comparing his rate stats to Canseco is a little misleading too. The numbers for the league have jumped way up between Rice and Canseco's primes. Canseco was a great player for a couple years, Rice for a decade.
-- Well great hitter anyway. I don't want to get into another Reggie Jackson type debate on Rice's behalf. His skill set wasn't as broad and he didn't maintain it nearly as long. I certainly thought of Rice as a future Hall of Famer when he was active. Without taking park effects into consideration (and nobody was except in a vague and general way in the 70s) Rice was the best hitter in baseball in the back half of the 70s.
-- Looking at the numbers in a more scientific method takes some of the luster off Rice's accomplishments. He is kind of a grey area candidate for me now, but ultimately I think I'd have to support him.
-- How a player was preceived while active should be an important consideration for Hall of Fame voting. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Sabermetric Research.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Eddie Murray was a contemporary of Rice and put up 11 hall caliber seasons. Murray had 107 walks in 1984. Outside of that year, never got more than 86 and he only had walk totals in the 80s 3 times. Murray grounded into 1 more double-play than Rice(in five more seasons). Rice's career is certainly comparable to Murray's, although Murray is clearly the better player.

As for Ron Santo, I agree he deserves to be in. 5 gold gloves, 7 beast seasons, 9 all-stars in 11 years, 4 walks titles, and 3 times leading the league in times on base. Santo belongs.

[leecemark]

C : Bill Freehan (apologies to Ted Simmons)
1B: Kieth Hernandez
2B: Joe Gordon
3B: Ron Santo (best overall player)
SS: Alan Trammell
LF: Minnie Minoso (I'd also go for Magee ahead of Rice)
CF: Dale Murphy
RF: Andre Dawson
SP: Bert Blyleven
RP: Goose Gossage

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Rice was not a terrible fielder. He wasn't a Gold Glover or anything, but he was solid out there most of his career. Comparing his rate stats to Canseco is a little misleading too. The numbers for the league have jumped way up between Rice and Canseco's primes. Canseco was a great player for a couple years, Rice for a decade.
-- Well great hitter anyway. I don't want to get into another Reggie Jackson type debate on Rice's behalf. His skill set wasn't as broad and he didn't maintain it nearly as long. I certainly thought of Rice as a future Hall of Famer when he was active. Without taking park effects into consideration (and nobody was except in a vague and general way in the 70s) Rice was the best hitter in baseball in the back half of the 70s.
-- Looking at the numbers in a more scientific method takes some of the luster off Rice's accomplishments. He is kind of a grey area candidate for me now, but ultimately I think I'd have to support him.
-- How a player was preceived while active should be an important consideration for Hall of Fame voting. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Sabermetric Research.

In my Canseco-Rice comparison I was just highlighting that Rice has a BA over 30 points higher but he has a lower OBP. How bad does a player have to be at drawing walks to have a 33 point edge in BA and still have a lower OBP than the .265 hitter. Jose as never known for taking a huge number of walks but was able to overcome a 33 point gap in BA because Rice hardly drew any walks at all. Rice's career high in walks was 62. In most seasons he drew under 50 walks.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Eddie Murray was a contemporary of Rice and put up 11 hall caliber seasons. Murray had 107 walks in 1984. Outside of that year, never got more than 86 and he only had walk totals in the 80s 3 times. Murray grounded into 1 more double-play than Rice(in five more seasons). Rice's career is certainly comparable to Murray's, although Murray is clearly the better player.

As for Ron Santo, I agree he deserves to be in. 5 gold gloves, 7 beast seasons, 9 all-stars in 11 years, 4 walks titles, and 3 times leading the league in times on base. Santo belongs.
Actually Murray had 87 walks in 1989. :) Also Murray had 13 seasons in which he drew more walks that in Rice's best season. Murray has one more GIDP in almost 1000 more games played (937)...

[The Dude]

C : Bill Freehan (apologies to Ted Simmons)


I think you have that reversed. No matter how good we can claim Freehan's defense was, Simmons advantage in offense is too great. 95 to 30 in gray ink. And almost all of that for Simmons came between 1970 and 1983, when his main position was catcher.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Honus

Murray drew more walks than Rice, which is not particularly difficult, but his walk totals do not blow you away. My point is that the two are very comparable.

Rice did everything exceptionally well except walk and steal bases, just like Murray. Their careers are very similar with the only real difference being that Murray played longer.

Do you not think that Murray belongs? Because if you do, then you believe Rice belongs. I have a hard time keeping a guy out of the hall who hit for average, 2Bs power, HR power, drove in runs, and scored runs just because he didn't walk.

[therealnod]

I don't think Rice is in Murray's class, so I don't think they're quite that similar, and I'm not particularly sure whether or not Rice should be in the HoF. There are probably worse selections.

Player-------K/BB
Rice-------------2.12
Murray----------1.14

10 Most Similar Players (from bbr)
Rice
1. Orlando Cepeda
2. Andres Galarraga
3. Ellis Burks
4. Duke Snider
5. Joe Carter
6. Dave Parker
7. Billy Williams
8. Gary Sheffield
9. Willie Stargel
10. Chili Davis

Murray
1. Dave Winfield
2. Rafael Palmeiro
3. Carl Yastrzemski
4. Al Kaline
5. Frank Robinson
6. Harold Baines
7. Mel Ott
8. Reggie Jackson
9. Fred McGriff
10. Cal Ripken

And Murray did reach the magical 500 HRs milestone.

[Appling]

But was is the most telling and, surprisingly most overlooked qualification for hall consideration is the number of beast seasons. Whenever I check out a guy's career, that is by far the number that means the most to me. It separates the greats from the compilers.

A corner outfielder hitting in the middle of the order in Rice's generation would, for me, have to have a minimum of 90 runs, 180 hits, 25 2Bs, 25 HRs, 90 r.b.i., 90 walks, 285 AVG, and 375 OBP. To me, if a guy can get at least 3 of these qualifications in a season, he has himself a Hall caliber season.

Rice, by my count, has himself 9 HOF seasons.

Your standards for a "beast season" are a little lower than mine.

IMO a beast season would be to lead your league (regardless of the actual numbers) in three or more of these five key hitting departments: Batting Average, Hits, Homeruns, Runs Scored and RBI.

Since 1950 the battle for hitting leadership has been very competitive, and to have even ONE "Beast Season" after 1950 might qualify a hitter for the Hall of Fame -- especially if the career totals are "respectible". (Jim Rice 1978 is one of these Beast Seasons.)

Here is my list of who's done it after 1950:
* 1952 Stan Musial (BA, Hits, Runs) (Stan also did it in 1948.)
* 1953 Al Rosen (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1956 Mickey Mantle (BA, HR, RBI, Runs) (his triple crown season)
* 1957 Hank Aaron (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1961 Roger Maris (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1962 Tommy Davis (BA. Hits, RBI)
* 1963 Hank Aaron (HR, RBI, Runs) (only player after 1950 to have more than one "B-Season")
* 1964 Tony Oliva (BA, Hits, Runs)
* 1966 Frank Robinson (BA, HR, RBI, Runs) (triple crown)
* 1967 Carl Yaztrzemski (BA, H, HR, RBI, Runs) (triple crown)
* 1973 Reggie Jackson (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1977 Rod Carew (BA, Hits, Runs)
* 1977 George Foster (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1978 Jim Rice (Hits, HR, RBI)
* 1981 Mike Schmidt (HR, RBI, Runs)
* 1982 Al Oliver (BA, Hits, RBI)
* 1996 Ken Griffey, Jr. (HR, RBI, Runs) (still active)
* 2000 Todd Helton (BA, Hits, RBI) (still active)
* 2003 Albert Pujols (BA, Hits, Runs) (still active)

Most of the players listed above are already enshrined (these names are underlined) -- and for each of the others who is eligible, someone in this forum has already made a strong case for induction.

BTW: Prior to 1950 it was much more common for a "superstar" to have multiple seasons in which he led his league in three or more of these key hitting departments. Here is my "short list" of those who did it three or more times:
Ty Cobb (5); Babe Ruth (7); Rogers Hornsby (4); Chuck Klein (3); and Ted Williams (4). All Hall of Famers for sure!

AND YET ANOTHER ROUTE TO THE HALL:
Another achievement which IMO might also be classified as a "Beast Season" would be to set a new league record in any one of these five departments.
I found just four of these since 1950:
* 1961 Roger Maris (61 homeruns)
* 1998 Mark McGwire (70 homeruns)
* 2001 Barry Bonds (73 homeruns)
* 2004 Ichiro Suzuki (262 hits)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus

Murray drew more walks than Rice, which is not particularly difficult, but his walk totals do not blow you away. My point is that the two are very comparable.

Rice did everything exceptionally well except walk and steal bases, just like Murray. Their careers are very similar with the only real difference being that Murray played longer.

Do you not think that Murray belongs? Because if you do, then you believe Rice belongs. I have a hard time keeping a guy out of the hall who hit for average, 2Bs power, HR power, drove in runs, and scored runs just because he didn't walk.

Their OBPs are pretty close so that's a moot point. However Murray played much longer which is characteristic of a great player. Murray lasted much longer because he had a greater breath of skills to use. Rice's last good season was at age 33. Murray's last good season was at 39. At an age when Rice was long retired, Murray was still a productive player. I'd agree that their peaks were comparable but their career values were not. Rice just didn't age well at all. He was great in his 20s but after age 30 he wasn't that good, except for 1986.

I never said he wasn't a good player, he was, but does he offer that George Foster doesn't offer...

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Appling

I consider myself to be something of a tough grader, admittedly not nearly the toughest, but your criteria for an acceptable season is a little harsh. There are a handful of guys currently enshrined that I would like to unenshrine(eppa rixey, bill mazeroski, to name two), but your criteria excludes the likes of Mays, Ted Williams, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor and on and on it goes. Guys with endeniable hall candidacy are given no recognition at all with what I consider to be an incredibly flawed system for you. When Ripken, A-rod, Piazza, and basically all of the greats under the sun do not meet the criteria, the evaluation system needs to be re-evaluated.

That said, leading the league in any of the triple crown categories has to qualify as good enough to count as a great season, in my opinion, so there is not a total disagreement.

Realnod

Murray is a cut above Rice. However if you look at their careers, the numbers are very similar year by year. Murray was able to sustain the high level of play for longer and drew a FEW more walks, thereby making him a cut above.

As for the baseball-reference comparative player ratings, I have never really understood or agreed with them. Ripken and Murray similar players?!?! Murray can't touch Frank Robinson with a ten foot pole, nobody in their right mind would say that Murray and Baines were similar players, and on and on it goes for seemingly every player they do that for so I don't pay those lists much attention.

Honus

I already said here that I agree with your point that sustained longevity is definitely a sign of excellence and that is basically THE reason that Murray is indeed a cut above Rice. I don't believe Murray is a borderline Hall member at all, which means players a level below him deserve to get in.

As for Foster, he is an interesting case of a guy with a huge peak, but not much in the way of longevity. I only give him credit for 4 Hall caliber seasons, although he does have about 5 good but not great seasons to add to that. 2 home run titles, 3 rbi crowns, led theleague in runs scored and total bases once apiece to go along with a silver slugger, an mvp and only 5 all-star teams. He is, to me, short of Rice for the same reason that Rice is short of Murray: longevity. I believe Foster to be a very borderline case. Today I say he's out, but ask me tomorrow and I may like what I see a little better(a clear sign of a borderline case).

You agree that Rice is a good player, why don't you find him a Hall of Fame player? You're obviously not alone because he isn't in, but for life of me I don't understand why. Is it really just because of the walks?

[stevethesoxfan]

Here's an interesting comparison.

Player A vs. Player B

AB 7244 vs. 7464
R 1071 vs. 1164
H 2304 vs. 2257
2B 414 vs. 343
3B 57 vs. 73
HR 207 vs. 363
RBI 1085 vs. 1338
SB 134 vs. 56
BA .318 vs. .302
OBP .360 vs. .355
SLG .477 vs. .514
OPS .837 vs. .869
TB 3453 vs. 3835

Now look at the above and judge who should be in the HOF, and who should not. Understand that Player A is a better fielder. The answer is below...
















Player A is Kirby Puckett, with stats of his 12 full seasons before an eye injury ended his career. Player B is Jim Rice, minus his September rookie callup and his last two years, when his skills had deteriorated (some say because of vision problems). A case can be made that Rice deserves to be in when comparing him to Puckett. You could probably expand this further and toss in Dawson, Parker and Murphy too.

[Appling]

Appling

... but your criteria excludes the likes of Mays, Ted Williams, Wade Boggs, Tony Gwynn, Paul Molitor and on and on it goes. Guys with endeniable hall candidacy are given no recognition at all with what I consider to be an incredibly flawed system for you. When Ripken, A-rod, Piazza, and basically all of the greats under the sun do not meet the criteria, the evaluation system needs to be re-evaluated.
As noted above, Ted Williams does meet this requirement. In fact, he had four seasons in which he led in 3 or more departments -- just none after 1950.

But to your larger point, I agree I should back up a little. I meant only to say that a single "Beast Season" (if combined with "respectable" career totals) should by itself be enough to merit serious consideration for the HOF. Even Joe DiMaggio never met my standard for a single "beast season". Willie Mays led the NL in batting average once, homeruns four times, and runs scored twice -- but he never led the NL in more than one of these departments in any single season. Players who lead in just two of these "key hitting departments" are often voted MVP.

I should not imply that even one "beast season" is needed to demonstrate HOF greatness.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Steve

Interesting to compare Rice to Pucket, although I would rate Pucket as better than Rice. Pucket hit for some huge averages and really piled up the hits and especially the doubles. Add on Puck's 6 gold gloves and, without diggingt in any deeper, these are a few reasons I see Pucket as a superior player.

Additionally, I agree that Dawson, Murphy, and Parker are all Hall of Fame players.

Appling

I find your single season tool to be interesting and it certainly can be useful in determining best single season performances, and separating the peak players from the compilers, but as far as criteria just to get in, it certainly helps to be on the list but I agree that I wouldn't consider it a necessity. My mistake for not picking up on the Williams reference. Sorry :)

Also, and this may be another oversight by myself, but where do you stand on the issue of Rice into the HOF? Do you think he should be in or out?

[stevethesoxfan]

Steve

Interesting to compare Rice to Pucket, although I would rate Pucket as better than Rice. Pucket hit for some huge averages and really piled up the hits and especially the doubles. Add on Puck's 6 gold gloves and, without diggingt in any deeper, these are a few reasons I see Pucket as a superior player.


I think they are quite comparable. You mention Puckett's doubles advantage, but it is only 71 (in my comparison), and Rice has 156 more HR (!!!) and 16 more 3B. I agree that Puckett was a far superior fielder, but I think Rice's power bat equalizes them.

It is a shame that Dawson isn't getting in either...

[Brad Harris]

Since I have never heard anybody dispute Rice's credentials, is it safe to say that he's not in because the writers hate him personally? Or do any of you believe that Rice's career falls short?

A substantial number of BBWAA voters evidently believe Rice's career falls short, though many of his detractors have publicly noted that it was a very close call for them to make. Rice continues to gain support with each passing year and I believe that he will eventually be elected by the BBWAA before his time on the ballot expires. This is all the more true considering the fallout with voters over the so-called "steroid era" of the 1990s. Rice stands out in contrast to the numbers of allegedly juiced stars the voters have recently been denouncing. It's very possible that he could be elected as early as this coming January.

[DoubleX]

I don't think Rice is in Murray's class, so I don't think they're quite that similar, and I'm not particularly sure whether or not Rice should be in the HoF. There are probably worse selections.

Player-------K/BB
Rice-------------2.12
Murray----------1.14

10 Most Similar Players (from bbr)
Rice
1. Orlando Cepeda
2. Andres Galarraga
3. Ellis Burks
4. Duke Snider
5. Joe Carter
6. Dave Parker
7. Billy Williams
8. Gary Sheffield
9. Willie Stargel
10. Chili Davis

Murray
1. Dave Winfield
2. Rafael Palmeiro
3. Carl Yastrzemski
4. Al Kaline
5. Frank Robinson
6. Harold Baines
7. Mel Ott
8. Reggie Jackson
9. Fred McGriff
10. Cal Ripken

And Murray did reach the magical 500 HRs milestone.

Not to mention the 3000 hit milestone and 1900+ RBI. Plus, you can throw in three Gold Glove award for Murray (which came at a time when being a good defensive first basemen actually meant something - see Hernandez, Garvey, Mattingly). OPS+ is also revealing, as Rice had a career 128 while Murray was a tick higher at 129 despite 3000 more at bats than Rice. Speaking of OPS, here are the top 10 OPS+ seasons for both players:

Rice Murray
158 159
154 156
148 156
141 156
137 156
131 149
128 140
123 138
123 136
121 135

Murray is ahead in every year, and the lead grows larger every year. Rice's one real claim to fame is his offense, but even during his peak years, he wasn't as good as Murray and certainly wasn't as good for as long as Murray.

So all things considered (fielding, longevity, statistics, peak performance), I don't think it's especially apt to compare Rice to Murray.

[leecemark]

--Of course if only guys as good as Murray were in the Hall it would be much smaller. Murray is in the top half of the Hall, while Rice would dwell in the murkier areas of Coopertown. The Hall of Famer he reminds me most of is Chuck Klein. Great peak, which was fueled in large part by his park. Klein's raw numbers are bigger due to the era he played in and the fact he was helped even more by the Baker Bowl than Rice was Fenway. However, I think Rice was the better player, if only by a small margin.
--Then again, many people think Klein was a bad selection for Cooperstown. If you like Klein you should also endorse Rice. If not, probably not. If you like one and not the other I'd suggest some additonal research into park effects and era adjustments.

[RuthMayBond]

Murphy is most definitely a Hall of Fame player. Hell, if you want to run down a list of guys who deserve to be in but don't seem to have much(any?) support we can start with Don Mattingly. Now lookee here, bo' :D

[Appling]

Appling

Also, and this may be another oversight by myself, but where do you stand on the issue of Rice into the HOF? Do you think he should be in or out?
I remember Jim's monster season of 1978 like it was yesterday, and that alone goes a long way to getting him into the Hall. I think he will eventually get there. But Ripken and Gwynn deserve to be there first -- and frankly, maybe McGwire too. I have a hard time supporting more than three in any year thru the Writers' door.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

I heard Bill Madden of the daily news in NY who has a Hall of Fame vote say that either this year or next(I forget which) will be Rice's best chance to make it since ther are really no new desireable candidates becoming eligible.

leecemark

Klein had a peak in which 6 of 7 years were outstanding with a good one mixed in. However, when you look at how great his best seasons were, six is plenty. Klein's peak was higher, but shorter than Rice's.

Ruthmaybond

I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about. How do you feel about Mattingly?

Steve

Rice's doubles were generally in the 25-30 range, while Pucket tended to pile them up betweem 35-40. I believe the two are comparable offensively, I just put Kirby ahead of Rice.

DoubleX

I'll say it again Murray was better than Rice. They both were premier RBI in the same league at the same time. Niether drew many walks or stole many bases. That is why I chose to compare the two.

Why does Rice just miss for you? Make a case against Jim Rice.

[DoubleX]

DoubleX

I'll say it again Murray was better than Rice. They both were premier RBI in the same league at the same time. Niether drew many walks or stole many bases. That is why I chose to compare the two.

Why does Rice just miss for you? Make a case against Jim Rice.

I thought I already did when dismissing the Murray/Rice comparison...

Basically, Rice was a one-dimensional player who benefitted greatly from his home park. For him to get in for me and overcome those obstacles, he'd have to have reached some milestones, say 400 homeruns might do it. He got close, but no cigar.

On the other hand, Murray is clearly in (while Rice is not) because Murray played pretty good defense in his prime and won three Gold Gloves, (when the league had a fair share of good defensive 1B); Murray reached several important milestones; and Murray's OPS+ was higher than Rice's, despite 3000 more ABs.

Here's another scenario comparing Rice and Murray (sorry to beat a dead horse):

Here are Rice's Triple Crown stats in 1978: .315, 46, 139 - A spectacular season by any measure.

Here are Murray's Triple Crown stats for 1990: .330, 26, 95 - A very good season, but not nearly as superficially eye-popping as Rice's '78.

So now to illustrate how greatly Rice benefitted from Fenway, which player do you think had a higher OPS+ in their respective years? In Rice's amazing 1978, his OPS+ was a career best 158. In Murray's "good" 1990, his OPS+ was a slightly better (and career best) 159. On the surface, Rice's numbers look a lot better than Murray's, but the OPS+ shows that the numbers aren't as great as they looked - they were boosted by Fenway.

Anyway, Rice is very close in my book, I just think he needed to have been a little more impressive for a little longer to overcome my two big doubts about his career (one-dimensional player who made the most of playing at Fenway). I think a more apt comparison for Rice would be Orlando Cepeda, and like Cepeda, I think Rice will make a very good candidate to be inducted by the VC.

[RuthMayBond]

Ruthmaybond

I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about. How do you feel about Mattingly?A lot of guys don't want Hernandez in with his 129 OPS+ and his four putout and five assist titles. Mattingly has a 127 OPS+, one putout title and NO assist titles. Mattingly's OPS+ is below WClark, Cash, Olerud, and Camilli.

[julusnc]

Don Mattingly will get into the Hall of Fame the same way as his good friend Joe Torre will.

A good sometimes great player but a manager of a New York Yankee Dynasty.

[Gooch]

I was a huge Jim Rice fan when I was a kid; he absolutely dominated the A.L. for a period of 4-5 years. I used to think he was a first-ballot HOFer... but now I have changed my mind. Despite his prodigious power, his HR supremacy didn't last long; his last good/great year was '86, after that he "mailed it in." Moreover, he was a one-dimensional player (great hitter, poor fielder, no speed) who benefitted from hitting in Fenway. 382 homers is good, but rather disapppointing, given his "superstar image." Lastly, the issue of character. From things I have read and heard, Rice was a highly unpopular teammate and treated virtually everyone badly. I realize "character" is a subjective term, but it should count for something! Overall, he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.

[plask_stirlac]

382 can't be a superstar? And I don't even think he was a poor fielder overall. Mediocre at worst, but pretty good in msot seasons. '76, '82, '85, and '87 aren't so good.

[Imapotato]

You need to look at Rice's Home -Road splits

Fenway made him a debatable HOFer, and even then not much so, he was a very good player

I think he hit slightly above league average away from fenway

[csh19792001]

You need to look at Rice's Home -Road splits

Fenway made him a debatable HOFer, and even then not much so, he was a very good player

I think he hit slightly above league average away from fenway
2B 3B HR OBP Slug OPS
Fenway 207 44 208 .374 .546 920
Other 166 35 174 .330 .459 789


And that's with many more at bats on the road, as all players end up having.

Rice is quasi-borderline because he played at Fenway. Playing in a neutral or pitcher park, and nobody would ever think to consider him for the Hall of Fame.

[dgarza]

I'm fine with Rice as a HOFer, Fenway or no.

[Chisox]

2B 3B HR OBP Slug OPS
Fenway 207 44 208 .374 .546 920
Other 166 35 174 .330 .459 789


And that's with many more at bats on the road, as all players end up having.

Rice is quasi-borderline because he played at Fenway. Playing in a neutral or pitcher park, and nobody would ever think to consider him for the Hall of Fame.

That's exactly the way I feel about it. He managed an OBP of 0.352 and Slug of 0.502 playing his career at one of the greatest hitters parks of all-time, as well as being the greatest GIDP hitter ever. I rank him about 30th among all-time LF'ers, not HOF material in my book. I think his non-election has made him a lot more desirable a candidate than he really was. If he gets in, I think it will be based a lot more on his "fame" from not being in. Just at face value, his totals are barely top 100, seasonal barely top 50 (and that's being generous), and percentages might crack the top 200.

[jalbright]

Here's how Rice finished in the Win Shares categories used in the latest BJHA among the leftfielders rated:
career: 30th
top 3 seasons: 26th
best 5 consecutive: 33rd
WS/162 games: 49th

For a 20th century player not affected by the color line, those are awfully low rankings at your position to be considered a HOFer to my way of thinking.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

6 top 5 MVP finishes and 4 in a row I believe, including a win...

Truly borderline though, in or out, either way I'm fine.

[csh19792001]

Here's how Rice finished in the Win Shares categories used in the latest BJHA among the leftfielders rated:
career: 30th
top 3 seasons: 26th
best 5 consecutive: 33rd
WS/162 games: 49th

For a 20th century player not affected by the color line, those are awfully low rankings at your position to be considered a HOFer to my way of thinking.

Jim Albright

Those career, top 3, etc make Rice look so much better than he was, because you're only looking at 1/9th of all position players.

More importantly, does Win Shares adequately account for the huge advantage Rice had from playing at Fenway? Doesn't seem like it does, looking at his career splits- away from that hitter paradise, Rice wasn't even great; he was simply pretty good for awhile.

Forget left fielders- where does he rank among all position players in career, top 3, best 5 consecutive, and per 162? Isn't that what the voters consider when we disucssing how viable someone is for the Hall of Fame? As far as career WS, he has 282- which would probably place him around 200th alltime. I doubt he'd do that much better in the other categories.

We already have way too many marginal and flat out underserving members (see Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey) whose inductions cannot be rescinded; we don't need any more.

[jalbright]

Those career, top 3, etc make Rice look so much better than he was, because you're only looking at 1/9th of all position players.

More importantly, does Win Shares adequately account for the huge advantage Rice had from playing at Fenway? Doesn't seem like it does, looking at his career splits- away from that hitter paradise, Rice wasn't even great; he was simply pretty good for awhile.

Forget left fielders- where does he rank among all position players in career, top 3, best 5 consecutive, and per 162? Isn't that what the voters consider when we disucssing how viable someone is for the Hall of Fame? As far as career WS, he has 282- which would probably place him around 200th alltime. I doubt he'd do that much better in the other categories.

We already have way too many marginal and flat out underserving members (see Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey) whose inductions cannot be rescinded; we don't need any more.


Hey, I agree with you. A guy should at least arguably be in the top 20 at his position in all but color line or wartime service type cases--and Rice isn't IMO. If you'd rather count overall numbers, that's fine, and while I share your sense of where Rice ranks, I'm not inclined to do those counts since I am already of the opinion he fails to measure up.

Jim Albright

[CyNotSoYoung]

Rice did have some great seasons and he was certainly one of the most awesome hitters for much of his career, but he hit into an awful lot of double plays, should have driven in more runs considering the team he had surrounding him, and faded very quickly past his peak. If he had been a fantastic defensive player during his peak hitting years (he was just OK), hit better with men on base, and been productive a little longer (at least 3 or 4 more good seasons) he might then be considered a reasonable HOF candidate. But as it stands now I would not endorse him.

[DoubleX]

I don't think Rice belongs, mostly because he was a very one-dimensional player and that one-dimension was given a huge boost by his home park. Had he called another stadium home, Rice's career might look more like Don Baylor's or Cecil Cooper's. Pretty good, but definitely on the outsidse looking in.

However, I would not be that upset if Rice made it because there is a large perception that he was among the most dominant hitters in the league for a good stretch (even though that large perception is generally ignorant of just how much Fenway aided Rice's career). Given the steroids backlash and the facts that Rice's time on the ballot is nearing an end and that there is a weak incoming class this year, I wouldn't be surprised if Rice comes very close to induction this year.

[Lindseynelson]

Jim Rice and Ritchie Allen and Albert Belle, in my opinion , all belong. Look, Rice was as feared a hitter for an extended period of time as anyone. he hit for average , power and was consistent. Allen and Rice are similar. Both were dominant, mvp type players who were not well liked. Doesn't change the fact that they could and did produce. Belle is , again, in my opinion, a first ballot. Belle put up numbers for 10 years the likes of Foxx and Gherig. Hold Cobbs off field actions as accountable as Belles and take a look. Belle was a wonderful batsman.

[Wee Willie]

Jim Rice and Ritchie Allen and Albert Belle, in my opinion , all belong. Look, Rice was as feared a hitter for an extended period of time as anyone. he hit for average , power and was consistent. Allen and Rice are similar. Both were dominant, mvp type players who were not well liked. Doesn't change the fact that they could and did produce. Belle is , again, in my opinion, a first ballot. Belle put up numbers for 10 years the likes of Foxx and Gherig. Hold Cobbs off field actions as accountable as Belles and take a look. Belle was a wonderful batsman.
Belle put up Foxx/Gehrig numbers for 2-3 years, but not for 10 - that's why I don't think he belongs. Career was too short, and his peak wasn't overwhelming enough when you adjust for era/home park.

[DoubleX]

Top 10 OPS+ Seasons (career OPS+ is in parentheses):

Lou Gehrig (179): 221, 208, 203, 195, 194, 190, 181, 177, 177, 177

Jimmie Foxx (163): 205, 200, 188, 186, 182, 182, 173, 162, 155, 150

Dick Allen (156): 200, 181, 177, 174, 166, 165, 162, 160, 151, 146

Albert Belle (143): 192, 178, 171, 157, 145, 139, 134, 123, 116, 109

Jim Rice (128): 158, 154, 148, 141, 137, 131, 128, 123, 123, 121

As you can see, offensively, Jim Rice is a far cry from Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, and Dick Allen, and even Albert Bell. Here's another look at these numbers:

Lou Gehrig had 11 seasons of OPS+ better than Rice's best.
Jimmie Foxx had 8 seaons of OPS+ better than Rice's best.
Dick Allen had 8 seasons of OPS+ better than Rice's best.

Albert Belle had 3 seasons of OPS+ better than Rice's best.

It's not even close to compare Rice to any of these guys.

[538280]

http://www.lostinleftfield.com/2005HallBallot.html

He starts on Rice about one quarter into it.

I don't support Rice for the HOF, but I must say this is making me take a much harder look at him. That is very interesting, certainly.

[iPod]

No Park Adjustment!

[538280]

No Park Adjustment!

I know, I know, I know. But, still, Rice is shown as quite a bit better than guys like Al Simmons (who also played in favorable parks). Plus, Rice played in a much stronger league than most of those guys.

[runningshoes]

Park Adjustment, Smark adjustment!

[Old Mike]

This latest photo is a great example. Note the overflow crowd in front of the left field wall. Fenway Park in the 1930s often held nearly 50,000 fans jammed in for big games. Usually they put the roped off crowds along the third base line and in front of the right field wall where the bullpens now are. Other stadiums also did this often in the 20s and 30s. I am not even sure when this practice when out of vogue.

So how to the stat boys ajust their park factors when infact the park factors changed game to game?

[mac195]

No park adjustment, no mention of defense, and this...

And what voters don’t seem to recognize is that Jim Rice,
despite the advantages of Fenway Park, played his entire career in one of the most
depressed run-scoring periods in baseball history.

... just isn't true. Rice's era was not a particularly low offensive period.

[KCGHOST]

Rice may be Hall worthy but the author does the classic fudging of the statistics to make his case. For example, when comparing Rice and Goslin he uses the era adjustment to his benefit, but ignores the park effect under which these guys labored (Fenway is Great while Griffith is awful) which would destroy his argument.

Unfortunately the line between HoFers and near HoFers is a gray one.

[l Stereotype]

Rice isnt Hof worthy at all. It's watered down enough, the lastthing it needs is a product of fenway inducted.

[NOMAR22]

Since i first asked this question, ill throw my 2 cents in. Being only 20, I dont remember him as a player. However, from the raw offensive stats and stellar defensive numbers, i would certainly put him in. In an era when 35 to 40 HRs would lead the league more times than not he was at the top of that list 3 times as well as a nearly 300 lifetime batter. I thought being the best player or one of the top few for 8 to 10 years or more warrants easy election. I know i'll hear people complain about Rice as being not the nicest person around but neither was eddie murray or presently barry bonds. Im not going to compare rice to bonds cause there is no comparison. However, while he was the epitome of consistant, at both rice and murrays peak who would you be more afraid to face as an opposing pitcher? Yes I know the voters look at bottom line stats in which murray has it won by far but I definitely think Rice's total output is enough and his lack of election for the past 9? years is not fair by any means.


I saw Jim Rice play in his prime and he was probably one of the most fiered hitter of his time. I would put him in the HOF.If Orlando Cepeda made i would put Rice to. I could careless if he was not a nice guy.

[vasprtsfn]

He retired just before I started watching MLB, so I dont have any memory of watching him play. But based onb what I read about his career, as far as I am concerned, he is a Hall of Famer.

[NOMAR22]

I'd probably say no to Jim Rice, to be honest. He does get a decent amount of support here though, if memory serves.

To his credit, there is a solid argument behind him, and if he was selected it wouldn't be a bad pick. He was selected to 8 all-star teams and was in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times. I highly doubt that there are any non-Hall of Famers with 6 or more top 5 MVP finishes other than Rice, though I don't have any figures to back that up. I do know that players like Rickey Henderson, Frank Thomas, Mike Schmidt, and Ken Griffey Jr haven't done it, so even finishing in the top 5 in MVP voting 6 times at all is pretty rare. He also has 33 black ink (49th all-time), and 176 gray ink (56th all-time), both figures well into Hall of Fame territory. Among his similar batters are Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, Billy Williams, and Willie Stargell. In his 15 years in the majors, he was most similar by age to a Hall of Famer 10 times. And, perhaps most importantly, for the period between 1977 and 1979, he was the most feared hitter in baseball, especially in 1978 when he was named MVP. Nearly everyone who saw him firsthand remembers him as being a great player, and he was a big reason that those Red Sox teams in the 1970s were as good as they were.

Players with at least 6 top 5 MVP finishes and at least 1 win:
Barry Bonds*
Henry Aaron*
Yogi Berra*
Willie Mays*
Ted Williams*
Stan Musial*
Joe DiMaggio*
Harmon Killebrew*
Frank Robinson*
Mickey Mantle*
Jim Rice

Not only are all those guys Hall of Famers, they're all inner circle Hall of Famers, with the exception of Killebrew. This list does strategically eliminate many players which are clearly better than Rice however, like Mike Schmidt, who won 3 MVP awards, played gold glove caliber third base, and has an extra 19 points of OPS+ on Rice but isn't in the group because he had only 5 top 5 MVP placings. Overall, though, Rice's showing in the MVP voting was very, very impressive, which is certainly a major point in his favor in my opinion, and is probably the #1 reason I wouldn't feel the Hall of Fame had been insulted if he ever got in.

Still, with all that in mind, there are plenty of reasons not to induct Jim Rice. First, his career OPS+ was only 128. I don't know how that ranks all-time, but nobody in the top 100 has one below 136. There are 29 retired players between #51-100 on the all-time OPS+ list who are not in the Hall of Fame, and 7 active players (Griffey, A-Rod, Chipper Jones, Bobby Abreu, Carlos Delgado, Larry Walker, and Jim Edmonds), some of whom will get to the Hall of Fame, some of whom won't. Rice's OPS+ is 7 points behind that of Gene Tenace, a catcher who hit .241 for his career and isn't within 10 miles of shouting distance of the Hall of Fame. It's 4 points behind Joe Morgan, who is in the Hall of Fame, but who was a wizard at 2nd base and stole nearly 700 bases. Its only 8 points ahead of Joe Gordon, who is also one of the best fielding 2nd baseman in baseball history, who was named to more all star teams than Rice (9), and who is not in the Hall of Fame. For a mediocre corner outfielder who doesn't run, a 128 OPS+ just isn't that impressive. And he was getting pretty much all of it from his adjusted slugging average, 1.236, which is measurably below Reggie Jackson's career adjusted slugging average of 1.283, which many people argued on the right fielder thread wasn't good enough for a pure slugger.

Even his peak isn't all that impressive, in terms of OPS+. His best year was his MVP year, 1978, when he led the league with a 158. After that, his best years were 154 (1979), 148 (1977), 141 (1983), 137 (1986), and 131 (1982). In his 16 year career, those were his only 6 years where he posted an OPS+ above his career average. A 158 OPS+ is pretty good, but its below the career OPS+ of 15 players, 1 of whom is eligible for the Hall of Fame but isn't in (Browning), and another who is only ineligible because he didn't play enough, but had he played enough wouldn't be in anyway (Orr). Rice only placed in the top ten in his league in OPS+ 5 times in 16 seasons. Kevin Mitchell, who had an OPS+ better than 158 four times in his career, had an OPS+ of 140 (12 points better than Rice) and won an MVP award of his own, became eligible for the Hall of Fame last year, received 2 votes, and was removed from the ballot. So, his OPS+, both in terms of peak and career, just isn't anything to get excited about.

Even if you just want to look at the traditional stats, which are summarized in stats like runs created and OPS+ anyway, and are inflated because of Fenway Park, he's still very borderline. He's got 382 home runs, 48th all-time and dropping. For a slugging outfielder in Fenway Park, its just not that amazing of a figure. Frank Howard also has 382 home runs with similar rate stats, but he played in Dodger and RFK Stadium in the 1960s, which is reflected in his much better career OPS+. Nobody wants to put Frank Howard into the Hall of Fame.

Rice did have many more hits and RBI than Howard, but Rice's totals in those stats aren't jaw-dropping either. He has 2452 hits, 91st all time. Ted Simmons, a contemporary of Rice's, had 2472 hits, was named to exactly as many all-star teams as Rice (8), and played catcher. Simmons isn't in the Hall of Fame. Ozzie Smith had 2460 hits in his career and was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his bat.

Rice had 1451 RBI, 48th all-time. This is a bit stronger evidence in support of him, since there are only a few players above him on the career RBI list who are not either already in the Hall or are locks to go to there. Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Fred McGriff, Dave Parker, and Rusty Staub are the only ones I see. Is he better than all those guys? He's better than Harold Baines, unless you really value longetivity. He's also probably better than the Cobra and Rusty Staub. But he's not better than Dawson, who was named to 8 all-star teams, won 8 gold gloves, hit 50 more home runs than him, stole 250 more bases than him, and also won an MVP award. And I wouldn't take Rice over Fred McGriff, who played respectable first base, hit 100 more homers than him, and has a better OPS+.

Setting aside his good counting stats, its important to remember Rice was a pretty one dimensional player. His career on-base percentage, .352, just really isn't that impressive, and it never rose above .384. He walked only 670 times in his career, while striking out 1423 times (49th all-time). And the thing that just kills me whenever I take a look at his stats is his GIDP numbers. He grounded into 315 double plays in his 16 year career, the 6th highest total of all time. #1-10 on the list had careers of 21 years, 23 years, 23 years, 22 years, 21 years, 16 years (Rice), 22 years, 23 years, 23 years, and 20 years respectively. I don't know for sure, but I bet Rice grounded into more double plays per game than anyone in the history of baseball, by a pretty wide margin. On the single season list, he holds the #1, #2, and #6 spots (36, 35, and 31). This led to a huge number of outs. In his MVP year, 1978, he was charged with 490 outs, which is not in the top 100 of all-time but its close. In 1984, when he grounded into 36 double plays, he was charged with 515 outs, 39th all-time. He made 6221 outs in his career, 95th all-time.

Its a close call, considering all this, but I just don't see some overwhelming, compelling reason why Jim Rice needs to go to the Hall of Fame.

WOW! How long did it take to look for the info and write this? In my Opinion JIM RICE IS A HOF.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

WOW! How long did it take to look for the info and write this? In my Opinion JIM RICE IS A HOF.
...Based on what evidence? Did you notice how iPod gave a long and well reasoned position as to why he doesn't consider Rice a HoFer?

[jalbright]

I don't use the same analysis as ipod, but I reach the same conclusion. My way is to look at win shares as a critical component of the evaluation, and to my mind, they sink Rice:

Rice finished 30th among LF in career win shares, 26th among LF in his top 3 seasons in win shares and 33rd in his best five consecutive seasons in win shares among the 100 LF listed in Bill James latest Historical Abstract. I don't think Rice's performance is HOF worthy because there probably shouldn't be more than 20 major leaguers from any one position in the Hall, and Rice can't crack that group. Rice's 282 career win shares is 213th best all-time per the Win Shares book, and since we have less HOFers than that who played in the majors (the Negro Leaguers are in as well), that leaves him outside. He needs something to move him up, and his peak win share marks don't do it.

He did faily well in the inks, HOF standards, all-star appearances and MVP voting, but I don't think they're enough to put him over the top in spite of his weaknesses in win shares, especially since those numbers benefit to a significant degree from his playing in a quite favorable home park. As further proof, please look at his career road splits: 1148 hits, 174 HR, and an avg/obp/slg of 277/330/459. Is a nothing great defensive left fielder with a .277 career average, 2296 hits and 348 HR (and a mediocre at best OBP) your idea of a HOFer? It sure isn't mine.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Jim Rice is the poster child for a player who looks awesome with a quick, dirty look at his stats. He's like a candy bar with a really colorful and attractive wrapper. But, once you start to peel the colorful wrapper off, and really look at him, you see the bar doesn't taste so good. When you take a closer look, he's not so great. The total player metrics do a great job showing this.

I must say, kudos to the writers, who almost always fall prey to the cute looking wrappers.

[KCGHOST]

Wouldn't it be nice if a newbie just once came in and did a search on the topic of his curiosity?? In this case he would have found numerous Jim Rice/HoF threads. All these come down to Rice doesn't have 75% support amongst the BBWAA nor the members of BBF.

[Goooooo]

The todd helton of his era. solid player who played in a hitters haven. Not hof worthy.

[NOMAR22]

Jim Rice is the poster child for a player who looks awesome with a quick, dirty look at his stats. He's like a candy bar with a really colorful and attractive wrapper. But, once you start to peel the colorful wrapper off, and really look at him, you see he's not a HOF caliber player. The total player metrics do exactly that.

I must say, kudos to the writers, who almost always fall prey to the cute looking wrappers.


Aren't you the one advocating Jim Wynn for the HOF? Jim Rice was alot better than Jim Wynn.

[538280]

Aren't you the one advocating Jim Wynn for the HOF? Jim Rice was alot better than Jim Wynn.

Let's just say Wynn was the opposite of Rice-dull wrapper but delicious inside.

[NOMAR22]

Let's just say Wynn was the opposite of Rice-dull wrapper but delicious inside.


You could of gave a better answer.

[538280]

You could of gave a better answer.

I could have (learn proper grammar), but I'm so sick of going over Jimmy Wynn. Search the archives if you really want to know my opinion of him.

[Chisox]

You could of gave a better answer.
O.K. I'll take it upon myself to do it for him.
Jim Rice put up great triple crown stats.
HOWEVER, he got out so often that they supercede his production enough to make him a questionable Hall of Famer just on the surface.
Combine that with his OBVIOUS HUGE advantages he received from Fenway and he couldn't field well, and his case becomes FAR less compelling.
That doesn't even take into consideration the LFs of the past 30 years:
Bonds
Henderson
Raines
who I would rank FAR, FAR ahead of Rice
and Belle, who most here deem CLEARLY better (if not by much.)
Basically Jim Rice is the Juan Gonzalez of his era (although I'll say Rice was a little better hitter, but Juan the better fielder.)

[W_Marone]

Does Jim Rice, 8 time allstar, 1 time MVP get in? He has 382 career homers, 1451 RBI, and a lifetime average of .298. OBP. of .352 and SLG% of .505.

I say put this man in the hall.

[Gee Walker]

Take away Fenway Park, put him in the 50's and 60's, and he's Rocky Colavito. Actually, Rocky was a better outfielder... and he isn't going to the Hall of Fame.


I think Rice falls into the category of "very good player" rather than "Hall of Famer". His peak was good, but brief. He doesn't have the raw numbers over a long period, either.

[runningshoes]

^^^ But you can't take away Fenway and put him in the 1950's or 60's, can you?

The man played where he played and he played there well enough to go into the hall of fame.

[leecemark]

--Rice was widely regarded as the best hitter in the game in the late 70s and early 80s. A deeper look inside the numbers reveals that overstates his true value by a considerable margin, but he is still at least a marginal Hall of Famer based on his numbers. Add in his fame and he should make it.

[Gee Walker]

^^^ But you can't take away Fenway and put him in the 1950's or 60's, can you?

The man played where he played and he played there well enough to go into the hall of fame.

OK, so let's let in Rocky Colavito, and Gil Hodges, and Norm Cash, and Joe Adcock, and Frank Howard, and Roy Sievers... and I'm sure there are more guys who put up numbers, in the context of their times, that look as good as Rice's. And most of them had to deal with a strike zone that started just above the dirt and ended just under your chin. And most of them didn't hit into a zillion double plays - Jim Rice's true specialty.

Records for hitting into the most double plays in a season... #1, Jim Rice - 1984 (36), #2, Jim Rice - 1985 - (35). He also holds the #6 spot...

[KCGHOST]

How many more polls/threads are we going to do before the word gets out Jim Rice is never going to get 75% of the vote??

[Sockeye]

Don't you know it is too early to start discussing Jim Rice for the HOF? We must wait until either A) He has been elected to the HOF, B) Is off no longer on the ballot, or C) Has died

So lets save this premature discussion for another 20 years down the road. :rolleyes:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Don't you know it is too early to start discussing Jim Rice for the HOF? We must wait until either A) He has been elected to the HOF, B) Is off no longer on the ballot, or C) Has died

So lets save this premature discussion for another 20 years down the road. :rolleyes:
Comparing someone who's actually on the ballot after a full career to someone who's only played five or six years is hardly apt in regards to what's premature.

[Taco De Muerte]

No. Dick Allen will never get in, and he's much more deserving than rice.

[Taco De Muerte]

^^^ But you can't take away Fenway and put him in the 1950's or 60's, can you?

The man played where he played and he played there well enough to go into the hall of fame.

His home/away splits have to be taken into consideration - He clearly benefitted a lot from fenway.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Jricej0010.htm

[Boston Boxer]

Take away Fenway Park, put him in the 50's and 60's, and he's Rocky Colavito. Actually, Rocky was a better outfielder... and he isn't going to the Hall of Fame.


I think Rice falls into the category of "very good player" rather than "Hall of Famer". His peak was good, but brief. He doesn't have the raw numbers over a long period, either.

well then, keep him in the 70s and 80s but put him in Coors Field. I don't think you can manipulate it like that

[538280]

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

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

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

Think about it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gee Walker]

well then, keep him in the 70s and 80s but put him in Coors Field. I don't think you can manipulate it like that

Hey, let's start a new thread: Dante Bichette for the Hall of Fame...

[AstrosFan]

Rice hit .277/.330/.459 away from Fenway. I can't see any way to vote those numbers into the Hall. Add in Rice's poor "little stats", and his lack of a great defensive reputation, and his case isn't strong at all.

[RuthMayBond]

Jim Rice was known to even his teammates/managers to not be a nice guy. Here's a quote from one of Rice's former teammates, Bill Lee:

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

[Rose4theHall]

I'll verify this from personal experience :grouchy

Lest we forget that the "character" of the player is also noted in the official HOF voting rules.

[538280]

I'll verify this from personal experience :grouchy

Why, what happened? You had a conflict with Jim Rice?

I don't hate Jim Rice at all, he's a very popular player among Red Sox fans (though I suspect more popular now than he was), and is a post game studio analyst for NESN, the local sports TV station that shows the games. He is generally well spoken and does a good job. But, I just don't think he's a HOF caliber player.

[RuthMayBond]

Why, what happened? You had a conflict with Jim Rice?
I went to an Indians/Red Sox game in the mid 80s that was rained out so there was nothing to do, and I saw the Bosox team bus at their hotel. I parked, went inside and looked around. Wade Boggs was waiting for one of the guys to get some wheels. He didn't seem real happy to see a fan but he did agree to sign for me. I was a big Rice fan at the time and someone said you could have the hotel call up to his room and leave him a message. I asked if they would tell Rice that I was a big fan of his and could I have the hotel take my baseball up so he could sign it, I wouldn't bother him in person. He refused to have the ball brought up to be signed. End of Rice fan club membership :grouchy

[538280]

I went to an Indians/Red Sox game in the mid 80s that was rained out so there was nothing to do, and I saw the Bosox team bus at their hotel. I parked, went inside and looked around. Wade Boggs was waiting for one of the guys to get some wheels. He didn't seem real happy to see a fan but he did agree to sign for me. I was a big Rice fan at the time and someone said you could have the hotel call up to his room and leave him a message. I asked if they would tell Rice that I was a big fan of his and could I have the hotel take my baseball up so he could sign it, I wouldn't bother him in person. He refused to have the ball brought up to be signed. End of Rice fan club membership :grouchy

I'm not a big fan of autographs, but that does seem mean to not sign the ball when it's coming right up to you and there's no one screaming in your face asking you to sign. If I were a professional athlete I don't think I'd be too keen on signing autographs either though.

[MudvilleMike]

I have mixed feelings on autographs. I have some nice memories of guys like Steve Garvey signing autographs. That should count for something, but probably not in a discussion about the HOF. Speaking of Garvey, I think "fame" and popularity is an asset, one of that should work in Rice's favor. He certainly made a bigger impact on the game than many HOFers. However, I am troubled by his away stats and DPs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Didn't we have a story not long ago about someone sending up a baseball to Rice in his hotel room after his career was over while he was in town for his sister's funeral? He actually signed, apparently. But he well may have had a no-signing policy during his playing days. I know he blew right by me a couple of times trying to get his signature at Tiger Stadium. He signed for no one. At least he didn't yell he didn't want to sign anymore, like Eddie Murray did.
I'm not making excuses for the, but maybe he simply didn't want to be bothered at all, he was busy.
I never put much stock into what Bill Lee ever has to say. He was a decent pitcher, but the only difference between him and Bill Walton in terms of self-opinonated, self aggrandizing ex-athletes is Walton unfortunately is on tv and was legitmately great at his craft.

[RuthMayBond]

If I were a professional athlete I don't think I'd be too keen on signing autographs either though.I guess, but you'd be keen on taking the salary that the fans help pay :D

[RuthMayBond]

Didn't we have a story not long ago about someone sending up a baseball to Rice in his hotel room after his career was over while he was in town for his sister's funeral? He actually signed, apparently. But he well may have had a no-signing policy during his playing days. I know he blew right by me a couple of times trying to get his signature at Tiger Stadium.I thought the fan approached him AT the funeral, which is beyond tasteless

[Captain Cold Nose]

I thought the fan approached him AT the funeral, which is beyond tasteless
Agreed, the fact someone once played professional baseball and was in the public spotlight is not an excuse to impose during a time like that. I wasn't sure what the specifics were.

[Seattle1]

I think Rice falls into the category of "very good player" rather than "Hall of Famer".

Yep, that's probably why he just can't get over the hump to make it in.

[digglahhh]

I never put much stock into what Bill Lee ever has to say. He was a decent pitcher, but the only difference between him and Bill Walton in terms of self-opinonated, self aggrandizing ex-athletes is Walton unfortunately is on tv and was legitmately great at his craft.

I know this is a little old, but I can't believe I missed this.

CCN, that is BBF Post Hall of Fame material, right there.:)

[willshad]

Its unbelievable how much one player's value can be lessened so much, just based on new 'improved' ststistical' methods of rating performance. I remember when Rice was playing, and for basically his entire career he was considered one of the very best players in the game. Even only 4 or 5 years into his career people were talking about him not as only a hall of famer but as an all time great...the Mantle, Ruth, Williams category. The hall of fame was a given. I admit the rest of his career didnt quite match up with his 1975-1978 performance, but he did manage almost 400 homers and a .295 batting average. Now remember, in the 1970s and 1980s it was RARE for a guy to hit 30 homers in a season and also bat .300 . I think it was only done by 5 or 10 guys in the entire 2 decades combined..and Rice about AVERAGED it for an 11 year span. This combination of power and average was almost unheard of at the time...it would be like a guy hitting over .350 with nearly 60 homers a year now, and doing it 3 years in a row...then averaging about .330 for 11 years with almost 50 homers. true, he was helped by his home field..so what? So was Chuck Klein, Mel Ott, ted Williams, Carl Yastrezmski, and many others. I dont see how that can really affect your worthiness...its not like Larry walker hitting .500 at Coors and .280 everywhere else. If fenway was so easy to hit in then why didnt everyone on the Sox put up numbers like Rice? I think he's the victim of statheads trying to make themselves seem smart by saying ridiculous things and manipulating stats to try and support it..like Bll James trying to say Roy White was better than Rice. Give me a break. I can't name 5 better hitters that played during his time..theres Brett, Murray, Carew, Schmidt, Jackson..Parker...those are the only ones even in his league, and none of them combined power and average like Rice did. Even after OPS+ adjustments, which clearly are biased against free swingers and guys who did better at home, he still has a respectable OPS+...and his most impressive stat..RBIs arent even counted in that statistic. I think some people need to understand that free swinging, run producing types are just as valuable as guys who walk a lot .

[RuthMayBond]

This combination of power and average was almost unheard of at the time...it would be like a guy hitting over .350 with nearly 60 homers a year now, and doing it 3 years in a row...then averaging about .330 for 11 years with almost 50 homers.Don't count on it

<Even after OPS+ adjustments, which clearly are biased against free swingers and guys who did better at home,>

OPS+ adjustments are hardly biased against Ruth or Mantle, and they are "biased" against guys who did better at home to ADJUST FOR REALITY

[willshad]

I know the adjustments arent biased against Ruth and Mantle...they are high walk guys, so they are overrated by those kind of stats.
You are misunderstanding my point..Im not saying Rice is as good as Mantle...but just because a guy walks a lot doesnt make him a better player...Mantle only drove in 100 runs in a season I think 2 times in his career..Rice was getting way over that year in and year out, in a VERY low offensive era. This is NOT reflected in the OPS+ numbers. Id rather have a guy drive in 139 runs as a free swinger then drive in 90 runs and walk a lot. These are cleanup men, not leadoff hitters.
I know Rice did better at home.....but the REALITY is that every one of Rice's teamates shared the same 'advantages' as he did, yet you didnt see them getting 40 homers and 139 RBI and batting over .300 every year. Lynn came pretty close a time or 2, thats about it. By any measure, Rice was one of the best hitters of his time, certainly top 10, maybe the best.
What I dont get.is why low batting average guys like Schmidt are defended because their high on base percentage makes up for their low batting average, yet relatively low on base percentage types like Rice arent defended by the fact that they are PRODUCING RUNS ANYWAY. Its a double standard to me.

[mwb]

In checking out Rice's stats, he had four or five great seasons. The rest of his career he put up solid numbers. Since his stats are very impressive for a 15 year career, I think he would have beneffited greatly if he could play another five years. While he wouldn't need another great season by HOF standards, he could have reached 500 HR's & 3,000 hits. His problem, given his numbers, is that his career wasn't long enough.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

He doesn't have longevity
He never reached an OBP of .400
His ballpark helps him out.

[flash143817]

I know the adjustments arent biased against Ruth and Mantle...they are high walk guys, so they are overrated by those kind of stats.
You are misunderstanding my point..Im not saying Rice is as good as Mantle...but just because a guy walks a lot doesnt make him a better player...
Yes it does. He's on base more and therefore produces more runs for his team.


Mantle only drove in 100 runs in a season I think 2 times in his career..Rice was getting way over that year in and year out, in a VERY low offensive era. This is NOT reflected in the OPS+ numbers. Id rather have a guy drive in 139 runs as a free swinger then drive in 90 runs and walk a lot. These are cleanup men, not leadoff hitters.


Your team will score fewer runs if you have a bunch of Joe Carter/Andre Dawson/Jim Rice clones. Also, the '60s for Mantle was a terrible offensive era. RBI are completely dependent on situation. Mantle rarely drove in 100 because he was so feared that he was walked in those situations, a lot like Bonds today.


I know Rice did better at home.....but the REALITY is that every one of Rice's teamates shared the same 'advantages' as he did, yet you didnt see them getting 40 homers and 139 RBI and batting over .300 every year. Lynn came pretty close a time or 2, thats about it.

Rice's teammates never drove in 100 runs because he was never on base to allow them to do so. Once again, RBI is a team dependent stat.


By any measure, Rice was one of the best hitters of his time, certainly top 10, maybe the best.


Certainly not by the OBP measure. By RBI maybe, but that's about the only measure.


What I dont get.is why low batting average guys like Schmidt are defended because their high on base percentage makes up for their low batting average, yet relatively low on base percentage types like Rice arent defended by the fact that they are PRODUCING RUNS ANYWAY. Its a double standard to me.

They are not producing runs at any better rate. They have more RBI because they have more AB's because they never walk. Their RBI/PA is probably about the same or lower. Also, they are making it more difficult for their teammates to produce runs by not being on base. So the team gain is negligible or non-existent.

Guys like Schmidt are producing runs at a greater rate for everybody. He gets his 40+ HR and 100+ RBI just like Rice, but he gets on base far better, despite his lower BA, so that his teammates can produce more.

[hellborn]

Rice was hated by many people in his playing days because it was well known that he was a major jerk.

Rice suffers in the face of serious statistical evaluation because having high OBPs correspond with teams scoring a lot of runs. Slugging helps a lot too, but Rice was usually weak on the OBP end (except for his best years, when his BA was high enough that his OBP was also pretty good). Rice's RBI totals were helped a fair amount by his home park and having good OBP hitters ahead of him in the lineup (but he was not helping the offense move along by getting on base a lot himself for most of his career). Jim also erased an ungodly number of baserunners with his GIDPs...you've gotta think about that before you extol his RBI virtues. You may think that it's a minor thing to have those GIDPs, but they're the best way to kill an inning, and Rice was really good at rocketing that ball to short on a few hops and killing an inning.
Rice was clearly an excellent player at his best, but his peak was short. He wasn't a bum by a long shot, but he didn't stick around long enough to pile up big counting stats, and I'll bet that a lot of writers still remember having to deal with his acidic personality ("I still get my check"). That's not going to help his HOF chances.
I'd take Dewey anyday...didn't have quite the peak of Rice, but he was a more balanced hitter with many outstanding seasons, was a better defender, and stuck around longer.

[Los Bravos]

I'll take Dwight Evans in almost any context, too, but I don't see it as a zero sum situation between the two of them. Personally, I find them both tremendously underrated.

Not being chummy with, or deferential to, writers shouldn't affect a guy's Hall chances. Yet Jim's is hardly the only case where it factors in.

[willshad]

well sorry but I dont see how you can defend Mike Schmidt, with a .270 average and .380-.400 OBP, and say Rice, with a .300 average and .350-.380 OBP is much worse..i think the difference in on base percentage is made up for by the fact that a hit is actually more valuable than a walk...if I knew i was a .300 hitter and my job was to drive in runs, then Im gonna swing...especially when Im driving in like 130 runs a year. The only differences i can see between them is Schmidt had a little more longevity, walked a lot more, but also struck out a lot more and didnt hit for as high an average.
dont try to sit there and tell me that Rice's teamates couldnt drive in over `100 runs every year simply because Rice, with his OBP of .350-.400 was causing them to have fewer chances. The simple fact is that he was BETTER than them.
I can kind of understand the longevity being a factor....but Duke Snider is in and he didnt play any longer than Rice...and lets not forget Kirby Puckett. They werent as dominant hitters in their time as Rice was. And dont try to group in Rice with Dawson and carter....hitting wise it isnt even close...those guys were struggling to have averages of .270 and OBP of .300 each year.

[Yankwood]

I do believe that Rice does get short shrifted at times on this forum. For a decade,Rice was the most feared slugger on the Red Sox and that has to count for something. Teams are put together with different type players and Rice's role was a run producer and he was very good at it. I think his accomplishments are borderline Hall of Fame. I think he's right there with Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda who are in. However I never like to use the "he's in so he should be in" theory of Hall of Fame qualification. Nevertheless, let us not compare him with Mike Schmidt. The difference is approximately 160 HRs and 10 Gold Gloves at 3rd base. Quite a difference I would say.

[jalbright]

I've merged a bunch of Jim Rice threads into this one, though there are a couple of others comparing him to specific players I let be.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rice, like Fred Lynn, was a guy who was looked at as a sure-fire HOFer in 1978, and a likely HOFer in the mid 80s. Then his BA dropped, and his career suddenly ended, supposedly due to an eye condition.

Had Rice not had the eye problem, he probably would have racked up the kind of milestones that put someone in the HOF. His retirement after the 1989 season was rather abrupt.

He was older than Puckett at the time of his retirement, and he didn't have the kind of defensive value that Puckett brought to the table. Puckett retired at his peak; Rice was already in decline.

Here's my position on Rice as of now: If Dick Allen isn't in, why should Rice go in? Whatever the flotsam and jetsam surrounding Allen's career, his stats are a TON better than Rice's, factoring in differences in parks and era. Ditto Joe Torre and Ted Simmons. We can also add Alan Trammell and Bert Blyleven, contemporaries who, quite frankly, had careers that were far superior to Rice's. Why not Frank Howard, who had comparable stats in worse conditions for a hitter?

I'm not saying "Never!" I'm saying that there are these guys ahead of Rice in line, and probably more.

[538280]

Others IMO who are clearly ahead of Rice, to add to Fuzzy's list, are Jimmy Wynn, Jack Clark, Ken Singleton, Reggie Smith, Norm Cash, Dwight Evans, Cesar Cedeno, Will Clark, Lou Whitaker, probably Dale Murphy, and maybe Dave Parker. Jose Cruz is probably about the same as Rice. Rice's OPS+, 128, isn't that special to begin with for a not so good defensive corner OF, but he's actually even a worse offensive player than that with nothing added on the bases and a TON of GIDP.

[538280]

well sorry but I dont see how you can defend Mike Schmidt, with a .270 average and .380-.400 OBP, and say Rice, with a .300 average and .350-.380 OBP is much worse..i think the difference in on base percentage is made up for by the fact that a hit is actually more valuable than a walk...if I knew i was a .300 hitter and my job was to drive in runs, then Im gonna swing...especially when Im driving in like 130 runs a year. The only differences i can see between them is Schmidt had a little more longevity, walked a lot more, but also struck out a lot more and didnt hit for as high an average.

Schmidt had a 148 OPS+ compared to Rice's 128. Schmidt was a much better hitter in the context of his time and park. Rice's OBP was .352 and Schmidt's was .380. It's not even close, and Schmidt put up his rates over a longer career and was one of the best defensive players of all time at a important defensive position.

[brett]

Ozzie Smith had 2460 hits in his career and was elected to the Hall of Fame despite his bat.


Rice was all around probably not as good an offensive career player as Alan Trammell or Lou Whitaker. That includes GIDP, steals, baserunning but no positional adjustment. Ripken was almost an identical raw offensive player through the same length of career.

Also, even his ballpark adjusted rates are 20% better at home than on the road.

[mwb]

Rice's numbers are pretty similar to two other players that immediately came to my mind as comparisons: Dave Parker & Bill Madlock. Both had great seasons in the late 70's & early 80's. But both fell short of having HOF careers. Rice has better numbers than both of them although Dave Parker did finish with over 2,700 hits while Rice had more HRs than Parker.

[digglahhh]

Schmidt had a 148 OPS+ compared to Rice's 128. Schmidt was a much better hitter in the context of his time and park. Rice's OBP was .352 and Schmidt's was .380. It's not even close, and Schmidt put up his rates over a longer career and was one of the best defensive players of all time at a important defensive position.

Yeah, just to piggyback on this.

You wanna let Schmidt hit at Fenway?... We'd be talking Mays territory with the career homers.

This is also a comparison between one of the best defensive 3Bs the game has seen and an average (if that) corner OF who played a quarter of his games at DH. Mike Schmidt is the best 3B of all time.


And as to Snider, Carter and Dawson. Snider was clearly better, it's not even close. Carter was a CATCHER, and a very good one. And Dawson, who I don't really support, started his career as a GG CF.

[mwb]

Comparing Rice to Schmidt isn't valid. Schmidt was a great HR hitter, even without all the Gold Gloves. He didn't do anything else offensively particularily well. One of the problems with Rice is he wasn't great in any one area (2,500 hits, 382 HRs). That's why he would have benefitted if he played another five years so his career numbers would have been HOF worthy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yeah, just to piggyback on this.

You wanna let Schmidt hit at Fenway?... We'd be talking Mays territory with the career homers.

This is also a comparison between one of the best defensive 3Bs the game has seen and an average (if that) corner OF who played a quarter of his games at DH. Mike Schmidt is the best 3B of all time.


And as to Snider, Carter and Dawson. Snider was clearly better, it's not even close. Carter was a CATCHER, and a very good one. And Dawson, who I don't really support, started his career as a GG CF.

Carter was CLEARLY the best player at his position from 1979-86, and by a wide margin. Carter may well have been the greatest defensive catcher of the modern era; he's certainly one of the greatest of defensive catchers.

Rice never enjoyed this kind of prominence at his position past 1978. Snider and Dawson were also CENTER fielders, Snider a CF for his whole career.

Rice would not disgrace the HOF, but if he were not a prominent Red Sox ballplayer at a time where their rivalry with the Yankees was heightened, we wouldn't be talking HOF here. Dale Murphy has a better case.

[willshad]

Um we are talking about JOE Carter here..someone grouped Rice in with him and Dawson, and i thought that was ridiculous...as hitters they arent even that comparable. However, I really dont see much of a difference between Rice and Duke Snider, to say that Snider is CLEARLY more quailfied for the hall of fame. Snider hit a few more home runs..but he also was overshadowed by playing in the same era as Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Mathews, Banks, Musial, Killebrew, Robinson, Colavito, Klusxewski, etc, all of whom hit 30 or 40 or 50 homers a year, while also hitting for average. Even his own teamates (Roy Campanella, Gil Hodges) did this on a somewhat regular basis. So while his OPS+ may be higher than Rice, I think he doesnt stand out as much as being dominant in his own time, simply because during Snider's time, guys hit 30-40 homers and also hit for average on a regular basis. This is shown in his lower total MVP shares, as well as lower black ink scores. other than that, they are VERY comparable players..both had about 5 truly great years, and 5 or 6 very good ones..about the same career stats, Snider walked a bit more and didnt hit in a hitters park (but played with GREAT lineups, which is just as much as an advantage, not shown in OPS+). I dont see how one is a clear hall of famer and the other isn't close.
And I KNOW that OPS+ takes into account the offensive era the players played in..and that Snider's is higher. The 50s and 60s may have been more pitcher friendly that the 70s and 80s, but i think that it doesnt SEEM that way, because there were far more STAR hitters during that time..guys putting up great numbers every year. I grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80s,and when a guy came along and could hit for power AND average we thought it was awesome....i only remember a few times each year someone would hit over 30 homers and hit .300..and once every few years a guy would hit 40 homers and hit .300. Thus, Rice was consistently one of the best 4 or 5 hitters in the game, when it came to hitting for power and average.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

Rice has OBP problems. Atleast Dale Murphy once had a .417 OBP.

[538280]

Um we are talking about JOE Carter here..someone grouped Rice in with him and Dawson, and i thought that was ridiculous...as hitters they arent even that comparable. However, I really dont see much of a difference between Rice and Duke Snider, to say that Snider is CLEARLY more quailfied for the hall of fame. Snider hit a few more home runs..but he also was overshadowed by playing in the same era as Aaron, Mays, Mantle, Mathews, Banks, Musial, Killebrew, Robinson, Colavito, Klusxewski, etc, all of whom hit 30 or 40 or 50 homers a year, while also hitting for average. Even his own teamates (Roy Campanella, Gil Hodges) did this on a somewhat regular basis. So while his OPS+ may be higher than Rice, I think he doesnt stand out as much as being dominant in his own time, simply because during Snider's time, guys hit 30-40 homers and also hit for average on a regular basis.

What are you talking about? OPS+ fully normalizes a player's performance in the context of his era. Rice isn't as good in the context of his era as is clearly shows by their OPS+s, 140 to 128. Snider also was a CF and a solid one while Rice was at best an average LF. Snider also doesn't have the problem of GIDPing nealry 25 times a year.

This is shown in his lower total MVP shares, as well as lower black ink scores. other than that, they are VERY comparable players..both had about 5 truly great years, and 5 or 6 very good ones..about the same career stats, Snider walked a bit more and didnt hit in a hitters park

Black Ink is completely useless. It uses stats that have very little relationship with runs scored like BA, hits, and such or stats and stats in a singular way (not realizing how they come together to contribute runs to the team). MVP shares are just opinions of the writers who are influenced mainly by interpreting stats in a way that is not correct and has been shown to be so such as relying on RBI which have just as much to do with the players around a player as the player himself.

(but played with GREAT lineups, which is just as much as an advantage, not shown in OPS+).

That's a complete myth. It's something that's thrown around as if it's true in favor of someone but there's no evidence to support it. There's no evidence that having better hitters around a player makes a player perform better on his own. Read this, both pages:

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Park/1138/protection.html



I dont see how one is a clear hall of famer and the other isn't close.

Snider was a better hitter than Rice in the context of his time. He has an even larger advantage at his peak as their top 3 OPS+ years are 172, 170, and 166 and Rice's are 158, 154, and 148. Snider was a solid CF, Rice at best an average LFer. Snider was all around better as a hitter and defender.

And I KNOW that OPS+ takes into account the offensive era the players played in..and that Snider's is higher. The 50s and 60s may have been more pitcher friendly that the 70s and 80s, but i think that it doesnt SEEM that way, because there were far more STAR hitters during that time..guys putting up great numbers every year. I grew up watching baseball in the 70s and 80s,and when a guy came along and could hit for power AND average we thought it was awesome....i only remember a few times each year someone would hit over 30 homers and hit .300..and once every few years a guy would hit 40 homers and hit .300. Thus, Rice was consistently one of the best 4 or 5 hitters in the game, when it came to hitting for power and average.

The thing is that Rice wasn't even close to one of the top 5 hitters in the game consistently. It seemed like he was because members of the media are and always have been infatuated with a statistic like RBI. They don't take into account a player's total contribution in terms of runs for how they move runners along (well captured in SLG) and get on base (OBP). They don't take into account the influence of a player's park on a player's stats. They generally didn't care about walks. They don't care about something like GIDP which means Rice was making almost 20 more outs a year through that (has an impact of about 15 points of OBP). You mention OPS+ as if it's somehow unfair to Rice, but the thing is that it actually considerably OVERRATES Rice as an offensive player because he added very little on the basepaths, had a huge GIDP rate, and gets most of his OPS+ from SLG which is overcompensated in comparison to SLG. A player like Lou Whitaker with his baserunning and GIDP rate and OBP is really about the same as an offensive player as Rice, despite having a lower OPS+. A metric like EqA which takes those things into account has them basically the same as offensive players; .295 for Rice and .292 for Whitaker. And that's even before you take into account defense where Whitaker obviously was a LOT better than Rice.

I don't think Jim Rice was even the best hitter in the league at his 1977-1979 peak. He was probably the best for one year, 1978. Ken Singleton though had OBPs of .438, .409, and .405 which were much better than Rice's and though Rice had better power, he also played in a MUCH better hitter's park. In context of the park Singleton was a better hitter with OPS+ of 165, 156, and 152 vs. Rice's 158, 154, and 148.

[willshad]

Call me crazy, but Id rather take Rice over Dick Allen. the thing about Allen is looking at his stats nothing really jumps out at you screaming 'this was a great player'. He was good at everything, not particularily GREAT at anything. He hit for good power..but other guys in his time were much better ( Killebrew, Mays, Aaron, Howard, etc)..he hit for good average, but other during that time were better (Rose, Clemente, etc)..he had good on base percentages, but nothing out of this world....drove in over 100 runs 3 times..nothing special for a first baseman. And pluas he had longevity and injury problems. I see only really 2 'hall of fame' seasons, and a bunch of other very good ones, in a short career. What jumps out at you from Rice is his RBI..not many players can get almost 1500 RBI by age 36...you get the sense he woulda had over 2000 if not for eyesight problems. Also theres how they were perceived in their own time..this has to count for something. Rice was seen not as just a hall of famer, but as an all time great hitter..I dont know about Allen, but i dont get that feeling with him..he was traded a lot, had troubles with teammates, and didnt put up monster numbers. He did win an MVP, but still i dont think he was seen as a hall of famer when he played. Anyone can confirm this?

[willshad]

Funny but I was alive during that time and i followed baseball VERY closely, and i barely knew who Ken Singleton WAS. JUST BECAUSE HE WALKED A LOT DOESNT MAKE HIM A GREAT PLAYER. I bet any manager or player during that time would tell you Rice was better and more feared as a hitter. Sure Singleton was a good player, but do you really want an outfielder with 250 home runs, barely 1000 RBI, and hiting .280 in the hall of fame? You have to be realistic. OPS+ isnt the be all and end all of evaluating players. Going by OPS+ then Ichiro must suck. The problem is that people have turned the tables too much, and have started to count sabermetric stats TOO much, totally discounting the traditional counting stats. Who cares if a guy has an OPS of 160, when he hit 25 home runs and drove in 90? Dont insult peoples intelligence.

[Yankwood]

Funny but I was alive during that time and i followed baseball VERY closely, and i barely knew who Ken Singleton WAS. JUST BECAUSE HE WALKED A LOT DOESNT MAKE HIM A GREAT PLAYER. I bet any manager or player during that time would tell you Rice was better and more feared as a hitter. Sure Singleton was a good player, but do you really want an outfielder with 250 home runs, barely 1000 RBI, and hiting .280 in the hall of fame? You have to be realistic. OPS+ isnt the be all and end all of evaluating players. Going by OPS+ then Ichiro must suck. The problem is that people have turned the tables too much, and have started to count sabermetric stats TOO much, totally discounting the traditional counting stats. Who cares if a guy has an OPS of 160, when he hit 25 home runs and drove in 90? Dont insult peoples intelligence.
Well. I'll agree there's WAY too much emphasis put on OPS, PPS, and all these other PP type numbers that anyone can invent (we all put importance on different things. Part of what makes it all so great is there's no cut and dried formula and thank God because how boring would that be). If there was, we could all make definitive lists for everything and no such discussion of this would take place. I happen to remember how good Singleton was and he was very good for a while but never great. I hated the Red Sox though, and as a Yankee fan, I was afraid of Rice.
Now maybe according to the anti-Rice committee on here, I shouldn't have been. Maybe he was like the Great Wizard hiding behind the curtain. But I don't think so. Simply put, Rice was the most feared slugger on his team during his prime which lasted somewhere between 9 or 10 years. It was not imagined by everyone who cannot carry a sliderule and figure out the latest fad numbers. He was real. Maybe that just wasn't long enough. Maybe he was the Albert Belle of his time. Not quite as bad of a guy but probably not as good a hitter either.
However, looking at the poll here, it is pretty well divided among the haves and the have nots. And I guess that's about where he belongs. Likewise, I believe that's where Dick Allen belongs. And that's where Santo belongs.And that's where I believe Cepeda and Perez belong. Some are in, some are not and although it may be just and it may be unjust, it is what it is. And it provides fodder for give and take, or arguments, or whatever this is called. In summation, he WAS feared around the league at that time and rightly so. So were the other guys mentioned. It's entirely subjective as to who gets in and most of these type players are at the mercy of the voters. If Rice and Santo and Allen were a little bit better for a little bit longer, they would be with Perez and Cepeda. Personally, I think Gil Hodges belongs in this tier too. But that's for another time.

[brett]

Call me crazy, but Id rather take Rice over Dick Allen. the thing about Allen is looking at his stats nothing really jumps out at you screaming 'this was a great player'. He was good at everything, not particularily GREAT at anything. He hit for good power..but other guys in his time were much better ( Killebrew, Mays, Aaron, Howard, etc)..he hit for good average, but other during that time were better (Rose, Clemente, etc)..he had good on base percentages, but nothing out of this world....drove in over 100 runs 3 times..nothing special for a first baseman. And pluas he had longevity and injury problems. I see only really 2 'hall of fame' seasons, and a bunch of other very good ones, in a short career. What jumps out at you from Rice is his RBI..not many players can get almost 1500 RBI by age 36...you get the sense he woulda had over 2000 if not for eyesight problems. Also theres how they were perceived in their own time..this has to count for something. Rice was seen not as just a hall of famer, but as an all time great hitter..I dont know about Allen, but i dont get that feeling with him..he was traded a lot, had troubles with teammates, and didnt put up monster numbers. He did win an MVP, but still i dont think he was seen as a hall of famer when he played. Anyone can confirm this?


Jim Rice was not a great home run hitter. He was a great "at bat getter" because he didn't want to walk, and he played in pretty good offensive lineups.

Rice averaged 21.5 at bats per home run!

Even in his best season he averaged 14.7 at bats per home run. Allen averaged one every 13.1 and 13.7 and had a better rate for his career.


At the plate and excluding extra outs from GIDP Rice had 1451 RBI and 4129 total bases while producing 5773 outs of his own.

That's 3.98 outs per RBI and
That's 1.40 outs per total base


Allen had had 1119 RBI and 3379 total bases and 4484 outs of his own. That's an almost identical 4.01 outs per RBI in a lower offensive climate and 1.32 outs per total base.

In other words Allen was an almost identical total base producer (slightly better) and almost identical RBI producer (1% lower rate) and a better home run rate producer, and that gives Allen zero credit for drawing walks in 12% of his plate appearances to 7% for Rice, and to Rice's 10-12 more GIDP per season.

Consider this, just based on his singles, doubles, triples and home runs (not GIDP, sacrifice flyes or anything) Rice produced an estimated 1749 runs in his 8225 at bats. Thats .212 runs per at bat. That is in the plate appearances where he didn't walk. A walk is worth about .36 runs!

[brett]

Well. I'll agree there's WAY too much emphasis put on OPS, PPS, and all these other PP type numbers that anyone can invent (we all put importance on different things. Part of what makes it all so great is there's no cut and dried formula and thank God because how boring would that be). If there was, we could all make definitive lists for everything and no such discussion of this would take place. I happen to remember how good Singleton was and he was very good for a while but never great. I hated the Red Sox though, and as a Yankee fan, I was afraid of Rice.
Now maybe according to the anti-Rice committee on here, I shouldn't have been. Maybe he was like the Great Wizard hiding behind the curtain. But I don't think so. Simply put, Rice was the most feared slugger on his team during his prime which lasted somewhere between 9 or 10 years. It was not imagined by everyone who cannot carry a sliderule and figure out the latest fad numbers. He was real. Maybe that just wasn't long enough. Maybe he was the Albert Belle of his time. Not quite as bad of a guy but probably not as good a hitter either.
However, looking at the poll here, it is pretty well divided among the haves and the have nots. And I guess that's about where he belongs. Likewise, I believe that's where Dick Allen belongs. And that's where Santo belongs.And that's where I believe Cepeda and Perez belong. Some are in, some are not and although it may be just and it may be unjust, it is what it is. And it provides fodder for give and take, or arguments, or whatever this is called. In summation, he WAS feared around the league at that time and rightly so. So were the other guys mentioned. It's entirely subjective as to who gets in and most of these type players are at the mercy of the voters. If Rice and Santo and Allen were a little bit better for a little bit longer, they would be with Perez and Cepeda. Personally, I think Gil Hodges belongs in this tier too. But that's for another time.


Rice was perceived as an historically great hitter-largely because people were largely unaware of on-base percentage. In fact, I think that After Yaz won the triple crown in '67 people just became totally obsessed with the triple crown stats.

I will admit though, through '84 I thought Rice was tremendous. I remember a sportscaster pointing out that he had played 10 years and averaged about .300/30/100+ which was just freakish. I mean he was half way to Hank Aaron's career! After '84 it was "another great year for Jim Rice". People didn't stop to realize that he made 473 outs at the plate and grounded into (I believe a record) 36 double plays. People simply did not differentiate between a guy like Rice and a guy like Eddie Murray. If Murray had cut his walks in half, he would have hit more home runs and driven in more as well.

[willshad]

I suppose there are 2 ways of defining value..you can put an emphasis on 'rates' or an emphasis on actual production. Would you prefer a guy like Singleton/Allen, who hit maybe 25-30 home runs, drove in 90 or so, and hit .280-.300, but who also did it in less at bats, or a guy like Rice/Guerrero, who didnt walk a lot or get injured a lot, but who produced more and batted higher. Of course the guys with the rates AND production are the first ballot hall of fame guys. We can argue all day who is better , but what it amounts to is your own personal preferences...just like how some people put more emphasis on 'career value' and some on 'peak value'. There's no right or wrong answer.
I guess the problem I have is that people seem to think OPS+ is the be all and end all of evaluation, but it can be very misleading. Take the Snider example. Even though his OPS+ is higher than Rice, i dont really think anyone considers him more dominant a hitter in his time than Rice was. You cant just look at the numbers and say...yup its 170 to 149..Snider was better! The numbers Snider was putting up were common in his era..just loking at the names of his copntemporaries can confirm this. Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Banks, Klewsewski, Mantle, Mathews, Killebrew..even his own teammates campanella and Hodges were mirroring his production. Rice STOOD OUT MORE because he was doing things NOBODY else was doing year in and year out. Give me all the on base percentage, douple play numbers, runs created, balpark adjusted crap you want..but the bottom line is that Rice was not only great, but UNIQUELY great...not overshadowed by equally good or better hitters. Foster was as good for a couple years, but he died out. Murray was good, but he was more consistent than eye popping. Brett was good, but he was more of a high average hitter. Same with carew. Lynn was good but only had a couple great years. Schmidt and Jackson were more high power/low average guys. Who else is there?

[brett]

I suppose there are 2 ways of defining value..you can put an emphasis on 'rates' or an emphasis on actual production. Would you prefer a guy like Singleton/Allen, who hit maybe 25-30 home runs, drove in 90 or so, and hit .280-.300, but who also did it in less at bats, or a guy like Rice/Guerrero, who didnt walk a lot or get injured a lot, but who produced more and batted higher. Of course the guys with the rates AND production are the first ballot hall of fame guys. We can argue all day who is better , but what it amounts to is your own personal preferences...just like how some people put more emphasis on 'career value' and some on 'peak value'. There's no right or wrong answer.
I guess the problem I have is that people seem to think OPS+ is the be all and end all of evaluation, but it can be very misleading. Take the Snider example. Even though his OPS+ is higher than Rice, i dont really think anyone considers him more dominant a hitter in his time than Rice was. You cant just look at the numbers and say...yup its 170 to 149..Snider was better! The numbers Snider was putting up were common in his era..just loking at the names of his copntemporaries can confirm this. Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Banks, Klewsewski, Mantle, Mathews, Killebrew..even his own teammates campanella and Hodges were mirroring his production. Rice STOOD OUT MORE because he was doing things NOBODY else was doing year in and year out. Give me all the on base percentage, douple play numbers, runs created, balpark adjusted crap you want..but the bottom line is that Rice was not only great, but UNIQUELY great...not overshadowed by equally good or better hitters. Foster was as good for a couple years, but he died out. Murray was good, but he was more consistent than eye popping. Brett was good, but he was more of a high average hitter. Same with carew. Lynn was good but only had a couple great years. Schmidt and Jackson were more high power/low average guys. Who else is there?

Just as an example though, Let's take Schmidt in '75 when he only batted .249. It is certainly not one of his top 10 seasons!. Because his average is tempered by his walks, he only made 422 outs at the plate with a .249 average. Rice made 464 outs (of his own) in his '77 season with a .315 average. A team only has a finite number of outs in a season (about 4250 assuming some 8 inning games). Rice used 1/9 of his teams outs.

Allen made just 350 outs in 148 games in '72. Rice made 1/2 more out per game played in '78.

In a full season that's 75 or so more outs that a team has to work with. An average hitter is going to produce 40-50 more bases given those outs. That is value as well.

[Yankwood]

To take a different angle on the "walk" debate, many times walking is leaving it up to the guy behind you. Now, I'm not advocating chasing bad pitches and making easy outs, but there have been many players chastised by their own teammates, managers and front office people for being too passive. Jack Clark for example. Sometimes you want your best hitter to expand the zone a little. Maybe swing a little earlier in the count when the situation calls for it. Just as I don't want a lineup made up entirely of free swingers, nor do I want to send up 8 or 9 batters whom I might call a little too patient. There's situations that call for a little more agressiveness.

[RuthMayBond]

Call me crazy, but Id rather take Rice over Dick Allen. the thing about Allen is looking at his stats nothing really jumps out at you screaming 'this was a great player'. He was good at everything, not particularily GREAT at anything. He hit for good power..but other guys in his time were much better ( Killebrew, Mays, Aaron, Howard, etc)In all of major league baseball from its inception, amongst players who had a long enough career to qualify with career minimums, guess how many had a better relative career slugging average?

<he had good on base percentages, but nothing out of this world....>

What was 1972, 1967, 1971, 1966 ...?

<drove in over 100 runs 3 times..nothing special for a first baseman.>

Might have to have some guys to drive in?

<I dont know about Allen, but i dont get that feeling with him..he had troubles with teammates>

As opposed to ...?

[brett]

To take a different angle on the "walk" debate, many times walking is leaving it up to the guy behind you. Now, I'm not advocating chasing bad pitches and making easy outs, but there have been many players chastised by their own teammates, managers and front office people for being too passive. Jack Clark for example. Sometimes you want your best hitter to expand the zone a little. Maybe swing a little earlier in the count when the situation calls for it. Just as I don't want a lineup made up entirely of free swingers, nor do I want to send up 8 or 9 batters whom I might call a little too patient. There's situations that call for a little more agressiveness.


This is true, and I think situations should dictate somewhat, but Boston typically had a fully loaded offense batting behind Rice. If he had played on a gawd awful offensive team his approach may have been more valuable.

[MadHatter]

Rice's numbers are deflated by his era, but inflated by his home park, so it more or less balances. He was also a poor fielder. I feel he is borderline at best. I'd like to know why he has so much more support than Dale Murphy, a far superior candidate IMO. But that's off topic. If Rice was elected, I wouldn't call him a mistake, but I'd rather he was left out.

I'd vote yes on Rice AND Murphy in an instant.

[538280]

Call me crazy, but Id rather take Rice over Dick Allen. the thing about Allen is looking at his stats nothing really jumps out at you screaming 'this was a great player'.

Maybe because he played in a VERY low offensive era. To me there is a lot that jumps out at me when I look at Dick Allen. Allen's slugging percentage in the context of his league and park is 16th best all time, a 140 relative SLG. Rice's was 124 which probably isn't in the top 150 all time. His relative OBP is also 54th all time. He was a TREMENDOUS slugger in the context of his time, far better than Rice, and he also got on base a ton and didn't make many outs.

He was good at everything, not particularily GREAT at anything. He hit for good power..but other guys in his time were much better ( Killebrew, Mays, Aaron, Howard, etc)..

I'll tell you what he was great at, two things #1 getting on base, and #2 moving runners along with extra base hits. In other words the two ways that offenses score runs. He has a higher relative slugging percentage than all those guys you mention above except Aaron. Mays, Allen, and Aaron are 15/16/17 on the all time rel. SLG list. He led the leauge in SLG 3 times and was top 10 in SLG every full season he had except 1965 and 1971. Rice wasn't even close to an all time great in either area, his OBP was only a little above average.

he hit for good average, but other during that time were better (Rose, Clemente, etc)..he had good on base percentages, but nothing out of this world....

Depends on what's "out of this world" I guess, but the only contemporaries of Allen who have a higher relative OBP are Frank Robinson and Willie Mays, and Mays' is higher by a few hundredths.

drove in over 100 runs 3 times..nothing special for a first baseman. And pluas he had longevity and injury problems. I see only really 2 'hall of fame' seasons, and a bunch of other very good ones, in a short career.

I know you don't like OPS+, but that doesn't make any sense. Tell me if you agree with these things, #1 Teams score runs by getting runners on and moving them along, #2 A measure that combines a player's ability to do both should be an excellent measure of a player's hitting value. OPS+ combines both and it shows their performance in context of their era and park, it's as good a quick measure as there is of hitting value. It is flawed in that it doesn't include everything on offense. It doesn't include baserunning or things like GIDP. It undercompensates OBP because OBP is the smaller number. It underrates a walk in comparison with a single. Linear weights have shows that a walk is .72 of a single but OPS counts a walk as .50 of a single (a walks counts for 1 and a single 2, a single is counted in OBP and SLG once and a walk only once in OBP). But anyway about Allen. Allen had at least 5 all time great seasons IMO. Allen in his first 1964 season was a solid 3B at that point, before he moved to 1B due to a hand injury, and he put up a 162 OPS+. He was always a good baserunner, Gene Mauch and Bob Skinner called him one of the best they ever saw. He had 41 WS that year which led the league. In 1966 Allen's 181 OPS+ was 4th highest all time from 3B, behind only partial seasons from Schmidt in 1981 and Brett in 1980 and then Rosen in 1953. In 1972 he won the MVP and had the highest OPS+ of the 70s/80s at 200. He was top 5 in OPS+ 8 times.


What jumps out at you from Rice is his RBI..not many players can get almost 1500 RBI by age 36...you get the sense he woulda had over 2000 if not for eyesight problems.

I'm going to tell you again that I couldn't care less about RBI. RBI are a totally situational statistic which have MORE to do with the siutation a hitter comes up in that what the hitter does himself. They also favor those players who make a lot of outs at the expense of those who will take pitches and still get on with the walk. Many feel that those who just try to hit the ball to drive in the run are doing something better for their team, but they're really not unless it's late in the game and their team is down by 1 or tied. Outside of that the potential of scoring multiple runs that comes with taking a walk results in, in the long run, MORE runs than making an out in that situation. It may feel good to go ahead and get that immidiate run, but in the long run it's less productive. That is something that has been verified with actual game data-read the book Baseball Between the Numbers.

Despite that anyway Allen drove in 4.01 runs per out and Rice 3.98-despite Allen playing in a much lower run environment. In context Allen is better.

Also theres how they were perceived in their own time..this has to count for something. Rice was seen not as just a hall of famer, but as an all time great hitter..I dont know about Allen, but i dont get that feeling with him..he was traded a lot, had troubles with teammates, and didnt put up monster numbers. He did win an MVP, but still i dont think he was seen as a hall of famer when he played. Anyone can confirm this?[/

I also really don't care much for how they were perceived when active. I don't feel that the overall consensus, even today, is accurate at all. I feel that people put emphasis on statistics like BA and RBI and counting stats overall which have little to do with actual production and don't put nearly enough emphasis on OBP and SLG.

[538280]

Funny but I was alive during that time and i followed baseball VERY closely, and i barely knew who Ken Singleton WAS. JUST BECAUSE HE WALKED A LOT DOESNT MAKE HIM A GREAT PLAYER. I bet any manager or player during that time would tell you Rice was better and more feared as a hitter. Sure Singleton was a good player, but do you really want an outfielder with 250 home runs, barely 1000 RBI, and hiting .280 in the hall of fame? You have to be realistic. OPS+ isnt the be all and end all of evaluating players. Going by OPS+ then Ichiro must suck. The problem is that people have turned the tables too much, and have started to count sabermetric stats TOO much, totally discounting the traditional counting stats. Who cares if a guy has an OPS of 160, when he hit 25 home runs and drove in 90? Dont insult peoples intelligence.

I'm not insulting anyone. I don't care about triple crown numbers. They don't give an indication of much of anything. BA doesn't have a particularly good relationship with run scoring and is already included in OBP and SLG anyway. Home runs are a big positive, but they are just part of overall slugging which is shown in SLG. There's no reason to focus on HR as a singular element, it's just a part of something else. RBI are totally situational and have just as much to do with when a runner comes up as what he actually does. The value of each event that a player participates in, be it single, double, triple, HR, or walk, and it's value towards scoring runs (linear weights) is what matters. Not some preconceived notion of super triple crown stats. They really don't matter. Yes, I would prefer Ken Singleton to Jim Rice. You can take Rice and your team would score less runs-and it wouldn't matter how many managers were on your side because Singleton would bring more runs and thus more wins.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

Chris- You state Allen wasn't out too much. 10 out of 15 years in the bigs, he struck out more than 100 times. He has more strikeouts than Rice. Where are you coming from with this?

[Chisox]

Chris- You state Allen wasn't out too much. 10 out of 15 years in the bigs, he struck out more than 100 times. He has more strikeouts than Rice. Where are you coming from with this?

Jim Rice: 6221 Outs in 9150 chances, a rate of 67.9%
Dick Allen: 4772 Outs in 7499 chances, a rate of 63.6%

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

I believe that regular outs aren't as bad as strikeouts.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I believe that regular outs aren't as bad as strikeouts.
Why do you believe this?

[DoubleX]

I believe that regular outs aren't as bad as strikeouts.

At least when you strike out you can't hit into a double play, something that Rice was extremely proficient at. Rice ranks 6th all time in grounding into double plays, and he led the league four years in a row, finished in the top 5 eight times, and finished in the top 10 eleven times. Additionally, the five players ahead of Rice on the all time GDP list are: Ripken, Aaron, Yastrzemski, Winfield, and Murray, all of whom had at least almost 3000 more ABs than Rice.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

Why do you believe this?

Because that out could be a squeeze, or a force play. That moves the runner. Or a sac fly drives in a run. There are many ways to help your team with a regular out.

[iPod]

Because that out could be a squeeze, or a force play. That moves the runner. Or a sac fly drives in a run. There are many ways to help your team with a regular out.

Per 162 games, the equivalent of an average season, Rice struck out 110 times, Allen 144 times. You're saying the equivalent of about 30 strikeouts a season is enough to close the gap between the two as hitters? You don't even need to adjust for league conditions... Allen's percentages (on-base and slugging) are better. Even his extra base hit rates ("real production," willshad thinks) are basically the same as Rice's. Per 162 games, Allen hit 33 HR, Rice hit 30. Allen hit 30 doubles and 7 triples, Rice hit 29 and 6. Here's the key though. Rice made 483 outs per 162 games. Allen made 442. In other words, Allen was producing more than Rice, while making fewer outs. It's not ambiguous at all, Allen was a better hitter (per at-bat, though in fairness he had 2000 fewer at-bats) and this is without even considering adjustments to league or ballpark, which would of course help Allen even more. 30 strikeouts per season is enough to overcome this?

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

No, it isn't. But all I'm saying is that a regular out helps a team more than a strikeout.

[538280]

No, it isn't. But all I'm saying is that a regular out helps a team more than a strikeout.

Sure, by a ratio of about 2%. 102 regular outs is equal in its value towards preventing scoring runs to 100 strikeouts. The difference in strikeouts between the players is AT MOST two runs over the course of a career. Sure, a regular out is better, but not by a margin that is ever really significant in comparing players. It's better by such a small ratio that it doesn't mean a thing.

[brett]

Because that out could be a squeeze, or a force play. That moves the runner. Or a sac fly drives in a run. There are many ways to help your team with a regular out.

A squeeze or a sac fly are not recorded as outs against the player. The only instance where an at bat out put in play is better than a K is when a player goes from first to second or from second to third. Rice's GIDPs eliminate most of those possibilities.

[STLCards2]

A squeeze or a sac fly are not recorded as outs against the player. The only instance where an at bat out put in play is better than a K is when a player goes from first to second or from second to third. Rice's GIDPs eliminate most of those possibilities.

You read my mind. I was about to post this exact same thing!

[wmq6000]

--Rice was not a terrible fielder. He wasn't a Gold Glover or anything, but he was solid out there most of his career. Comparing his rate stats to Canseco is a little misleading too. The numbers for the league have jumped way up between Rice and Canseco's primes. Canseco was a great player for a couple years, Rice for a decade.
-- Well great hitter anyway. I don't want to get into another Reggie Jackson type debate on Rice's behalf. His skill set wasn't as broad and he didn't maintain it nearly as long. I certainly thought of Rice as a future Hall of Famer when he was active. Without taking park effects into consideration (and nobody was except in a vague and general way in the 70s) Rice was the best hitter in baseball in the back half of the 70s.
-- Looking at the numbers in a more scientific method takes some of the luster off Rice's accomplishments. He is kind of a grey area candidate for me now, but ultimately I think I'd have to support him.
-- How a player was preceived while active should be an important consideration for Hall of Fame voting. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Sabermetric Research.
Keep in mind rice lore is, he once broke a bat with a swing and missed the ball and had just the handle in his hand

Rice once swung his driver and snapped the steel shaft
with the force of the swing

[Yankwood]

--Rice was not a terrible fielder. He wasn't a Gold Glover or anything, but he was solid out there most of his career. Comparing his rate stats to Canseco is a little misleading too. The numbers for the league have jumped way up between Rice and Canseco's primes. Canseco was a great player for a couple years, Rice for a decade.
-- Well great hitter anyway. I don't want to get into another Reggie Jackson type debate on Rice's behalf. His skill set wasn't as broad and he didn't maintain it nearly as long. I certainly thought of Rice as a future Hall of Famer when he was active. Without taking park effects into consideration (and nobody was except in a vague and general way in the 70s) Rice was the best hitter in baseball in the back half of the 70s.
-- Looking at the numbers in a more scientific method takes some of the luster off Rice's accomplishments. He is kind of a grey area candidate for me now, but ultimately I think I'd have to support him.
-- How a player was preceived while active should be an important consideration for Hall of Fame voting. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Sabermetric Research.I try very hard to write what this says. Can't argue with one single point. I nominate this as best post of the entire thread.

[brett]

This whole debate here is basically the same we've had about Dimaggio being or not being a top 10 player, or Gehringer being or not being top 25, or Ichiro being "great" or merely good.

People are biased toward certain stats. Some people really like batting averages, home runs, hits and RBI's. Rice sacrificed just about all else for those 4, and especially the last 3.

Even at that, he only got 382 home runs and 1451 RBI and batted .298 with 2452 hits! Even before I knew anything about the value based stats, I though that that stat line would leave him just outside the hall of fame.

If he had kept his average over .300 and gotten to 400 home runs and 1500 RBI he might have gotten in by now anyway, but he poured everything into those stats and still ended up short.

The reason he didn't get elected is not that people hated him or thought that he wasn't a sabermetrically great player. I remember sportswriters saying when he was clearly on his last legs in '89 that he would probably end up just short of the raw stats needed to get into the hall.

[STLCards2]

Here is what I don't understand- it is pretty obvious why the sabermetric crowd does not support Rice. He did not have tons of longevity, he grounded into a billion double plays, he didn't walk as much as many contemporaries, and he benefited from a pretty favorable homepark advantage. I personaly wouldn't put him in, but I wouldn't think it was a horrible selection either.

Many on the other side have claimed that he should be in the Hall of Fame because of his reputation or the fact that he was so famous and was percieved as the greatest hitter of the 70's. If this was true, why haven't the writers voted him in either? This is not just a sabermetric position. The counting stat/eyewitness voters don't like him enough either. I feel the same way about Dawson. If the sabermetric crowd doesn't like him, nor does the eyewitness/counting stat crowd (both groups in which I listen to), than how credible can the potential selectee be?

Brett said it well when he mentioned that his lack of counting stats hurt him as much as anything else.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Here is what I don't understand- it is pretty obvious why the sabermetric crowd does not support Rice. He did not have tons of longevity, he grounded into a billion double plays, he didn't walk as much as many contemporaries, and he benefited from a pretty favorable homepark advantage. I personaly wouldn't put him in, but I wouldn't think it was a horrible selection either.

Many on the other side have claimed that he should be in the Hall of Fame because of his reputation or the fact that he was so famous and was percieved as the greatest hitter of the 70's. If this was true, why haven't the writers voted him in either? This is not just a sabermetric position. The counting stat/eyewitness voters don't like him enough either. I feel the same way about Dawson. If the sabermetric crowd doesn't like him, nor does the eyewitness/counting stat crowd (both groups in which I listen to), than how credible can the potential selectee be?

Brett said it well when he mentioned that his lack of counting stats hurt him as much as anything else.

Bear in mind, the writers are fairly close. I think Rice has a good shot in 2008, if someone else is voted in besides Gossage.

[Brooklyn]

I know you don't like OPS+, but that doesn't make any sense. Tell me if you agree with these things, #1 Teams score runs by getting runners on and moving them along, #2 A measure that combines a player's ability to do both should be an excellent measure of a player's hitting value. OPS+ combines both and it shows their performance in context of their era and park, it's as good a quick measure as there is of hitting value. It is flawed in that it doesn't include everything on offense. It doesn't include baserunning or things like GIDP.

I can tell you two reasons why I don't like OPS+. First, I don't like OPS, it has no meaning. BA is number of hits per AB. OBP is number of times on base per PA. Slugging is number of bases per AB. But what is OPS? Adding two rate stats together makes no mathematical sense. Second, I don't like the OPS+ because I don't really by into the whole league / park adjustments, at least not in the simplistic method it is done. I think it tends to distort the data as much if not more than it helps it.

RBI are totally situational and have just as much to do with when a runner comes up as what he actually does.

Here is an argument that almost everyone that is strictly in the sabermetrics crowd uses, and it drives me crazy. Look at the two posts. how can you say that OPS+ would improve by including GIDP, but say that RBI's are totally situational. GIDP are just as situational. You can't knock Rice for too many GIDP and then not give him credit for RBI's. Both are based on the situation in front of him.

The point of MLB is to score runs. The two stats that measure that are runs scored and RBI's. Rice was always thought of as an RBI guy. This may be do to his situations. But don't throw out RBI's entirely without presenting some background for why you don't think the RBI's were indicative of how he played. If you were to tell me that Rice had x RBI situations, and the average person would have knocked in y runs in those situations, then I can judge if he really did well or poorly in those situations and if his RBIs are indicative of his performance. But the general statement that RBIs are team dependent and should be ignored doesn't fly with me. By doing that, you are considering all at bats equal, which they certainly are not.

[brett]

I can tell you two reasons why I don't like OPS+. First, I don't like OPS, it has no meaning. BA is number of hits per AB. OBP is number of times on base per PA. Slugging is number of bases per AB. But what is OPS? Adding two rate stats together makes no mathematical sense. Second, I don't like the OPS+ because I don't really by into the whole league / park adjustments, at least not in the simplistic method it is done. I think it tends to distort the data as much if not more than it helps it.



Here is an argument that almost everyone that is strictly in the sabermetrics crowd uses, and it drives me crazy. Look at the two posts. how can you say that OPS+ would improve by including GIDP, but say that RBI's are totally situational. GIDP are just as situational. You can't knock Rice for too many GIDP and then not give him credit for RBI's. Both are based on the situation in front of him.

The point of MLB is to score runs. The two stats that measure that are runs scored and RBI's. Rice was always thought of as an RBI guy. This may be do to his situations. But don't throw out RBI's entirely without presenting some background for why you don't think the RBI's were indicative of how he played. If you were to tell me that Rice had x RBI situations, and the average person would have knocked in y runs in those situations, then I can judge if he really did well or poorly in those situations and if his RBIs are indicative of his performance. But the general statement that RBIs are team dependent and should be ignored doesn't fly with me. By doing that, you are considering all at bats equal, which they certainly are not.


I agree that GIDP are largely situational as I stated before and I think that RBI should get some credit and GIDP shouldn't count as much against a hitter. Boston had a lot of slow runners on base ahead of Rice, and had VERY low steal totals in his years.

But Rice's RBI per out are not that great anyway. Allen had .2494 RBI's per out (excluding DPs) and Rice .2512 and Allen played in an era and ballpark with very low scoring.

I agree that park and league factors are not totally to be trusted. When a park's factor (relative to the league) changes significantly from one year to the next with no explanation it is problematic. I would prefer to take an park factor's average over the 5 years around a given season.

[Chisox]

A squeeze or a sac fly are not recorded as outs against the player. The only instance where an at bat out put in play is better than a K is when a player goes from first to second or from second to third. Rice's GIDPs eliminate most of those possibilities.
Yes, they are. From baseball-reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml): Outs - (AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF)
Scroll down to Special Batting

[Chisox]

I agree that GIDP are largely situational as I stated before and I think that RBI should get some credit and GIDP shouldn't count as much against a hitter. Boston had a lot of slow runners on base ahead of Rice, and had VERY low steal totals in his years.
I remember another thread where TangoTiger went through and calculated that all those extra oppurtunities led to something like 1 or 2 runs "returned" to Rice in his entire career. Pretty much like strike-outs.

But Rice's RBI per out are not that great anyway. Allen had .2494 RBI's per out (excluding DPs) and Rice .2512 and Allen played in an era and ballpark with very low scoring.

I agree that park and league factors are not totally to be trusted. When a park's factor (relative to the league) changes significantly from one year to the next with no explanation it is problematic. I would prefer to take an park factor's average over the 5 years around a given season.
Let's just ask this question?
What would it take for a player to be HOF worthy with a .277BA, .330 OBP, and .459 Slug for a career?

[RuthMayBond]

I remember another thread where TangoTiger went through and calculated that all those extra oppurtunities led to something like 1 or 2 runs "returned" to Rice in his entire career. Pretty much like strike-outs.


Let's just ask this question?
What would it take for a player to be HOF worthy with a .277BA, .330 OBP, and .459 Slug for a career?If he was a catcher or SS whose career centered around the year 1909 :highfive:

[brett]

Yes, they are. From baseball-reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml): Outs - (AB - H + CS + GIDP + SH + SF)
Scroll down to Special Batting


Yes they use them to calculate one thing "outs" but they do not use those outs in calculating batting average, OBP, OPS, OPS+.

[brett]

I remember another thread where TangoTiger went through and calculated that all those extra oppurtunities led to something like 1 or 2 runs "returned" to Rice in his entire career. Pretty much like strike-outs.


Let's just ask this question?
What would it take for a player to be HOF worthy with a .277BA, .330 OBP, and .459 Slug for a career?


In a typical environment this would be a 115 OPS+. A second baseman with some speed and 10,000 plate appearances. A top tier defensive catcher with 2000+ games caught. A quality shortstop with some speed and 9000 plate appearances.

Now if he played prior from 1965-1984 in the AL where leage averages were .380/.325 slugging and on-base he would have a 123 OPS+. In this case he would have to be at least a very fast corner outfielder (500+ steals) or a gold glove centerfielder or third baseman and play close to 20 years.

[brett]

I remember another thread where TangoTiger went through and calculated that all those extra oppurtunities led to something like 1 or 2 runs "returned" to Rice in his entire career. Pretty much like strike-outs.


Rice had 350 GIDP. Don Baylor who had a comparable length career had 196. So Rice had 154 more than Baylor. It is similar in comparing him to other similar hitters. Greg Luzinski projects to about 190 through the same career length.

154 extra double plays cost 154 extra outs AND removes 154 players from first base. Removing a player from first is about a negative equal to the value of a walk, or -.36 runs (about). An out eliminates at least one plate appearance, plus the possibility of additional plate appearances. Let's see, . Boston averaged about 4.9 runs per game and assuming 26.25 outs per game per team, that's about -.18 runs cost per out. That is for the "extra" out in the DP.

So a double play costs .54 runs (above the cost of the player's own out.

154 x .54 is 83 runs cost above a Baylor or Luzinski level of double plays.

That's about the same as erasing 41-42 home runs and turning them into singles, so it is roughly the same as cutting his home run total to 340 with everything else staying the same.

[538280]

I can tell you two reasons why I don't like OPS+. First, I don't like OPS, it has no meaning. BA is number of hits per AB. OBP is number of times on base per PA. Slugging is number of bases per AB. But what is OPS? Adding two rate stats together makes no mathematical sense. Second, I don't like the OPS+ because I don't really by into the whole league / park adjustments, at least not in the simplistic method it is done. I think it tends to distort the data as much if not more than it helps it.

OPS doens't have any real meaning towards anything direct on the field. What it is is just a number which takes two things which both make up the two most important parts of offense and combine them. OPS has a VERY strong relation with runs scored which means that teams that have higher OPSs usually have higher runs scored. How can you deny, knowing that, that it doesn't have any real meaning? The number itself isn't representing something directly on the field, but it's meaning is simply that it is a number which has a very close relationship with runs scored.

With league/park adjustments I think the main thing you have to remember is just that they are made with an attempt to look at value towards the team winning and only really that. When you have that goal it doesn't really matter how a park affected each player as an individual, it just matters how much it increased or suppressed run scoring. This is because the run context a player plays under is what determines the value all all the events he does himself, because as there are less runs scored in the context it increases the value of each run contributed by the player.

Here is an argument that almost everyone that is strictly in the sabermetrics crowd uses, and it drives me crazy. Look at the two posts. how can you say that OPS+ would improve by including GIDP, but say that RBI's are totally situational. GIDP are just as situational. You can't knock Rice for too many GIDP and then not give him credit for RBI's. Both are based on the situation in front of him.

The thing about RBI is that we already can predict how many runs a hitter should drive in given the offensive events he actually hit himself, be they singles, doubles, triples, HRs, walks, etc. That's what the run estimators are for. They show a player's value to his team, in terms of runs, given the events he has produced, not given the situations that played out in front of him. That is more reflective of his actual ability than RBI because it strips out the luck involved, it focuses on what the player actually did himself rather than who was on base for him at a specific time. It won't give a player any less credit for a double to lead off an inning as it would for a two run double hit with runners on 2nd and 3rd, as it really shouldn't because the event by the hitter is really the same; it's just that the 2nd player had the luck of coming into that situation. Thinking about GIDP it is actually largely the same, and probably should be treated similarly now that I think about it. I do think that GIDP machines like Rice still should have some demerit of their value because of it, but you are absolutely correct that similar to RBI it is determined largely by the situation a player comes into. You can't GIDP if there are no runners on base.

The point of MLB is to score runs. The two stats that measure that are runs scored and RBI's. Rice was always thought of as an RBI guy. This may be do to his situations. But don't throw out RBI's entirely without presenting some background for why you don't think the RBI's were indicative of how he played. If you were to tell me that Rice had x RBI situations, and the average person would have knocked in y runs in those situations, then I can judge if he really did well or poorly in those situations and if his RBIs are indicative of his performance. But the general statement that RBIs are team dependent and should be ignored doesn't fly with me. By doing that, you are considering all at bats equal, which they certainly are not.

Like I said above, though, a player's productivity can already be stated through the value of the hits (or just events) he makes himself. How many runs Jim Rice has produced can be shown through his singles, doubles, triples, HRs, walks, etc. That's how many runs he "should" drive in (or score) given the events he has made himself. How many runs he actually drives in or scored are a product of the fact Jim Rice faces different situations all the time, he bats in a different spot in the lineup which gives him a certain amount of runners on base in front of him, he gets hitters behind him to perhaps drive him in. Since we have that data of Rice's offensive events the only argument you could make is that Rice had a particular profeciency for delivering runners home when he had a chance. Ric'e's career line with RISP was .308/.371/.501 vs. .298/.352/.502 overall. Maybe there's something there, but not enough to make a huge impact on his merit as a player IMO.

[brett]

OPS doens't have any real meaning towards anything direct on the field.

Here's a few stats that he might find more "meaningful"

Allen's slugging percentage was 39.8% better than the league average and his
OB% was 16.7% better.
His BA was 12.3% better.

Rice's slugging % was 23.6% above the league average.
His OBP was 4.7% above.
His BA was 10.4% above.

By walk or hit, Allen roduced .584 bases per plate appearance.
By walk or hit Rice produced .530 bases per plate appearance.

[538280]

I looked at the Canseco comparison a little more and it's really not that far off. Canseco did NOT play in leagues with much of a lower run scoring average than Rice's. After 1987 and until the big hitting escalated in '93 and really began in '94 there was a very low offense period. Canseco spent his prime in that time, which was a lower offensive environment than Rice's. Then later of course it was higher for Canseco, overall Rice's league average OPS was .742 and Canseco's .743, they're basically the same. Compared to league average Canseco had a 131 OPS+ and Rice a 128. Canseco's prevailing image now is of a huge, slow, steroid guy but early in his career he was fast and a good fielding outfielder. Overall as a fielder I'd call them even with Canseco with an edge early in his career, but falling behind later. Canseco was a better runner, though he doesn't get a huge boost for that. Canseco's 1988 IMO was a better season than any year Rice has, by quite a bit. Overall I'd still give it to Rice for in-season durability and a little more longevity and consistency (never mind a steroid penalty), but they're really not that far apart as players, based on just on their stats. Canseco really was pretty impressive in his late 80s/early 90s peak.

[Brooklyn]

Like I said above, though, a player's productivity can already be stated through the value of the hits (or just events) he makes himself. How many runs Jim Rice has produced can be shown through his singles, doubles, triples, HRs, walks, etc. That's how many runs he "should" drive in (or score) given the events he has made himself. How many runs he actually drives in or scored are a product of the fact Jim Rice faces different situations all the time, he bats in a different spot in the lineup which gives him a certain amount of runners on base in front of him, he gets hitters behind him to perhaps drive him in. Since we have that data of Rice's offensive events the only argument you could make is that Rice had a particular profeciency for delivering runners home when he had a chance. Ric'e's career line with RISP was .308/.371/.501 vs. .298/.352/.502 overall. Maybe there's something there, but not enough to make a huge impact on his merit as a player IMO.


I think your stats toward the bottom are most telling (Rice's stats with RISP vs. career line). I think this tells me more about how many runs a player was expected to create then overall stats. The problem is that all at-bats aren't created equal. a situation where there are two outs, runner on second is a more important at bat then two outs, no one one. A single in the first situation will lead to almost 1.000 more expected runs then a single in the second (as will a double, triple or home run). But a walk in the first situation will lead to more expected runs, but surely quite a bit less than a full run more.

Looking at overall stats is making the implied assumption that "clutchness" doesn't exist. Said another way, that a player will perform exactly the same in every situation, which doesn't happen in practice. Maybe RBI's aren't the best stat because they do rely heavily on team performance, but overall stats don't tell you how the player did when they game was on the line. while you might be making the underlying assumption that the player performs the same in every situation (and thus his stats will predict how many runs he should have produced), I'm making the underlying assumption that players get to bat about the same percentage of times in RBI situations (thus looking at RBIs as a valuable stat). I'd agree that my underlying assumption will be further from the truth, which is why I take RBI numbers with a grain of salt while looking at other stats, but it is also why I don't ignore completely.

One last extreme (impossible) example. Take two players with 10,000 at bats each. Each player is up 5,000 with two outs and no one on base and 5,000 with two outs and runner on second.

Player A goes 3,000 for 5,000 in the first situation (all singles) and 0 for 5,000 in the second situation)

Player B goes 0 for 5,000 in the first situation and 3.000 for 5,000 in the second situation (all single)

Both players will have a .300 BA (and ugly .300 OBP and .300 slugging). But I think it is clear that you'd rather have player B. He'd have close to 3,000 RBI, while the first player would have 0. However, by sabermetrics, both players would have been expected to create the same number of runs.

[Brooklyn]

Here's a few stats that he might find more "meaningful"

Allen's slugging percentage was 39.8% better than the league average and his
OB% was 16.7% better.
His BA was 12.3% better.

Rice's slugging % was 23.6% above the league average.
His OBP was 4.7% above.
His BA was 10.4% above.

By walk or hit, Allen roduced .584 bases per plate appearance.
By walk or hit Rice produced .530 bases per plate appearance.

I wasn't meaning to compare Rice to Allen by my posts, just trying to infuse my belief that the traditional stats aren't as bad as the sabermetric crowd think they are.

But speaking of comparing to league averages, how do we know that the league average in Allen's time wasn't lower because he played in an inferior league? Comparing to league averages makes the assumption that quality of play is consistent over time, but the averages change due to outside conditions. We know that can't be true, but I wouldn't know how to measure.

Comparing Allen to Rice is a no brainer when looking at rate stats. Allen wins hands down. His pure rate stats are better, even before you compare it to what seems like a week hitting environment. The only argument for Rice over Allen is accumulation stats, which Rice is much higher (30% higher in hits and RBI, 10% higher in HR). I'd rate Allen higher on peak (shouldn't be a debate there) but I have Rice higher on career.

[Chisox]

Rice had 350 GIDP. Don Baylor who had a comparable length career had 196. So Rice had 154 more than Baylor. It is similar in comparing him to other similar hitters. Greg Luzinski projects to about 190 through the same career length.

154 extra double plays cost 154 extra outs AND removes 154 players from first base. Removing a player from first is about a negative equal to the value of a walk, or -.36 runs (about). An out eliminates at least one plate appearance, plus the possibility of additional plate appearances. Let's see, . Boston averaged about 4.9 runs per game and assuming 26.25 outs per game per team, that's about -.18 runs cost per out. That is for the "extra" out in the DP.

So a double play costs .54 runs (above the cost of the player's own out.

154 x .54 is 83 runs cost above a Baylor or Luzinski level of double plays.

That's about the same as erasing 41-42 home runs and turning them into singles, so it is roughly the same as cutting his home run total to 340 with everything else staying the same.
I think you mis-interpreted what I was saying. I fully agree with you on this. I was responding to the point that those extra chances for double plays that Rice had because of his line-up resulted in negligible value lost. In other words, making up for and taking away those extra double plays because of his team results in negligible gain.

I found the post; it's in the Team Dependant Stats thread. Hope he doesn't mind.

No reason to ignore the GIDP. I have the data in The Book, but IIRC, the difference in GIDP opportunities for each lineup slot is about +/- 10%.

If Jim Rice has 315 GIDP, feel free to knock him down 10% because he was faced with the situation more often than he "deserved". So, that's 32 GIDP you don't count against him. That buys him a run or two a year. Hardly seems worth the effort.

So instead of a run or two for his career as I remembered, it was a run or two for each season. 16 seasons at 1.5 per = 24 fewer than "should have."

[Chisox]

Let's put it this way. An offensive player's goal is to produce runs for his team. There are two ways of doing this.
1.Creating bases to advance himself and runners.
2.Not making an out, thereby not lessening the number of chances his team has at scoring, as well as putting another runner on base for others to score.
Rice had 4,921 bases in his career in 6,221 Outs for a ratio of .791 bases per out.
Through 2005, that's 47th among all LFs with at least 5,000PA, and in the same territory as fellow Red Sox Mike Greenwell, Bobby Higginson, Shannon Stewart, and Gene Woodling, and not even adjusted for park and era. Granted Rice had a longer career than any of those, but none of those have ever been remotely close to the HOF standard.
Adjusted for park (106.44 average) and era (.65079 league) his relative bases per out is 114.
Looking at only his road record: 2,284 bases in 3,227 outs for a .708 percentage, 24% higher than his road rate of .881.
Considering he has no base-running value outside his stats and was a poor defensive left fielder, that's a horrid resume for the HOF.

His value is simply not there.

[Chisox]

Yes they use them to calculate one thing "outs" but they do not use those outs in calculating batting average, OBP, OPS, OPS+.
No, but the poster was quoting from another about simply outs. No mention of anykind but Ks were noted. Just wanted to clarify. Those "other" outs that the strike-out were being compared to do include sacrifices, as well as GIDPs. They do not in batting average or slugging, but sac flies are calculated in OBP, and therefore are "half-calculated" in OPS and OPS+.

[538280]

I think your stats toward the bottom are most telling (Rice's stats with RISP vs. career line). I think this tells me more about how many runs a player was expected to create then overall stats. The problem is that all at-bats aren't created equal. a situation where there are two outs, runner on second is a more important at bat then two outs, no one one. A single in the first situation will lead to almost 1.000 more expected runs then a single in the second (as will a double, triple or home run). But a walk in the first situation will lead to more expected runs, but surely quite a bit less than a full run more.

Looking at overall stats is making the implied assumption that "clutchness" doesn't exist. Said another way, that a player will perform exactly the same in every situation, which doesn't happen in practice. Maybe RBI's aren't the best stat because they do rely heavily on team performance, but overall stats don't tell you how the player did when they game was on the line. while you might be making the underlying assumption that the player performs the same in every situation (and thus his stats will predict how many runs he should have produced), I'm making the underlying assumption that players get to bat about the same percentage of times in RBI situations (thus looking at RBIs as a valuable stat). I'd agree that my underlying assumption will be further from the truth, which is why I take RBI numbers with a grain of salt while looking at other stats, but it is also why I don't ignore completely.

But the thing is that I don't know that, if you're trying to see who really is a better player, if it's best to look at the situation involved. That is, unless you really believe that certain players have a certain ability to just do better in the clutch, which is something which has been shown to be dubious at best. The correlation between players' "clutch" ability season to season (if it's a skill, then those who are good at it one year will probably be good the next as well) has been studied numerous times and it's always found to be nearly non-existent. What I'm saying is that there isn't really much evidence that "clutchness' really is a skill so if players do better in clutch situations it probably is more due to variation than an actual skill. To see a player's actual skill level, IMO, you should look at how he does in all situations, the overall stats.

One last extreme (impossible) example. Take two players with 10,000 at bats each. Each player is up 5,000 with two outs and no one on base and 5,000 with two outs and runner on second.

Player A goes 3,000 for 5,000 in the first situation (all singles) and 0 for 5,000 in the second situation)

Player B goes 0 for 5,000 in the first situation and 3.000 for 5,000 in the second situation (all single)

Both players will have a .300 BA (and ugly .300 OBP and .300 slugging). But I think it is clear that you'd rather have player B. He'd have close to 3,000 RBI, while the first player would have 0. However, by sabermetrics, both players would have been expected to create the same number of runs.

I'm not sure that I'd rather have player B. Saying that you'd rather have player B indicates that you think he has a certain skill for coming through in a certain situation which I feel is a very dubious claim to make given evidence we have which shows such a player very well may not exist. Of course, if the trend was that defined as shown in your example I would have to take B though that would be impossible as you say yourself.

[Chisox]

I think your stats toward the bottom are most telling (Rice's stats with RISP vs. career line). I think this tells me more about how many runs a player was expected to create then overall stats.
Problem: most players do better with runners on base, particularly on third. Probable reason: pitchers throw more fast-balls to prevent either stealing second or third or a wild pitch/past ball allowing the runner to score. That difference is really not telling us anything at all.

[Chisox]

I know the adjustments arent biased against Ruth and Mantle...they are high walk guys, so they are overrated by those kind of stats.
You are misunderstanding my point..Im not saying Rice is as good as Mantle...but just because a guy walks a lot doesnt make him a better player...Mantle only drove in 100 runs in a season I think 2 times in his career..Rice was getting way over that year in and year out, in a VERY low offensive era.
Have no idea where this is coming from. Rice played in a league which is about 97% of the all-time average. Mantle played in a league which was about 93%, by comparison. Mantle also had hitter who were on base less. HINT, HINT

This is NOT reflected in the OPS+ numbers.
Era adjustments are absolutely reflected in adjusted stats. That's why they're called adjusted stats.
Id rather have a guy drive in 139 runs as a free swinger then drive in 90 runs and walk a lot. These are cleanup men, not leadoff hitters.
And your free swinger will get all those RBIs at the cost of his team-mates by simply getting on base, or in this case, by not getting on base so his team-mates could drive him in. Works both ways.

By any measure, Rice was one of the best hitters of his time, certainly top 10, maybe the best.
Only in your world. Schmidt has him by miles. Brett, Murray, Winfield, Jackson, Stargell were all far better. Murphy's better. Go back to the first half and you have Yaz and Morgan. The second half you have Gwynn, Boggs, and Henderson. Raines is about at his level.
What I dont get.is why low batting average guys like Schmidt are defended because their high on base percentage makes up for their low batting average,
Because you just said it. They're on base. They're gaining bases while not using up outs.
yet relatively low on base percentage types like Rice arent defended by the fact that they are PRODUCING RUNS ANYWAY. Its a double standard to me.
Because they're costing their teams quite a few runs by not being on base and using up outs. The double standard would be to reward guys who do not use outs but reward guys who do.

[brett]

I think you mis-interpreted what I was saying. I fully agree with you on this. I was responding to the point that those extra chances for double plays that Rice had because of his line-up resulted in negligible value lost. In other words, making up for and taking away those extra double plays because of his team results in negligible gain.

I found the post; it's in the Team Dependant Stats thread. Hope he doesn't mind.

So instead of a run or two for his career as I remembered, it was a run or two for each season. 16 seasons at 1.5 per = 24 fewer than "should have."


Yes I misinterpreted it. I get you now.

[Brooklyn]

Problem: most players do better with runners on base, particularly on third. Probable reason: pitchers throw more fast-balls to prevent either stealing second or third or a wild pitch/past ball allowing the runner to score. That difference is really not telling us anything at all.

I whole-heartedly agree that players do better with runners on base, but I think there are more reasons the just the fastballs:

1. Starting pitchers may not pitch as well from the stretch
2. less than two outs and runners on third, flyballs generally won't count agaist ba and slg
3. runners on base may be a sign that the pitcher is losing his stuff, thus easier to hit
4. defense may be playing at non-optimal positioning to prevent the runs
5. as you stated, possibliyt of more fastballs to prevent stealing or to hit the strikezone to prevent walks
6. Also possibility of pitchouts, which could be the count in batter's favor

This is one of the reason it bothers me that announcers are always impressed with how well players seem to do with the bases loaded. They never seem to figure out that almost eveyrone has good stats with the bases loaded.

All that said, does anyone have the data to show how the average player improves / declines in various situations?

[Chisox]

I whole-heartedly agree that players do better with runners on base, but I think there are more reasons the just the fastballs:

1. Starting pitchers may not pitch as well from the stretch
2. less than two outs and runners on third, flyballs generally won't count agaist ba and slg
3. runners on base may be a sign that the pitcher is losing his stuff, thus easier to hit
4. defense may be playing at non-optimal positioning to prevent the runs
5. as you stated, possibliyt of more fastballs to prevent stealing or to hit the strikezone to prevent walks
6. Also possibility of pitchouts, which could be the count in batter's favor
#1, 5, 6 I would pick as the most likely candidates. #2 shouldn't make much of a difference. SFs are actually pretty rare for an individual hitter. #3 probably depends on the pitcher. Would be interesting to see any comparisons. I have no clue on #4.
This is one of the reason it bothers me that announcers are always impressed with how well players seem to do with the bases loaded. They never seem to figure out that almost eveyrone has good stats with the bases loaded.
Bothers me, too. Although I have seen some pretty bad lines of hitters with the bases loaded.

All that said, does anyone have the data to show how the average player improves / declines in various situations?
I'd get Tango Tiger in here. I know in bb-refs splits pages for their pages, they give that data under the Bases Occupied section. They have OPS+ relative to team performance (tOPS+.) Rice gets an 81, BTW.

[Brooklyn]

I'd get Tango Tiger in here. I know in bb-refs splits pages for their pages, they give that data under the Bases Occupied section. They have OPS+ relative to team performance (tOPS+.) Rice gets an 81, BTW.

I'll post it in the stats section to see if he can help.

As an aside, tOPS+ is relative to his overall performance, not the team's perforfanace (it is only relative to the team's performance if you are looking at team stats). SO his 81 is saying he does 81% as well in those situations, OPS-wise. But I agree it is surprisnigly low

[Chisox]

I'll post it in the stats section to see if he can help.

As an aside, tOPS+ is relative to his overall performance, not the team's perforfanace (it is only relative to the team's performance if you are looking at team stats). SO his 81 is saying he does 81% as well in those situations, OPS-wise. But I agree it is surprisnigly low
Darn it. I didn't catch that. You're right.

Definition of tOPS+

tOPS+ - OPS+ of this split relative to the player or team's overall OPS: 100*((split OBP/total OBP) + (split SLG/total SLG) - 1)
I'm guessing they mean player for a players stats and team's for the teams stats.

[brett]

I'll post it in the stats section to see if he can help.

As an aside, tOPS+ is relative to his overall performance, not the team's perforfanace (it is only relative to the team's performance if you are looking at team stats). SO his 81 is saying he does 81% as well in those situations, OPS-wise. But I agree it is surprisnigly low

The t-OPS+ and s-OPS+ have some problem that I can't figure out.

For example, Rice's '78 raw OPS at home is 1.106 and on the road its .837.



That would give him a balance of 114 at home and 86 on the road

His s-OPS+ is 109 at home and 91 on the road which I assume takes into account ballpark effects, but does it also account for an average players home-road split of 102/98?

Do they go back to raw on-base% and raw slugging and the add up a new OPS+ in each situation?

[brett]

Darn it. I didn't catch that. You're right.

Definition of tOPS+

I'm guessing they mean player for a players stats and team's for the teams stats.

t-OPS+ rates the player against a baseline of his team's OPS.

Boston, as a team put up around a 105 OPS+ during his career so he is being judged against a higher standard.

[538280]

All that said, does anyone have the data to show how the average player improves / declines in various situations?

The 2006 MLs showed a 104 OPS+ with runners in scoring position, that's relative to overall league performance. Rice's RISP numbers show a 105 OPS+ relative to his own performance.

[Chisox]

t-OPS+ rates the player against a baseline of his team's OPS.

Boston, as a team put up around a 105 OPS+ during his career so he is being judged against a higher standard.
Are you sure on that? That's what I originally thought, but after reading the definition again, I'm confused now. I saw that Rice's tOPS+ was 100 and was comparing him to his teammates in my original post, since modified.

[Colorado Express]

Absolutely...Jim Rice was one of the most feared hitters in the AL in the late '70s and early '80s.
top 10 in AL AVG 6 times
top 10 in AL SLG 8 times
top 10 in AL OPS 6 times
top 10 in AL HR 7 times
top 10 in AL RBI 9 times
top 10 in AL RC 7 times
I recognize that his home/road splits were quite significant, but then please look at those for Boggs and Yaz before commenting.

[Brooklyn]

The 2006 MLs showed a 104 OPS+ with runners in scoring position, that's relative to overall league performance. Rice's RISP numbers show a 105 OPS+ relative to his own performance.


Thanks. Do you know if this is pretty consistent over time (the 104+)?

[538280]

Thanks. Do you know if this is pretty consistent over time (the 104+)?

I haven't studied it, but here it is for the past 7 years, 2000-2006:

2000: 103
2001: 105
2002: 107
2003: 106
2004: 104
2005: 106
2006: 104

And here it is for 1977-1979, Rice's peak:

1977: 102
1978: 105
1979: 105

I'd say the average is around 104-105. Rice essentially improved the same as the leauge average with RISP. He doesn't have any special attribute of doing better with RISP than the average player.

[Chisox]

I recognize that his home/road splits were quite significant, but then please look at those for Boggs and Yaz before commenting.
There are major flaws in that argument.
For Yaz there are four major ones that come to mind.
#1. Yaz had the MUCH longer career.
#2. Yaz had a road average of .747 bases per out compared to Rice's .708, despite
#3. Yaz played in a league run environment 91% that of the all-time average compared to Rice's 97%.
#4. Yaz is considered an all-time great in LF, while Rice was average at best.

For Boggs, he still had a bases/out average of .730 compared to Rice's .708 while playing longer. It should be mentioned that Boggs did play in a league with 103% of the all-time average compared to Rice's 97%, although Boggs' parks were 102.8% of average compared to Rice's 106.4%. Just adjusting their road stats for era, Boggs goes down to .730 while Rice goes up to .709, although Boggs had a much longer career. And Boggs was a 3B, as well. While he wasn't a good fielder for his career, he certainly gets a big boost defensively over Rice. Not that it means anything, but on a sidenote, Rice's road OBP is .330. Boggs' career BA is .328.

[Colorado Express]

There are major flaws in that argument.
For Yaz there are four major ones that come to mind.
#1. Yaz had the MUCH longer career.
#2. Yaz had a road average of .747 bases per out compared to Rice's .708, despite
#3. Yaz played in a league run environment 91% that of the all-time average compared to Rice's 97%.
#4. Yaz is considered an all-time great in LF, while Rice was average at best.

For Boggs, he still had a bases/out average of .730 compared to Rice's .708 while playing longer. It should be mentioned that Boggs did play in a league with 103% of the all-time average compared to Rice's 97%, although Boggs' parks were 102.8% of average compared to Rice's 106.4%. Just adjusting their road stats for era, Boggs goes down to .730 while Rice goes up to .709, although Boggs had a much longer career. And Boggs was a 3B, as well. While he wasn't a good fielder for his career, he certainly gets a big boost defensively over Rice. Not that it means anything, but on a sidenote, Rice's road OBP is .330. Boggs' career BA is .328.

For starters, my argument was not that Rice was better than either of these players, but only that other players that are viewed as HOF "locks" have benefitted just as much from their ball park.

Boggs would barely even be worth mentioning for the HOF if you only considered his road stats.

[538280]

For starters, my argument was not that Rice was better than either of these players, but only that other players that are viewed as HOF "locks" have benefitted just as much from their ball park.

But those players are considered HOF locks despite the home/road split. Rice isn't that clear of a HOFer so it's natural that some people might look at the home/road split as a big negative point. Yaz and Boggs are locks anyway, so it's not a big deal for them. That Yaz and Boggs have a similar differential is not an argument to say that somehow makes it insignificant for Rice.

IMO, though, home/road splits aren't really important anyway. Players who do better at home IMO often just take advantage of their home park, and that's to their credit. I just think it's much better to adjust with the park factors and leave it at that. But your argument doesn't defeat the point of those who use home/road splits at all.

Boggs would barely even be worth mentioning for the HOF if you only considered his road stats.

Neither would Rice, so what's your point?

[brett]

IMO, though, home/road splits aren't really important anyway. Players who do better at home IMO often just take advantage of their home park, and that's to their credit. I just think it's much better to adjust with the park factors and leave it at that.



A pythagorian estimate of winning percentage will show that the guy with the 160 OPS+ at home and 120 on the road will be worth fewer wins than the guy who is 140 both at home and on the road.

[AstrosFan]

If we assume that Boggs's road parks are neutral on the whole, and Rice's are the same, Boggs has a road OPS+ of 119, and Rice has one of 115. The average position OPS+ for each is 110 for Rice, and we'll say 102 for Boggs, to include his time at first and DH. That makes Boggs a 116 OPS+ hitter, and Rice a 105. Boggs, even in his road stats, has a good case for the Hall. Rice has none.

[HDH]

I don't think Jim Rice is a HOF but, my criteria is tougher than most here.

As for Rice being poor defensively, that is not true. You guys have no idea what you're talking about. He was a DH early in his career because Carl Yastrzemski was moved back to LF before finally swapping DH-LF with Rice. Rice played "the wall" pretty well actually. Its true he wasn't great defensively but, you never judge HOF candidates by defensive prowess before. Look at Reggie Jackson who was terrible.

Jim Rice was better in his early years, but, dropped off slightly. Hank Aaron predicted that he would break his HR record if healthy. Even in his down years on crappy Red Sox teams, he drove in over 100 RBIs. Still, he was always in the running for MVP.

[AstrosFan]

I agree, I don't see Rice as poor defensively, based on what I've read. But I don't think he's at the level that his defense can push him over the edge.

[538280]

A pythagorian estimate of winning percentage will show that the guy with the 160 OPS+ at home and 120 on the road will be worth fewer wins than the guy who is 140 both at home and on the road.

How is that? Pythagorean essentially assumes that all runs are created equal in terms of its estimate. Why would they say that it is of importance whether you do better at home or on the road?

[AstrosFan]

How is that? Pythagorean essentially assumes that all runs are created equal in terms of its estimate. Why would they say that it is of importance whether you do better at home or on the road?


I'm not sure how OPS+ converts into runs, but imagine a scenario where team A is 40% better in RS and RA, and team B is 60% better in RS and 20% better in RA. The league context is 4.5 R/G.

Using the pythagorean formula, where the exponent is always 2, team A has a winning percentage of .845, team B has one of .800. Using Pythagenpat, team A has a winning percentage of .830, team B has one of .797. The math says that the team that is more balanced on both sides of the ball will win more games.

[Mattingly]

I didn't feel like creating a new thread on this topic, so I merely dug up this 7-month old thread. Hopefully, people don't mind too much.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/1231/mlb_g_rice_412.jpg

MOST HOME RUNS (1975-'86)

Mike Schmidt* 440
Dave Kingman 365
Jim Rice 350
Reggie Jackson* 330
George Foster 321
*Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Debate: Is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3171257)
Jim Rice hit 20 or more home runs in 11 of his 16 seasons in the majors and also drove in more than 1,400 runs in his career. But so far those numbers haven't been enough to get Rice elected to the Hall of Fame.

In this, his 14th year on the ballot, will Rice finally get enough votes to become part of the class of 2008?

ESPN.com correspondents Larry Stone and Phil Rogers discuss Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy.

FROM: Larry Stone
TO: Phil Rogers
SUBJECT: Jim Rice -- Hall of Famer or not?

Hi, Phil. Happy holidays. I was looking forward to debating the merits of Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy with you, but I just learned that Jim Rice was already inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2001. So I guess it's a moot point. Talk to you later.

Oh, wait -- that was Jim Rice, the dirt biker from Wooster, Ohio, and it was the Motorcycle Hall of Fame in Pickerington, Ohio.

So back to Jim Ed Rice of the Red Sox. I can't believe Rice has been on the ballot 14 years, and people still have to make the case for him. He should have been basking in Cooperstown long ago. If you had asked anyone during Rice's prime -- his teammates, his opponents, the fans who watched him -- whether Rice was a Hall of Famer, I guarantee you the answer would have been an emphatic yes. Somehow, his legacy has diminished over time, when it should be just the opposite. With all the steroids-induced slugging of the '90s and 2000s, I actually think Rice's statistics look better with each passing year.

As our pal Jayson Stark said a few years ago, when he finally saw the light and began to vote for Rice, he met one essential Cooperstown criterion: the fear factor. Pitchers absolutely hated to face him, and for good reason.

I'm talking, of course, about Rice's glory years, from 1975 to '86. I recognize that his prime was relatively short, and that he suffered a precipitous drop and early career exit that have probably kept him out of the Hall.

But I maintain that Rice was so brilliant during those 12 years that it supersedes the fact that he didn't reach some of the magic numbers that excite Hall of Fame voters, particularly 500 home runs (or, in Rice's case, even 400 home runs).

During those 12 years, Rice was the most dominant player in the American League. Maybe not the best player -- I'd give that nod to George Brett. But check out Rice from 1975 to '86. He ranked first in the AL in games (1,766), first in at-bats (7,060), first in runs (1,098), first in hits (2,145), first in home runs (350), first in runs batted in (1,276), first in slugging percentage (.520), first in total bases (3,670), first in extra-base hits (752), first in go-ahead RBIs (325), first in multihit games (640), fourth in triples (73) -- so much for the notion that Rice was nothing but a plodder -- and fourth in batting average (.304). He also was first in outfield assists with 125. For some reason, Rice has been labeled a lousy fielder, but even Bill James, a leading detractor of Rice's Hall of Fame credentials, concedes that he was a better left fielder than most peopled regarded him.

* * *

[brett]

I didn't feel like creating a new thread on this topic, so I merely dug up this 7-month old thread. Hopefully, people don't mind too much.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/1231/mlb_g_rice_412.jpg


Debate: Is Jim Rice a Hall of Famer? (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof08/news/story?id=3171257)

The problem with Rice, for me, is not that he didn't reach milestones. True, at the time if he had gotten 400 homers and 1500 RBIs those milestones would have put him in exclusive company and he may be in by now-he's no Dave Kingman.

But as I see it there are basically 4 factors for a player:

1) rates
2) longevity
3) extras-fielding, position and defense which for some players may rise to the level of #1
4) spotlight stardom

Of those 4, the BEST thing that Rice has going for him is his rates
128 OPS+ which is 185th ALL TIME.
Even his .502 career slugging percentage is 86th on the all time list!.

And he is only 66th in career total bases as for longevity.

I think he was an average baserunner, and an average fielder at a relatively easy position. No pluses there.

For spotlight he did make 8 all star teams and had a poor post season performance. "spotlight" basically is a wildcard in rating players that can make a big difference for some guys.

I'm sorry but a guy tied for 165th in games played and 185th in career OPS+ has to have either some plus on the bases or in the field, or be a mega-post season performer.

[Paul Wendt]

How is that? Pythagorean essentially assumes that all runs are created equal in terms of its estimate. Why would they say that it is of importance whether you do better at home or on the road?

There is a home advantage. If the team with typical home advantage is average overall, or better than average, extra runs are more valuable on the road than at home.

So I think the general point depends on our interest in winning the pennant or reaching the playoffs. Contributing more wins to the .550 teams is better than contributing more wins to the .450 team. (It may help, but it isn't crucial, to think of those teams as .600home/.500road and .500home/.400road. Runs are more valuable where you are closer to .500.)

[ChrisLDuncan]

I don't see how this guy is a HoFer. His OPS+ is only two points higher than Ellis Burks', and I don't see the difference in Rice's hall case and George Foster's. There is absolutely no way in hell that this guy is a hall of famer. 128 OPS+ from a mediocore corner OF with only 2000 games? Please.

[comiskey00]

Is there any other player in the history of the game who was the most dominant hitter in the league for 12 seasons that isn't currently in the hall of fame?

[jalbright]

Is there any other player in the history of the game who was the most dominant hitter in the league for 12 seasons that isn't currently in the hall of fame?

You obviously use a different definition of "most dominant" than I do. I wouldn't even begin to consider a guy in that class if he doesn't have a offensive winning percentage (park adjusted) over .667, and Rice had only four such seasons. In OPS+, he was only in the top five twice. Rice was a good hitter, no doubt, but the quoted material is at best a romanticized notion of how good he really was.

[willshad]

You obviously use a different definition of "most dominant" than I do. I wouldn't even begin to consider a guy in that class if he doesn't have a offensive winning percentage (park adjusted) over .667, and Rice had only four such seasons. In OPS+, he was only in the top five twice. Rice was a good hitter, no doubt, but the quoted material is at best a romanticized notion of how good he really was.

you are only picking a couple of stats that we wasnt that great at...what the heck is offensive winning percentage anyway? who cares about that? how about this? from 1975 through 1986, he finished in the top five for MVP six times -- winning once -- while leading the majors in hits, RBI and total bases, finishing second in extra-base hits and slugging, third in runs created and homers and fourth in OPS; the only player who finished ahead of Rice in any of those categories not in Cooperstown was Dave Kingman, who was second in homers in those dozen years. I think a guy who leads in RBI and hits and stuff like that is more 'dominant' than someone who posts great OPS+ numbers while not really producing many runs while doing do. OPS+ is more a measure of efficiency than of dominance sometimes. That said, i dont know if Rice has a better case than Albert Belle or Dick Allen..they both may have been the best hitters in the game for 9 or 10 years.

[jalbright]

you are only picking a couple of stats that we wasnt that great at...what the heck is offensive winning percentage anyway? who cares about that? how about this? from 1975 through 1986, he finished in the top five for MVP six times -- winning once -- while leading the majors in hits, RBI and total bases, finishing second in extra-base hits and slugging, third in runs created and homers and fourth in OPS; the only player who finished ahead of Rice in any of those categories not in Cooperstown was Dave Kingman, who was second in homers in those dozen years. I think a guy who leads in RBI and hits and stuff like that is more 'dominant' than someone who posts great OPS+ numbers while not really producing many runs while doing do. OPS+ is more a measure of efficiency than of dominance sometimes. That said, i dont know if Rice has a better case than Albert Belle or Dick Allen..they both may have been the best hitters in the game for 9 or 10 years.

Well, if you're forcing everybody into 1975-1986, you're cherry picking, too. Even so, in that stretch, I think I'd have rather had George Brett, Eddie Murray, Fred Lynn, Rod Carew and maybe Dwight Evans at the plate than Rice. Lynn and Evans produced more runs per 27 outs made than Rice, and they did it in the same park. That's a lot of names to prefer Rice over for the title of the "most dominant hitter" of that time. Remember, I'm reacting to the claim he was the "most dominant hitter" for 12 years than to his HOF case, though admittedly I think he falls short of the Hall.

[willshad]

Well, if you're forcing everybody into 1975-1986, you're cherry picking, too. Even so, in that stretch, I think I'd have rather had George Brett, Eddie Murray, Fred Lynn, Rod Carew and maybe Dwight Evans at the plate than Rice. Lynn and Evans produced more runs per 27 outs made than Rice, and they did it in the same park. That's a lot of names to prefer Rice over for the title of the "most dominant hitter" of that time. Remember, I'm reacting to the claim he was the "most dominant hitter" for 12 years than to his HOF case, though admittedly I think he falls short of the Hall.

Lynn only really had 2 good years..Evans, i dont know....he scores way lower than Rice on the hall monitor and ink totals...doesnt lead one to believe he was dominant a hitter as Rice..but he was better in the field...the other guys you mentioned are easy hall of famers. i dont hold Rice's double plays and lack of walks agauinst him like others do.

[willshad]

from '75'-'81 George Foster may have been the best hitter in baseball..i wonder why he went downhill so fast after going to the mets? he looked like a sure fire hall of famer to me. His credintials are similiar to Rice, but Rice is clearly better.

[Fuzzy Bear]

from '75'-'81 George Foster may have been the best hitter in baseball..i wonder why he went downhill so fast after going to the mets? he looked like a sure fire hall of famer to me. His credintials are similiar to Rice, but Rice is clearly better.

Foster was 26 before he became a regular for good. Rice was 22 when he first came up.

[willshad]

yeah i think thats why Rice is better..they were both pretty much done after age 32, but Rice had more of a head start. i wonder if Foster's numbers were just a product of being part of the big red machine?

[AG2004]

you are only picking a couple of stats that we wasnt that great at...what the heck is offensive winning percentage anyway? who cares about that? how about this? from 1975 through 1986, he finished in the top five for MVP six times -- winning once -- while leading the majors in hits, RBI and total bases, finishing second in extra-base hits and slugging, third in runs created and homers and fourth in OPS; the only player who finished ahead of Rice in any of those categories not in Cooperstown was Dave Kingman, who was second in homers in those dozen years. I think a guy who leads in RBI and hits and stuff like that is more 'dominant' than someone who posts great OPS+ numbers while not really producing many runs while doing do. OPS+ is more a measure of efficiency than of dominance sometimes. That said, i dont know if Rice has a better case than Albert Belle or Dick Allen..they both may have been the best hitters in the game for 9 or 10 years.

I started out by looking at the AL park factors for 1975, and then went through a couple more years after that. According to baseball-reference, the BPFs for Boston were 110, 113, 113, and 112 from 1975-1978. That's the average of Boston's home games (half at Fenway) and road games. The highest BPF for any other AL team during that stretch was 105, and that was reached just once.

From this, we can see two things.

(1) Fenway Park inflated the offensive statistics of those who played there.
(2) Because Fenway was so hitter-friendly, it took a lot more runs to win a game there than at any other AL park. In effect, in terms of fraction of a win, an individual run was worth less in Fenway than it was at any other AL park.

Rice may have had high raw offensive numbers, but, because runs were so easy to come by at Fenway, those numbers didn't have as much value as they would have had elsewhere in the league. (Think about it this way. Someone who creates 5.0 runs per 27 outs is very valuable in a context where the average team scores 3.5 runs per game. He isn't as valuable as an average hitter in a context where the average team creates 6.5 runs per game.)

Statistics like OPS+, offensive win percentage, and win shares adjust for the offensive context that a hitter competes in. They do a good job in eliminating any advantages or disadvantages that era or park may have given to hitters in general, and show how valuable a batter really was given the context in which he played.

------

As for offensive winning percentage -- it indicates the record a team would have if it had average pitching, average fielding, and a batting lineup that consisted of nine clones of the player in question. The OWP for Jim Rice is what a team's winning percentage would be if its lineup was:

1 - Jim Rice
2 - Jim Rice
3 - Jim Rice
4 - Jim Rice
5 - Jim Rice
6 - Jim Rice
7 - Jim Rice
8 - Jim Rice
9 - Jim Rice

Of course, when the team was on defense, all of these Jim Rices would sit on the bench, and league-average pitchers and fielders would come out and play their positions. That way, the OWP has nothing to do with a player's defensive abilities.

The park-adjusted OWP is based on having all of these games take place in the parks that Rice's games were played in. Rice still gets to play half of his games in Fenway, but all members of the opposition get to play half of their games in Fenway, too, and that improves their raw offensive numbers. As a result, Rice won't look as impressive as he did before, when all the players on the league's other teams would only get to play 6 or 7 times in parks that boosted offense as much as Fenway did.

[willshad]

I started out by looking at the AL park factors for 1975, and then went through a couple more years after that. According to baseball-reference, the BPFs for Boston were 110, 113, 113, and 112 from 1975-1978. That's the average of Boston's home games (half at Fenway) and road games. The highest BPF for any other AL team during that stretch was 105, and that was reached just once.

From this, we can see two things.

(1) Fenway Park inflated the offensive statistics of those who played there.
(2) Because Fenway was so hitter-friendly, it took a lot more runs to win a game there than at any other AL park. In effect, in terms of fraction of a win, an individual run was worth less in Fenway than it was at any other AL park.

Rice may have had high raw offensive numbers, but, because runs were so easy to come by at Fenway, those numbers didn't have as much value as they would have had elsewhere in the league. (Think about it this way. Someone who creates 5.0 runs per 27 outs is very valuable in a context where the average team scores 3.5 runs per game. He isn't as valuable as an average hitter in a context where the average team creates 6.5 runs per game.)

Statistics like OPS+, offensive win percentage, and win shares adjust for the offensive context that a hitter competes in. They do a good job in eliminating any advantages or disadvantages that era or park may have given to hitters in general, and show how valuable a batter really was given the context in which he played.

------

As for offensive winning percentage -- it indicates the record a team would have if it had average pitching, average fielding, and a batting lineup that consisted of nine clones of the player in question. The OWP for Jim Rice is what a team's winning percentage would be if its lineup was:

1 - Jim Rice
2 - Jim Rice
3 - Jim Rice
4 - Jim Rice
5 - Jim Rice
6 - Jim Rice
7 - Jim Rice
8 - Jim Rice
9 - Jim Rice

Of course, when the team was on defense, all of these Jim Rices would sit on the bench, and league-average pitchers and fielders would come out and play their positions. That way, the OWP has nothing to do with a player's defensive abilities.

The park-adjusted OWP is based on having all of these games take place in the parks that Rice's games were played in. Rice still gets to play half of his games in Fenway, but all members of the opposition get to play half of their games in Fenway, too, and that improves their raw offensive numbers. As a result, Rice won't look as impressive as he did before, when all the players on the league's other teams would only get to play 6 or 7 times in parks that boosted offense as much as Fenway did.


that seems very hypothetical to me..how can one possibly know how good a record a team would have had with 9 Jim Rice's? that really has nothing to do with reality anyway..because no lineup would have all number 4 hitters in it..each player has a role, and Rice did his as well as anyone in baseball. obviously Rice wouldnt make a great leadoff hitter, because his job was to drive in runs, not get on base and steal. That stat assumes playing in a vaccum..but there are specifics to each situation that each player has to use.Thats like saying how good would a band sound if all of the instruments were the drums. even the best drummer in the world wouldnt sound great all by himself...they need the other instruments too.How is park factor figured? isnt it possible that the 'park factor' may be so high simply because the red Sox had a lot of good hitters in their lineup? anyway, its not like fenway is some new park like Colorado, where theres no history behind it. many hall of famers from Foxx to Williams to Yaz to Boggs to Manny have all benefitted greatly from palying at fenway. you cant hold it against Rice and not against them. you cant say that Rice benefitted more from fenway than someone else just because his splits were more contrasting either..that just means he was taking advantage more of his home park than someone like Ramirez.

[AG2004]

that seems very hypothetical to me..how can one possibly know how good a record a team would have had with 9 Jim Rice's?

Statistical analysis gives us a very good idea of how good a team would have been had its offense consisted of 9 Jim Rices.

that really has nothing to do with reality anyway..because no lineup would have all number 4 hitters in it..each player has a role, and Rice did his as well as anyone in baseball. obviously Rice wouldnt make a great leadoff hitter, because his job was to drive in runs, not get on base and steal.

The role of the stolen bases in winning games, at least in the eight decades since the mid-1920s, has been overrated. However, getting on base was a problem with Rice, and that skill has traditionally been underrated.

Also, what happens when there's nobody on base for Rice to drive home? You must admit that it is better for Rice to get on base, even with a walk, than for him to get an out. Well, Rice was not very good at taking the walk. As for driving in runs -- not that many runs are driven in on sacrifice flies. Yes, Rice could drive in the runs. But if there's someone on first, picking up a walk is better than getting an out; you now have two on with no outs instead of one on with one out.

Getting on base helps win ball games.

That stat assumes playing in a vaccum..but there are specifics to each situation that each player has to use.Thats like saying how good would a band sound if all of the instruments were the drums. even the best drummer in the world wouldnt sound great all by himself...they need the other instruments too.

You mean you haven't heard music for solo percussion?

Also, this argument does not weaken the case for using OPS+ or offensive win shares.

How is park factor figured? isnt it possible that the 'park factor' may be so high simply because the red Sox had a lot of good hitters in their lineup?

We know how the Red Sox and other teams performed when they were in Fenway. We also know how well they performed when they weren't in Fenway. If Fenway were an average hitter's park, then the H/R splits for both the Red Sox and for Red Sox opponents would be similar. Since both the Red Sox and their opponents do better in Fenway than they do elsewhere, Fenway is a hitters' park.

Milwaukee led the AL in runs per game in 1978; their BPF that season was 100, which means their home field was an average park for batters. Minnesota led the AL in runs per game in 1977, and their BPF was 99; they were playing in an environment where scoring was reduced just a little when compared to the league average.


anyway, its not like fenway is some new park like Colorado, where theres no history behind it. many hall of famers from Foxx to Williams to Yaz to Boggs to Manny have all benefitted greatly from palying at fenway. you cant hold it against Rice and not against them. you cant say that Rice benefitted more from fenway than someone else just because his splits were more contrasting either..that just means he was taking advantage more of his home park than someone like Ramirez.

We don't hold it just against Rice. Foxx, Williams, Yaz, and Boggs have their records adjusted by OPS+, OWP, and offensive win shares by park factor as well. Their raw stats were boosted by playing in Fenway instead of some other park. The difference is that Foxx, Williams, Yaz, and Boggs are still clear-cut Hall of Famers after this park factor adjustment is made. Rice isn't.

Also, during the 1930s, what was the oldest park in baseball? The Baker Bowl. It was still a big hitter's park, and we adjust for that. Chuck Klein doesn't come out too well after we make adjustments for park and era.

A stat like OPS+ helps us tell how much of Rice's record is due to his ability as a player, and how much of it is due to his playing at Fenway. Williams is second all-time in OPS+, at 191. He would have stood out anywhere. This is not necessarily the case with Rice.

[cardsfanatic]

No to Rice. I'll save OleMiss the trouble...

OMG!!! CARDINAL FAN BE BIASED! WERD UP!

[willshad]

clearly OPS+ is a flawed formula, as neither Boggs nor Yaz were hall of fame type hitters outside of fenway. Even so, that cant be the only stat you look at. Obviously some players are overrated by OPS+ and some are underrated by it. You cannot just ignore Rice being among the top hitters in RBI, total bases, slugging, batting average, home runs, etc for a 12 year period. I also dont you can really compare leadoff hitters to cleanup hitters. Boggs for instance, was a great leadoff hitter, but would have made a horrible cleanup hitter..he had good on base but wasnt a slugger. Rice would have been terrible at leadoff but was an ideal cleanup hitter. Their OPS+scores may have been similiar, but how cna one caomape a 150 OpS+ when the guy has a .450 on base percentage, with 120 walks , 110 runs and 50 RBI, to the guy with a similiar score, but more of a slugger, with 100 runs and 120 RBI? they are totally different types of hitters with different roles. I dont hold Boggs' lack of RBI or few home runs against him, just like i dont hold Rice's lack of walks, or double plays against him..they are a product of lineup placement and roles on the team. If Rice had walked 50 more times a year and driven in 30 less runs, he would have ben Ken Singleton. But Singleton had a different role on his team than did Rice...you cant just look at sabermetric value as if they are playing in a vacuum. If Rice was on Baltimore maybe he would have walked more, and been more valuable that way. Everybody getting on base with no one driving them in is useless. Its common sense that you need the guys to drive in the runs. You do not win games by having the higher on base percentage or more base runners than the other team..you win by scoring the most runs. teams with a higher on base percentage may TEND to score a lot of runs, but teams with a lot of RBI DO score a lot of runs.

[Calif_Eagle]

When I think back to the time Jim Rice played, I feel most casual fans and media types felt that he was going to be a HOF-er one day. He was a big power hitter in a pre-roids, pre new park environment. Maybe you can sabermetrically examine him and say he wasnt as good as he appeared. But average fans dont think that way. they think of him as having been a big HR and RBI man in his day. The HOF is to honor the players and is also for the fans. Roy Thomas and his .413 OBP lifetime (28th of all-time) might make a sabermetrically based HOF, Ferris Fain & his .424 OBP lifetime (14th of all-time) might too. But I will take Jim Rice for mine. I think Willshad made some Great points about sabermetrics versus Jim Rice's "mission specific" role in the Red Sox line up. Maybe Rice's low OBP hurt his OPS and keeps him from a rating like Ruth or Williams as an all-time Elite Player. But Rice is a LOT better than a lot of HOF'ers who are in. There isnt a good way to justify keeping him out. 4 of Rice's BB Ref comps are HOF-ers. The other 6 are outstanding players also. Rice is above the HOF line on black and gray ink. He is above it on the HOF monitor too. (He is below at 43 when you need 50 on the HOF standards gauge. )

In my way of thinking, Rice was at the plate to swing the bat and knock in runs and hit for extra bases & he got the job done. If he is announced as a HOF-er, it doesnt diminish the HOF any, in my view.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Is there any other player in the history of the game who was the most dominant hitter in the league for 12 seasons that isn't currently in the hall of fame?

If you are inferring that Rice was the most dominant hitter in the league you are wrong. Here is why:

1.) The "Most Feared Hitter" myth is exactly that, a myth, made up by RSN and Boston Sportswriters. From 1975-1986, 32 more players had more IBB than Rice.

2.) If he was the most dominant hitter in the league he would have lead the league in OPS more than once.

3.) His home road splits would not be this ridiclous. Look at them and you will see why you are wrong.

4.) Fun fact - from 1975-1986, during Rice's reign as "MLB's Most Feared Hitter", he led his team in OPS twice.

Jim Rice is not a hall of famer.

[ChrisLDuncan]

clearly OPS+ is a flawed formula, as neither Boggs nor Yaz were hall of fame type hitters outside of fenway. Even so, that cant be the only stat you look at.


Perhaps they were overrated hitters then? Furthermore, durring Yaz's peak he was still a very good hitter outside of Fenway.




Obviously some players are overrated by OPS+ and some are underrated by it. You cannot just ignore Rice being among the top hitters in RBI, total bases, slugging, batting average, home runs, etc for a 12 year period.

Because RBIs don't overrate players.


I also dont you can really compare leadoff hitters to cleanup hitters. Boggs for instance, was a great leadoff hitter, but would have made a horrible cleanup hitter..he had good on base but wasnt a slugger. Rice would have been terrible at leadoff but was an ideal cleanup hitter.

He was a good clean up hitter, just not a hall of famer. Boggsd on the other hand was a great hitter and a very good HoF candidate. Boggs was a third basemen, who played good defense, with a 130 OPS+ and a .310 EqA, which is very good. Jim Rice on the other hand, was a poor LF with a .294 EqA and a 128 OPS+





Their OPS+scores may have been similiar, but how cna one caomape a 150 OpS+ when the guy has a .450 on base percentage, with 120 walks , 110 runs and 50 RBI, to the guy with a similiar score, but more of a slugger, with 100 runs and 120 RBI? they are totally different types of hitters with different roles. I dont hold Boggs' lack of RBI or few home runs against him, just like i dont hold Rice's lack of walks, or double plays against him..they are a product of lineup placement and roles on the team.


There are plenty of clean up hitters who take walks, and don't GiDP into anywhere near as many DPs as Jim Rice did. He was just simply a good player, no where near a great one.



If Rice had walked 50 more times a year and driven in 30 less runs, he would have ben Ken Singleton. But Singleton had a different role on his team than did Rice...you cant just look at sabermetric value as if they are playing in a vacuum. If Rice was on Baltimore maybe he would have walked more, and been more valuable that way. Everybody getting on base with no one driving them in is useless. Its common sense that you need the guys to drive in the runs. You do not win games by having the higher on base percentage or more base runners than the other team..you win by scoring the most runs. teams with a higher on base percentage may TEND to score a lot of runs, but teams with a lot of RBI DO score a lot of runs.

His RBIs were also a product of his team, due to no skills of his own. If Rice had 50 more walks while still hitting the same amount of HRs, doubles, and hits, he'd be a great player and a legit HoFer.

[ChrisLDuncan]

from '75'-'81 George Foster may have been the best hitter in baseball..i wonder why he went downhill so fast after going to the mets? he looked like a sure fire hall of famer to me. His credintials are similiar to Rice, but Rice is clearly better.

Care to back up that statement?

[AG2004]

clearly OPS+ is a flawed formula, as neither Boggs nor Yaz were hall of fame type hitters outside of fenway. Even so, that cant be the only stat you look at.

I don't. I prefer win shares to OPS+. There are some things that OPS+ doesn't reflect.

*Defense. Boggs played 3B, while Rice was a corner outfielder. That difference isn't measured by OPS+.

*Career length. Boggs played 350 more games than Rice. Yaz played 3308 games, while Rice played just 2089 career games. That's a big difference.

*Peak performance. It is complicated to calculate OPS+ over a 5-year stretch, especially as you have to adjust for PAs.

The win shares system indicates that both Yaz and Boggs were clear-cut HOFers. Rice doesn't; his defense and career length are reflected in his win share totals.

Obviously some players are overrated by OPS+ and some are underrated by it.

Good defense: underrated
Bad defense: overrated

Long career with lengthy decline phase: underrated
Short career with quick decline phase: overrated

OPS+ alone will overrate Jim Rice as compared to Boggs and Yaz.

You cannot just ignore Rice being among the top hitters in RBI, total bases, slugging, batting average, home runs, etc for a 12 year period.

Is this on a year-by-year basis, or just by taking the 12 years as a whole?

Luke Sewell was the best shortstop in baseball during the 1920s as a whole - but he was never really baseball's best shortstop at any point during that period. Dobie Moore was better from 1920 to 1925, while Willie Wells was better from 1926 to 1929. But, since Wells wasn't playing during the first half of the decade, and Moore didn't play during the second half, Sewell comes out ahead simply because no shortstop of his caliber had a career that completely overlapped his.

Also, I'm not ignoring what Rice did. I'm using park adjustments to determine how much was due to Rice himself, and how much was due to the context he played in.

I also dont you can really compare leadoff hitters to cleanup hitters. Boggs for instance, was a great leadoff hitter, but would have made a horrible cleanup hitter..he had good on base but wasnt a slugger. Rice would have been terrible at leadoff but was an ideal cleanup hitter. Their OPS+scores may have been similiar, but how can one compare a 150 OpS+ when the guy has a .450 on base percentage, with 120 walks , 110 runs and 50 RBI, to the guy with a similiar score, but more of a slugger, with 100 runs and 120 RBI?

We can compare how many runs the first person improves a marginal-level team by his offense, and how many runs the second person improves the team by.

they are totally different types of hitters with different roles. I dont hold Boggs' lack of RBI or few home runs against him, just like i dont hold Rice's lack of walks, or double plays against him..they are a product of lineup placement and roles on the team.

RBI totals are essentially predictable based upon (a) a hitter's other offensive numbers and (b) the number of people on base when the hitter comes to bat. RBI totals are more indicative of how good the other batters on the team were than they are of how good the batter himself was.

Boggs' win share totals reflect the fact that he couldn't hit runs, while Rice's win share totals reflect his lack of walks and high GIDP totals. Both also reflect the positive attributes they brought to the team.

Rice had 4429 PA with nobody on, and 4629 PA with somebody on. Of those 4629 AB, 1906 of them came with a runner on first, with nobody else on. Only 30% of Rice's PAs came with runners in scoring position. How is he going to drive in runs all the other times? If he doesn't drive in a run, at least he can get on base and not use one of his team's precious outs.

If Rice had walked 50 more times a year and driven in 30 less runs, he would have ben Ken Singleton. But Singleton had a different role on his team than did Rice...you cant just look at sabermetric value as if they are playing in a vacuum.

If Rice had walked 50 more times a year, as opposed to turning those 50 PAs into outs, he would have been more valuable; also, since those walks would have been outs anyway, his RBI totals would not have dropped. Also, how much of the difference in RBI is due to the caliber of players around them? Unless all of your RBIs come off solo home runs, there has to be someone on base for you to get an RBI, so hitters on high-offense teams get a boost there. If there were more people for Rice to drive in than for Singleton to drive in, why should Rice get the credit for what is essentially a difference in the quality of his teammates?


If Rice was on Baltimore maybe he would have walked more, and been more valuable that way. Everybody getting on base with no one driving them in is useless.

If a team has an OBP of 1.000, the team will score an infinite number of runs. If you walk with the bases loaded, you pick up an RBI. The next person walks with the bases loaded; that's an RBI for that person.


Its common sense that you need the guys to drive in the runs.

An individual's RBI totals are basically a result of (a) opportunities to drive in runs and (b) other offensive statistics. If they are driving in runs, they are good hitters anyway, and have people on base when they go up to bat.

You do not win games by having the higher on base percentage or more base runners than the other team..you win by scoring the most runs. teams with a higher on base percentage may TEND to score a lot of runs, but teams with a lot of RBI DO score a lot of runs.

There's one thing you're missing - when a run is scored, someone on the team will be credited with an RBI (unless the defense has made an error, or the hitter has hit into a DP). Teams that score a lot of runs will have high RBI totals. It doesn't matter if they're getting the runs by a lot of people getting singles and walks, or if they're getting them by a couple of big hitters driving everybody else in; they'll have high RBI totals either way. You are getting cause and effect backwards in the last sentence; scoring runs means a team will have high RBI totals.

[willshad]

If you are inferring that Rice was the most dominant hitter in the league you are wrong. Here is why:

1.) The "Most Feared Hitter" myth is exactly that, a myth, made up by RSN and Boston Sportswriters. From 1975-1986, 32 more players had more IBB than Rice.

2.) If he was the most dominant hitter in the league he would have lead the league in OPS more than once.

3.) His home road splits would not be this ridiclous. Look at them and you will see why you are wrong.

4.) Fun fact - from 1975-1986, during Rice's reign as "MLB's Most Feared Hitter", he led his team in OPS twice.

Jim Rice is not a hall of famer.



what do intentional walks have to do with anything? Im sure a lot of great hitters havent had a lot of intentional walks..that doesnt mean a thing.

OPS is just one stat, what about RBI, hits, total bases, slugging, extra base hits? So what he only led his team twice..Lou Gehrig, one of the 5 best hitters ever, only led his team in OPS 3 or 4 times, and two of them were just barely..does that mean he wasnt a hall of famer? Rice finished 4th among all major leaguers in OPS during the '75' -'86 span..that means he was more consistent than other guys like Lynn and Boggs and Evans who may have had a couple outstanding years. How many guys can you name were 4th among major leaguers in OPS for that long a span, and also top 1 or 2 in those other offensive stats, and isnt a hall of famer?
The bottom line regarding Rice is this: you can henpeck and find stats that make him seem overrated, and you can henpeck and find stats that make him seem dominant and great. The truth lies somewhere in between. He wasnt an all time great player, or even an all time great hitter. Nor would he be a disgrace to the hall of fame. If elected, he would be right at the border of the group that includes Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, and Chuck Klein. It's obvous that OPS+ underrates him, just as it's obvious that his raw stats overrate him. The double plays are often mentioned, but they are merely a product of having runners on base..something out of his control. To penalize Rice for these double plays without also giving him credit for his RBI totals (also a product of runners on base, out of his control) is to subjectively look for negative, and ignore the positive. He is right smack dab on the borderline of the hall of fame, and to argue one extreme or the other is pointless.

[willshad]

I don't. I prefer win shares to OPS+. There are some things that OPS+ doesn't reflect.

*Defense. Boggs played 3B, while Rice was a corner outfielder. That difference isn't measured by OPS+.

*Career length. Boggs played 350 more games than Rice. Yaz played 3308 games, while Rice played just 2089 career games. That's a big difference.

*Peak performance. It is complicated to calculate OPS+ over a 5-year stretch, especially as you have to adjust for PAs.

The win shares system indicates that both Yaz and Boggs were clear-cut HOFers. Rice doesn't; his defense and career length are reflected in his win share totals.



Good defense: underrated
Bad defense: overrated

Long career with lengthy decline phase: underrated
Short career with quick decline phase: overrated

OPS+ alone will overrate Jim Rice as compared to Boggs and Yaz.



Is this on a year-by-year basis, or just by taking the 12 years as a whole?

Luke Sewell was the best shortstop in baseball during the 1920s as a whole - but he was never really baseball's best shortstop at any point during that period. Dobie Moore was better from 1920 to 1925, while Willie Wells was better from 1926 to 1929. But, since Wells wasn't playing during the first half of the decade, and Moore didn't play during the second half, Sewell comes out ahead simply because no shortstop of his caliber had a career that completely overlapped his.

Also, I'm not ignoring what Rice did. I'm using park adjustments to determine how much was due to Rice himself, and how much was due to the context he played in.



We can compare how many runs the first person improves a marginal-level team by his offense, and how many runs the second person improves the team by.



RBI totals are essentially predictable based upon (a) a hitter's other offensive numbers and (b) the number of people on base when the hitter comes to bat. RBI totals are more indicative of how good the other batters on the team were than they are of how good the batter himself was.

Boggs' win share totals reflect the fact that he couldn't hit runs, while Rice's win share totals reflect his lack of walks and high GIDP totals. Both also reflect the positive attributes they brought to the team.

Rice had 4429 PA with nobody on, and 4629 PA with somebody on. Of those 4629 AB, 1906 of them came with a runner on first, with nobody else on. Only 30% of Rice's PAs came with runners in scoring position. How is he going to drive in runs all the other times? If he doesn't drive in a run, at least he can get on base and not use one of his team's precious outs.



If Rice had walked 50 more times a year, as opposed to turning those 50 PAs into outs, he would have been more valuable; also, since those walks would have been outs anyway, his RBI totals would not have dropped. Also, how much of the difference in RBI is due to the caliber of players around them? Unless all of your RBIs come off solo home runs, there has to be someone on base for you to get an RBI, so hitters on high-offense teams get a boost there. If there were more people for Rice to drive in than for Singleton to drive in, why should Rice get the credit for what is essentially a difference in the quality of his teammates?




If a team has an OBP of 1.000, the team will score an infinite number of runs. If you walk with the bases loaded, you pick up an RBI. The next person walks with the bases loaded; that's an RBI for that person.




An individual's RBI totals are basically a result of (a) opportunities to drive in runs and (b) other offensive statistics. If they are driving in runs, they are good hitters anyway, and have people on base when they go up to bat.



There's one thing you're missing - when a run is scored, someone on the team will be credited with an RBI (unless the defense has made an error, or the hitter has hit into a DP). Teams that score a lot of runs will have high RBI totals. It doesn't matter if they're getting the runs by a lot of people getting singles and walks, or if they're getting them by a couple of big hitters driving everybody else in; they'll have high RBI totals either way. You are getting cause and effect backwards in the last sentence; scoring runs means a team will have high RBI totals.



show me a team in the last 50 years that has scored a lot of runs just with singles and walks. This isnt the dead ball era. Ask any major league player which stat is most important, and most will say the RBI. Guys arent up there looking to walk when runners are on base, especially the guys PAID to bring the runners home. If a team gets 9 hits and 5 walks in a game, and doesnt score, what good did they do? one of the most important stats to winning is hitting with runners in scoring position...just ask the yankees. That is why the guys who drive in the runs consistently are paid the big bucks.

[ChrisLDuncan]

what do intentional walks have to do with anything? Im sure a lot of great hitters havent had a lot of intentional walks..that doesnt mean a thing.


The "feared" hitters get walked intentionally, the "Most Feared Hitter" thing is a myth.



OPS is just one stat, what about RBI, hits, total bases, slugging, extra base hits? So what he only led his team twice..Lou Gehrig, one of the 5 best hitters ever, only led his team in OPS 3 or 4 times, and two of them were just barely..does that mean he wasnt a hall of famer? Rice finished 4th among all major leaguers in OPS during the '75' -'86 span..that means he was more consistent than other guys like Lynn and Boggs and Evans who may have had a couple outstanding years. How many guys can you name were 4th among major leaguers in OPS for that long a span, and also top 1 or 2 in those other offensive stats, and isnt a hall of famer?


What about on base percentage? The Gehrig example is horrible, he had Ruth on his team,the best hitter ever, no one ever claimed that he was the best hitter for a decade like they do Rice. Gehrig also had an OPS+ well over 170. He was more consistent than Lynn and Evans, no one is saying those guys are Hall of Famers, I fail to see how he was more consistent than Boggs.



The bottom line regarding Rice is this: you can henpeck and find stats that
make him seem overrated, and you can henpeck and find stats that make him seem dominant and great. The truth lies somewhere in between. He wasnt an all time great player, or even an all time great hitter. Nor would he be a disgrace to the hall of fame. If elected, he would be right at the border of the group that includes Billy Williams, Orlando Cepeda, Duke Snider, and Chuck Klein. It's obvous that OPS+ underrates him, just as it's obvious that his raw stats overrate him. The double plays are often mentioned, but they are merely a product of having runners on base..something out of his control. To penalize Rice for these double plays without also giving him credit for his RBI totals (also a product of runners on base, out of his control) is to subjectively look for negative, and ignore the positive. He is right smack dab on the borderline of the hall of fame, and to argue one extreme or the other is pointless.

The only stats that you can find to make him seem great are RBIs and perhaps slugging percentage both of which do not even come close to telling the whole story. I also fail to see how OPS+ underrates him?

[willshad]

The "feared" hitters get walked intentionally, the "Most Feared Hitter" thing is a myth.




What about on base percentage? The Gehrig example is horrible, he had Ruth on his team,the best hitter ever, no one ever claimed that he was the best hitter for a decade like they do Rice. Gehrig also had an OPS+ well over 170. He was more consistent than Lynn and Evans, no one is saying those guys are Hall of Famers, I fail to see how he was more consistent than Boggs.




The only stats that you can find to make him seem great are RBIs and perhaps slugging percentage both of which do not even come close to telling the whole story. I also fail to see how OPS+ underrates him?






Id say being great in home runs ,RBI and slugging are very important, considering he was a slugger who was there to drive in runs. Thats like me saying that Tim Raines was only great for runs and steals and maybe on base percentage. He sucked at hitting home runs, driving in runs, couldnt field well, declined severely at a very early age, etc. But guess what...he wasnt there to slug and drive in runs.and what he did he did very well. I dont see people harping on Tim Raines for his lack of slugging the way they do Rice for his lack of great OBP.Tim Raines was a great player, but I wouldnt want a Tim Raines hitting 1-5 in my lineup. All borderline hall of famers will have their good points and their bad points. The question is were they good enough at what they did well, and did they do it long enough.
OPS+ underrates him because he was more of a free swinger than a walks guy. If he had 40 or 50 more walks a season, and 20 or 30 less RBI, then sabermetric people would all be saying how great he was. His OPS+ would be higher, but he wouldnt have been as celebrated , nor would he had stood out as much. I think you have to take everything into account..if he was obviously trying to drive in runs and not necessarliy get on base, how can you penalize him for doing what he was trying to do? Nobody cared about OPS+ in the 1970s. Heck nobody does even now, except sabermetric people.

[willshad]

Care to back up that statement?

care to back up what statement? that he went downhill after joining the mets? i think thats pretty obvious

[brett]

Id say being great in home runs ,RBI and slugging are very important, considering he was a slugger who was there to drive in runs.

Again Rice is only 86th in career slugging percentage in basically a net neutral environment, and only 166th in games played. For a guy who didn't have big plusses on the bases or in the field that's not very good.

[willshad]

Again Rice is only 86th in career slugging percentage in basically a net neutral environment, and only 166th in games played. For a guy who didn't have big plusses on the bases or in the field that's not very good.

and how many of the guys ahead of him are hall of famers, steroid guys, or guys from that era?

[Los Bravos]

clearly OPS+ is a flawed formula, as neither Boggs nor Yaz were hall of fame type hitters outside of fenway. Even so, that cant be the only stat you look at. Obviously some players are overrated by OPS+ and some are underrated by it. You cannot just ignore Rice being among the top hitters in RBI, total bases, slugging, batting average, home runs, etc for a 12 year period. I also dont you can really compare leadoff hitters to cleanup hitters. Boggs for instance, was a great leadoff hitter, but would have made a horrible cleanup hitter..he had good on base but wasnt a slugger. Rice would have been terrible at leadoff but was an ideal cleanup hitter. Their OPS+scores may have been similiar, but how cna one caomape a 150 OpS+ when the guy has a .450 on base percentage, with 120 walks , 110 runs and 50 RBI, to the guy with a similiar score, but more of a slugger, with 100 runs and 120 RBI? they are totally different types of hitters with different roles. I dont hold Boggs' lack of RBI or few home runs against him, just like i dont hold Rice's lack of walks, or double plays against him..they are a product of lineup placement and roles on the team. If Rice had walked 50 more times a year and driven in 30 less runs, he would have ben Ken Singleton. But Singleton had a different role on his team than did Rice...you cant just look at sabermetric value as if they are playing in a vacuum. If Rice was on Baltimore maybe he would have walked more, and been more valuable that way. Everybody getting on base with no one driving them in is useless. Its common sense that you need the guys to drive in the runs. You do not win games by having the higher on base percentage or more base runners than the other team..you win by scoring the most runs. teams with a higher on base percentage may TEND to score a lot of runs, but teams with a lot of RBI DO score a lot of runs.Probably the best post in this whole thread.If you are inferring that Rice was the most dominant hitter in the league you are wrong.Actually, he's implying that. You are inferring his meaning correctly.

[willshad]

86th on the all time slugging percentage list doesnt sound that impressive. Then you consider that every single guy ahead of him is either 1) a hall of famer 2) a steroid taker 3) played in the 'steroid' era or 4) had way less at bats than he did.

[AG2004]

OPS+ underrates him because he was more of a free swinger than a walks guy. If he had 40 or 50 more walks a season, and 20 or 30 less RBI, then sabermetric people would all be saying how great he was. His OPS+ would be higher, but he wouldnt have been as celebrated , nor would he had stood out as much. I think you have to take everything into account..if he was obviously trying to drive in runs and not necessarliy get on base, how can you penalize him for doing what he was trying to do? Nobody cared about OPS+ in the 1970s. Heck nobody does even now, except sabermetric people.



Let me repeat what I said above. Only 30% of Rice's plate appearances came with runners in scoring position. What do you want him to do the remaining 70% of the time?

Also, you are talking about 12 to 15 more walks with RISP, and most of those would-be walks were outs in real life. There's no way he would have lost 20 to 30 RBI. Furthermore, was Rice the only person on the team capable of driving in runners? I would think that the hitter after him would have recorded a few more RBIs had Rice walked more often.

About 50% of the time, nobody was on base when Rice came to bat. How was he supposed to drive in runs then? Jim Rice had 1906 plate appearances when the only other teammate on the bases was on first base. Was trying to drive in the run a good idea then?

Rice recorded 315 career GIDPs. Given the number of times he came to the plate with someone on first and nobody else on, that is putrid. His team would have been much better off had Rice walked instead of swung freely. Instead of nobody on and two out, it would have had men on first and second with no outs. Instead of an inning-ending double play, it would have had men on first and second with one out, and more chances to score.

Your "free swinger" argument would work only about 30% of the time for Rice. Are you saying that the other 70% of Rice's plate appearances just weren't that important?

[willshad]

First of all, you CAN drive in a run with no one on base..ever hear of a home run? Yeah he was prettty good at that. Secondly, you are acting as if swinging away is the same as conceding an out, and taking pitches is the same as getting a free base, Rice wasnt some .200 hitter or even a .250 hitter. he was a .300 hitter..with power.. back when that meant something. Ok so maybe he wasnt 'feared', and got most pitches in the strike zone..is he suppoed to let those pitches go by and get called out on strikes? wouldnt it make sense to swing, especially when he could hit over .300 by swinging? If he is swinging at pitches in the strike zone then he is doing the right thing. And if he is swinging at pitches OUT of the strike zone, then he must be a great hitter indeed; because he can still hit over .300 every year swinging at bad pitches. Walks are as much a measure of opportunity as RBI are..not to mention the umpire's subjective calling (you dont think Barry Bonds got a lot of 'borderline' pitches go his way?). Is it better to swing at borderline pitches , or let them go and leave it up to the umpire? Its debatable either way.

[OleMissCub]

No to Rice. I'll save OleMiss the trouble...

OMG!!! CARDINAL FAN BE BIASED! WERD UP!

Well...I don't think he should be in either.....perhaps I'm a biased National League homer, but at least we can agree on this.

Rice was a one dimensional player who was helped immensely by his home ballpark.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If RBIs are so important we should put Joe Carter in the Hall too...

[mtortolero]

What it´s the difference in the HOF cases of Rice vs Parker or vs Foster or vs Colavito vs Howard,or vs Bob Johnson, or...
Once Jim Rice get a plaque in the HOF all those guys should be inmediatly considered too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bob Johnson is a MUCH better player than Rice (career Offensive Winning Percentage of .693 to Rice's .630). Johnson has a HOF case on peak value.

Colavito and Howard both have better Offensive Winning Percentage's than Rice (.670 for Howard, .660 for Colavito).

Norm Cash has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .707!!! This is true HOF territory. There is no way on God's Green Earth that Jim Rice should be in the HOF while denying Norm Cash.

[hellborn]

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.

[willshad]

Norm Cash clearly is not a hall of famer to me. His counting stats do not measure up for a first baseman. only one 100 RBI season (in a year that he cheated), a .271 average...1103 career RBI. His career OPS+ is solid, but he never had any MVP type seasons outside of 1961, and barely even all star type seasons only a couple of times. Nowhere near dominant enough..besides 1961 his high in the MVP voting was # 12. Rice dwarfs him on ink scores and hall of fame monitor and standards tests as well. They are not comparable.
Colavito falls short as well. with a .266 average and barely 1100 RBI. I think hes more comparable to Fred Lynn...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.
Bob Johnson I think comes a bit closer, but also falls short. only 288 home runs. I put him in the Will Clark territory...a bit below the gray area. He wasnt dominant enough for someone with such low career totals. His high in the MVP voting was #5, and that was a joke season where his line was 7 63 .265 (what the hack happened THERE????), and other than that wasnt considered for MVP..was clearly a second tier star,overshadowed by the greats. had he come up before age 27 Id give him a very good shot at the hall, though. I wonder what the story is behind that.

[OleMissCub]

I know it isn't everything, but his WARP3 is just crap: 83.2

Other HOF hitters of Rice's era in their first 16 years (Rice's career span)

Murray: 127.9
Yount: 118.9
Winfield: 112.0
Schmidt: 155.3
Jackson: 112.8
Molitor: 102.9
Brett: 116.9
Puckett (in just 12 years): 91.5
Sandberg (only 14 full seasons): 113.1

Other guys up for it this year:
Dawson had 97.5 in his first 16 years.
Raines: 115.2 in his first 16

[hellborn]

Bob Johnson is a MUCH better player than Rice (career Offensive Winning Percentage of .693 to Rice's .630). Johnson has a HOF case on peak value.

Colavito and Howard both have better Offensive Winning Percentage's than Rice (.670 for Howard, .660 for Colavito).

Norm Cash has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .707!!! This is true HOF territory. There is no way on God's Green Earth that Jim Rice should be in the HOF while denying Norm Cash.

Can you imagine what Frank Howard would have done in Fenway in the late '70s? He put up great numbers in Chavez Ravine and RFK Stadium in the '60s...even in '68, when the rest of the league seemed to decide to hold their bats by the wrong end. His OBP blossomed when TW got ahold of him late in his career, doesn't seem like Rice ever listened to Splinter.
Thing is, Frank was a significantly worse OFer than Jim. But, if he could have played OF in Fenway, at least he wouldn't have been stretched too much. Rice probably wouldn't have looked too great playing LF in Howard's big home parks, either.

[digglahhh]

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]

[RuthMayBond]

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. Offense is helping to create runs.
Player A: .350 OBP, .400 SLG
Player B: .340 OBP, .520 SLG
All other things equal

Player B probably makes more outs in the same amount of plate apps, but I'll go with the offense created but player B

[digglahhh]

Can you imagine what Frank Howard would have done in Fenway in the late '70s? He put up great numbers in Chavez Ravine and RFK Stadium in the '60s...even in '68, when the rest of the league seemed to decide to hold their bats by the wrong end. His OBP blossomed when TW got ahold of him late in his career, doesn't seem like Rice ever listened to Splinter.
Thing is, Frank was a significantly worse OFer than Jim. But, if he could have played OF in Fenway, at least he wouldn't have been stretched too much. Rice probably wouldn't have looked too great playing LF in Howard's big home parks, either.

IMO, Hondo has a clearly superior HOF case than Rice. It's probably pretty hard to argue that Howard would have been an absolute monster in Fenway, and that playing there would have minimized the effects of his defensive issues.

[digglahhh]

Offense is helping to create runs.
Player A: .350 OBP, .400 SLG
Player B: .340 OBP, .520 SLG
All other things equal

Player B probably makes more outs in the same amount of plate apps, but I'll go with the offense created but player B

This proves what?

These players weren't incredibly different in their abilities to get on base, and one of them hit with a lot more power than the other.

I maintain my point, in the face of cherry-picked comparisons and ideological hypotheticals. My argument is in refutation of the flawed logic that on base skills can be forgiven based on a player's "role" on the team, i.e. RBI totals.

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.