Rice versus Perez

[Professor]

You'll excuse my inherent bias, but if Tony Perez is in -- and that was questionable to me-- James Edward Rice is a Hall of Famer, folks.

-Prof

[leecemark]

If Jesse Haines is in Dave Stewart should be in
If Ray Schalk is in Bob Boone should be in
If George Kelly is in Bill Buckner should be in
If Bill Mazeroski is in Frank White should be in
If Fred Lindsrom is in Bill Madlock should be in

--In every one of these examples, the comp is reasonable. The guys not in are arguably as good or better as the Hall of Famer. However, none of them deserves to be in the Hall. One mistake does not justify another.
-- I think Rice has a decent case on his own merits. Not a great one, but you can argue it and not look foolish. You might even convince someone. Saying he deserves to be in because Perez is in isn't going to convince anybody though. If we let in everybody who is better than the worst guy in the Hall they'd need to add a couple new wings.

[J W]

Very concise and well, er, said, leecemark.

Tony Perez is one of those 2700+ hits candidates we discussed in another thread, who happened to slip through the BBWAA via his 505 doubles and gaudy 1652 R'sBI. I can consider him a HOFer only if I compare him to other players at his position--primarily first base--and even then there are a number of guys I'd put in first (Will Clark, for example... and certainly Dick Allen given the chance). Nonetheless it appears he did just enough to merit election by the board. Can't blame him on the Vet's Committee... Perez is about as close to the modern-day borderline as there is.

9778 AB
OPS .804 / 122 OPS+
BI: 0 / GI: 129 / Std: 40.7 / Mon: 81.0

Jim Rice on the other hand, scores an 821 similarity with Perez, which is not too remarkable considering they played mostly at the same time. Perez's closest comp is actually Harold Baines, of the DH fame... while Rice is most comparable to Orlando Cepeda. Here are his numbers:

8225 AB
OPS .854 / 128 OPS+
BI: 33 / GI: 176 / Std: 42.9 / Mon: 146.5

Rice is higher in everything, in less at-bats, than Perez. He has an AL MVP, two more top ten finishes than Perez and one more all-star appearance. The only thing Perez nails him in is rote stats, and not by much in anything except doubles. Rice even pelted three more HRs (382-379), but who's counting that...

In any case, it's difficult to compare infielders to outfielders... but not as much if you stick to LF and 1B I suppose. So, despite all the groans from the Jamesian crowd, any HOF that has Tony Perez solidly in gets my Jim Rice vote. Neither of them are pressing needs in my book however. Perez still rode the Big Red Machine and Rice still benefited greatly from his home park.

stats as usual grabbed from baseball-reference.com

[Cougar]

Ditto to Leecemark and JW. Rice belongs on his own merits.

I think Perez was a perfectly good choice by the voters myself, but the "if...then" argument is always a dodgy one and a particularly strained one here.

[Professor]

First off, let me say that I am brand new to this forum and I'm both impressed and delighted at the intelligence of the banter I've seen. I'm liking this.

Back to the matter at hand.....

Leecemark makes a cogent argument that is well taken. As my buddy Bill O'Reilly always says, "You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior." That said, I am simply angling for consistency. I do believe Rice belongs, however I actually could be swayed in the opposite direction if player of Perez's ilk were not enshrined. True, if you took my argument to heart, you'd have to let a whole slew of additional players in. But if a modicum of consistency is maintained, then we'd cease to have an issue. If it can be argued that playing in the same era, Rice and Perez put up similar numbers, either they're both in or they're both out. That's my point.

I am of the persuasion that it should be quite difficult for ballplayers to make it into the Hall. The distinction and prestige of the institution should always be preserved. However I do not think, as some do, that practically nobody else (who isn't already in) deserves enshrinement. I really have to laugh when a guy like a Ryan or a Carlton or a Seaver does not receive 100% of the available vote. Which HOF voter, in their right mind, could make an argument against these guys? But obviously, at least a few writers see fit to vote NO.....for everyone, no matter who it is. Fodder for a whole other thread, though.

-Prof

[dgarza]

I would have been under the impression that Rice would have gotten more support than Perez. That never happened.

[Professor]

True enough. It's well known that during his playing days, Rice didn't exactly endear himself to media types, some of whom regarded him as surly and uncooperative. I honestly think his exclusion thus far can been attributed to grudges that writers still carry.

[four tool]

Rice is not a hall of famer. Ted Williams said he was a good, not a great hitter, and he didn't walk much. Perez made it because he had 12--count em-12 straight 90+ Rbi years, and that wasn't easy in that era and he was part of the Big Red Machine. Rice had about 4 really good years and some decent ones, but he is NOT one of the all time greats. Perez may not be either, but I don't see the comparison given Tony's consistency over more than a decade.

[dgarza]

Rice had about 4 really good years and some decent ones, .

Perez GREAT years 69-70-73

Rice GREAT years 77-78-79-83-86

[DoubleX]

I've gotten the impression that Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, and Mike Schmidt, all former Perez teammates, and all people in very good standing with the Hall of Fame and baseball in general, campaign hard for their former comrades (Pete Rose being a very good example). I think Perez' association with these huge baseball names probably helped him a great deal in getting past the voters. I think Fame by association can really help some borderline candidates. What made the Big Red Machine so big and great? Two hall of famers? No, that's not enough. Three, if you count Rose? What about Four? Four Hall of Famers would definitely cement the legacy of the Big Red Machine. On the other side, Jim Rice has only his numbers outside of Carlton Fisk and some painful losses to the Big Red Machine and the Yankees.

[dgarza]

What made the Big Red Machine so big and great? Two hall of famers? No, that's not enough. Three, if you count Rose? What about Four? Four Hall of Famers would definitely cement the legacy of the Big Red Machine.
Let's see....Bench...Morgan...you gotta count Rose (he was a future HOF when he played, and is only not in 'cause of his manager days and nights)...Anderson (can't overlook how he used what he had)...(do you really want to count Brennaman?)...then Perez...a bit more than 2

[Cougar]

Let's see....Bench...Morgan...you gotta count Rose (he was a future HOF when he played, and is only not in 'cause of his manager days and nights)...Anderson (can't overlook how he used what he had)...(do you really want to count Brennaman?)...then Perez...a bit more than 2

Don't forget Davey Concepcion knocking on the door.

[dgarza]

Don't forget Davey Concepcion knocking on the door.
I'd didn't want to get into that, but sure...'though I would say he's knocking all that loud

[Cougar]

I'd didn't want to get into that, but sure...'though I would say he's knocking all that loud

No, but if what you say about Bench & Morgan on the VC is true (and it certainly seems to be), his knocking will get louder when he hits that ballot.

[dgarza]

No, but if what you say about Bench & Morgan on the VC is true (and it certainly seems to be), his knocking will get louder when he hits that ballot.
Maybe it was someone else who said something about Bench and Morgan on the VC, not me, but if that IS so, then we'll see.

[Cougar]

Maybe it was someone else who said something about Bench and Morgan on the VC, not me, but if that IS so, then we'll see.

Oh, it was DoubleX; sorry. Anyway...

[DoubleX]

Let's see....Bench...Morgan...you gotta count Rose (he was a future HOF when he played, and is only not in 'cause of his manager days and nights)...Anderson (can't overlook how he used what he had)...(do you really want to count Brennaman?)...then Perez...a bit more than 2

Are you mocking my comment or making a follow-up to it?

Also, I never said anything about Bench and Morgan on the VC. I just meant that they campaign a lot for their guys, Pete Rose being a good example, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bench, Morgan, and perhaps even Schmidt were able to influence voters on Tony Perez.

[Cougar]

Are you mocking my comment or making a follow-up to it?

Also, I never said anything about Bench and Morgan on the VC. I just meant that they campaign a lot for their guys, Pete Rose being a good example, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bench, Morgan, and perhaps even Schmidt were able to influence voters on Tony Perez.

Both are true -- they campaign for their guys, and they are on the VC. Their advocacy no doubt helped Perez with the BBWAA.

I don't think there's any disagreement here. I know I was just following up; I took dgarza's comment as a follow-up too.

[2Chance]

This appeared around the time of his enshrinement, on MLB.com:
One of baseball's greatest run producers, Perez retired as the 14th-best RBI man in Major League history. (1652)

After sharing Cincinnati's first-base job in his first two years, Perez was switched to third base from 1967 to 1972 to get slugger Lee May into the lineup.

For 10 years (1967-76), Perez was one of the leaders of the Big Red Machine, six times topping 100 RBI. With Perez in the infield, the Reds won four pennants. In 1970, his best season, he hit .317 with 40 homers and 134 RBI. He belted three home runs in the 1975 World Series against the Red Sox, two in Game 5 and one in Game 7 when Bill Lee tried to fool him with a soft lob.

He later had several excellent years for Montreal and Boston, and he remained a dangerous pinch hitter for several seasons after his days as a regular ended. He was often compared to first baseman Orlando Cepeda, and Perez' final homer in 1986 tied him with Cepeda at 379 for the most career homers by a Latin player.

Until his selection as a Hall of Famer, for years Perez had the distinction of being the best RBI man to not be in Cooperstown.
They didn't even mention his home runs in the playoffs and the one that won the 1967 All-Star Game in the 15th inning. It really shouldn't have taken a lot of lobbying to get him in. And I never understand when he's called a borderline HoF'er.

[DoubleX]

Both are true -- they campaign for their guys, and they are on the VC. Their advocacy no doubt helped Perez with the BBWAA.

I don't think there's any disagreement here. I know I was just following up; I took dgarza's comment as a follow-up too.

I also assumed dgarza was following-up. I just wanted to make sure we weren't confusing each other; it's tough to tell sometimes in this cold online world of ours.

Is every living member of the hall on the VC, or are there some requirements, such as time? For instance, will Molitor and Eck be allowed to vote next year?

[Cougar]

Is every living member of the hall on the VC, or are there some requirements, such as time? For instance, will Molitor and Eck be allowed to vote next year?

Every living member. Molly and Eck vote next year.

[DoubleX]

They didn't even mention his home runs in the playoffs and the one that won the 1967 All-Star Game in the 15th inning. It really shouldn't have taken a lot of lobbying to get him in. And I never understand when he's called a borderline HoF'er.

Good quote from MLB.com, convinced me. Though, I wonder how Perez' Hall chances would have been had he not played on the Big Red Machine?

On one hand, I'm thinking that maybe his value was underrated by voters because he played with Bench, Morgan, and Rose, and thus the voters attributed the Reds' success to those players and saw Perez as more of a supporting player (which may be true, but it's rare that a team is so stocked with talent that a guy of Perez' caliber is relegated to being a supporting player to other greater talents).

On the other hand, would Perez have got in if he wasn't a part of such visible and great teams. Would he have been considered a hall of fame star in his own right elsewhere, or has his attachment to the Reds (and Bench and Morgan) been the ultimate factor in getting him enshrined? Does this make any sense? I feel I'm not asking these questions the way I mean to.

I guess my question is: Is the fact that Perez lingered so long on the ballot a reflection that the voters felt he did not belong purely on his numbers and thus his affiliation with the Reds eventually helped to overcome this shortfall; or is it a statement that the voters underrated Perez' ability because he was overshadowed by such great teammates, and thus his affiliation with the Reds initially hurt his chances for induction?

[2Chance]

On one hand, I'm thinking that maybe his value was underrated by voters because he played with Bench, Morgan, and Rose, and thus the voters attributed the Reds' success to those players and saw Perez as more of a supporting player.
...(therefore)
the voters underrated Perez' ability because he was overshadowed by such great teammates, and thus his affiliation with the Reds initially hurt his chances for induction
IMO, this would be the answer to your question.

Some people are prejudiced against "Runs Batted In" because they feel that statistic is merely a product of how many people were on base when somebody got a hit. In its basic form, there's truth in that. These are the same people who argue that there is no such thing as clutch. I don't know what to tell them. Can just anybody bat 3rd, 4th or 5th on a good team?

[four tool]

Perez GREAT years 69-70-73

Rice GREAT years 77-78-79-83-86

I live in Boston and not all of them were great--look at his BBs. Besides, five great years do not make a hall of fame career. By that criteria we have a bunch of active players that should get Guerrero, Helton, Walker, Ramirez, Johnson, Schilling

[The Dude]

5 great years .. COUGH, SANDY KOUFAX, DIZZY DEAN, DAZZY VANCE, COUGH.

And are you saying that if Randy Johnson retired today, that he wouldn't be HOF worthy?

He's 9th all time in Black Ink (above such greats as Nolan Ryan, Steve Carlton,Carl Hubbel, Jim Palmer, and Whitey Ford), and 5th all time on the HOF Monitor (For pitchers of course). Surely someone whose ahead of those greats is HOF worthy. And if not, you must have a very small HOF in mind (15 people?).

Oh, and Unit has had at least 6 great years. 1995, 1997, 1999-2002. And if you can get past a sub 3.30 ERA, 1993 and 1998.

Sure, Rice didn't walk a lot, but 2 of his 3 most similar players are in the HOF (Cepeda, Snider). Maybe he could have hung on a few more seasons to get to 400 Hr's, but then his BA wouldn't be .300 and his SLG wouldn't be .500, which are both very good numbers.

Oh, and Manny Ramirez' entire career has practically been great. The only full season that he batted under .300, he had his highest HR total and 2nd highest RBI total.

[DoubleX]

Good point Dudecar, but I think there can be exceptions to the five year thing. Rice had 5 good years spread out over like 15, whereas Koufax, Dean and a few others had 5 years for the ages in a row, and then had to leave the game at their height leaving us fans to wonder what else could have been.

[dgarza]

I live in Boston and not all of them were great--look at his BBs. Besides, five great years do not make a hall of fame career. By that criteria we have a bunch of active players that should get Guerrero, Helton, Walker, Ramirez, Johnson, Schilling
I am not of the opintion that BBs make or break a great year. Look at his BBs? Are you serious? His stolen bases aren't all that impressive either, but that doesn't take away from great years either.

This Rice vs Perez....not either one vs the Hall.

Perez and Rice and similar BBs #s anyway.

[four tool]

I was pointing out that a few good years do not make a player hall worthy. Did Rice dominate the league like Koufax? No. Did he produce overwhelming numbers like Dean did some years? 50 HR would be equivalent to 30 wins maybe, but not 45 and how often did he reach that figure?
If rice deserves to go in, so does Kingman

[Cougar]

If rice deserves to go in, so does Kingman

OK, sorry, that's ridiculous. There's a 60-point difference in batting average!

[ElHalo]

I am not of the opintion that BBs make or break a great year. Look at his BBs? Are you serious? His stolen bases aren't all that impressive either, but that doesn't take away from great years either.

This Rice vs Perez....not either one vs the Hall.

Perez and Rice and similar BBs #s anyway.

You expect your power hitters to get nice walk totals and have high OBP's. He's 28 points over league average in BA, and only 16 points over in OBP... so not only was he not at a great BB level for a slugger, he was pretty far below the league average player.

Rice seems to me to fall into a level of great players who just don't rise, at ALL, to HOF standards. Guys like Ellis Burks, Joe Carter, Chili Davis, Rocky Colavito... great players, guys you'd want on your team, but not guys you'd want in the same Hall as Tris Speaker and Willie Mays.

[dgarza]

He's 28 points over league average in BA, and only 16 points over in OBP... so not only was he not at a great BB level for a slugger, he was pretty far below the league average player.


You just stated he was over AND under in the same sentence....Clarify that math

[Cougar]

What I think he's saying is that Rice is below the league average in taking walks.

That's suboptimal, but if he's way above league average in BA and SLG, and still above league average in OBP, I think most people would think you still come out ahead.

Or is a walk better than a hit now? :rolleyes:

[ElHalo]

You just stated he was over AND under in the same sentence....Clarify that math

Pretty simple. He was 28 points over league average in BA, and 16 points over league average in OBP. Since OBP essentially has two components, BA and BB's (yeah, there's HBP and SF... but they're small enough normally that you don't really have to consider them), then you can assume that a player who's 28 points over league average in BA would, if they were exactly league average in BB's, be 28 points over league average in OBP.

But Rice wasn't. He was only 16 points over league average in OBP. So the rest of the league was drawing walks at enough of a greater rate than Rice that they cancelled out 12 points of that 28 point BA advantage.

Hence, Rice was significantly below league average in his ability to draw walks... not something you like to see in a home run hitter.

[ElHalo]

What I think he's saying is that Rice is below the league average in taking walks.

That's suboptimal, but if he's way above league average in BA and SLG, and still above league average in OBP, I think most people would think you still come out ahead.

Or is a walk better than a hit now? :rolleyes:

Nobody's trying to say that Rice wasn't a great player, or that BB's are more important than H's. However... we're talking about the Hall of Fame candidacy of a borderline HoF'er, and it's one thing to consider. Ordinarily, sluggers' value is boosted by their drawing more walks... that's not the case here, so that's one knock against Rice in his HoF case.

[Cougar]

Pretty simple. He was 28 points over league average in BA, and 16 points over league average in OBP. Since OBP essentially has two components, BA and BB's (yeah, there's HBP and SF... but they're small enough normally that you don't really have to consider them), then you can assume that a player who's 28 points over league average in BA would, if they were exactly league average in BB's, be 28 points over league average in OBP.

But Rice wasn't. He was only 16 points over league average in OBP. So the rest of the league was drawing walks at enough of a greater rate than Rice that they cancelled out 12 points of that 28 point BA advantage.

Hence, Rice was significantly below league average in his ability to draw walks... not something you like to see in a home run hitter.

Significantly below average. What does significantly mean?

Rice averaged 190 hits, 52 walks, 5 HBP, and 7 Sac Flies in 162 games to get his .298 BA and his .352 OBP. He did this in 638 AB and 702 PA

League Average, 162 games, assuming 638 AB and 702 PA at .270/.336: 172 hits, plus 64 reached base either through walks or HBP. (Sac Flies get lumped with outs here.)

That's a difference of seven a year; figure six walks and one HBP. One walk a month.

How significant is that, really? One walk a month.

[ElHalo]

Significantly below average. What does significantly mean?

Rice averaged 190 hits, 52 walks, 5 HBP, and 7 Sac Flies in 162 games to get his .298 BA and his .352 OBP. He did this in 638 AB and 702 PA

League Average, 162 games, assuming 638 AB and 702 PA at .270/.336: 172 hits, plus 64 reached base either through walks or HBP. (Sac Flies get lumped with outs here.)

That's a difference of seven a year; figure six walks and one HBP. One walk a month.

How significant is that, really? One walk a month.

Pretty significant. You'd be surprised.

Take the stats that Rice has... and turn just six of those BB's a year into K's. We'll see what kind of effect that would have on his overall numbers.

His BA goes from .298 to .295. His OBP goes from .352 to .343. His SLG goes from .502 to .496. His OPS goes from .854 to .839... and his OPS+ goes from 128 to 126. All because of one walk a month.

Baseball is a game of subtelties, and statistics, where very, very slight differences can add up when you start to do the math... you add one run a month to Mariano Rivera's career, and his ERA goes from 2.49 to 3.11. Quite a difference.

A walk's not a run, of course... but it's noticable.

I once did a comparison of the defensive attributes of Rogers Hornsby, and another second baseman who's name escapes me... looking at the raw numbers, it appeared the other second baseman had slightly better defensive range... I worked out the math, and found that the numerical difference between the two of them amounted to one play every 3700 games... or roughly 24 years worth of play...

That's not significant. But one a month? Surely, it adds up over the course of a career.

[Cougar]

Pretty significant. You'd be surprised.

Take the stats that Rice has... and turn just six of those BB's a year into K's. We'll see what kind of effect that would have on his overall numbers.

His BA goes from .298 to .295. His OBP goes from .352 to .343. His SLG goes from .502 to .496. His OPS goes from .854 to .839... and his OPS+ goes from 128 to 126. All because of one walk a month.

Baseball is a game of subtelties, and statistics, where very, very slight differences can add up when you start to do the math... you add one run a month to Mariano Rivera's career, and his ERA goes from 2.49 to 3.11. Quite a difference.

A walk's not a run, of course... but it's noticable.

I once did a comparison of the defensive attributes of Rogers Hornsby, and another second baseman who's name escapes me... looking at the raw numbers, it appeared the other second baseman had slightly better defensive range... I worked out the math, and found that the numerical difference between the two of them amounted to one play every 3700 games... or roughly 24 years worth of play...

That's not significant. But one a month? Surely, it adds up over the course of a career.

No, it matters...he'd be better off reaching base one more time a month.

However, in terms of his HOF case, it's just not material.

Take your example -- which doubly penalizes Rice by subtracting plate appearances and adding unproductive outs (no RBI, etc.). (The proper test would have been to add 6 walks and one HBP a year to Rice's totals and see what difference it would have made.)

So Rice hits .295 instead of .298, and so on, as you list above. He still has an MVP, 8 All-Star games, 3 HR titles, 33 points of black ink and 176 points of gray ink (vs. Hall averages of 27/144), etc., etc., etc. The essence of his HOF case -- a really dominant short career offensively -- doesn't change a bit.

[ElHalo]

Either way... it's not make or break, just an obvious point. He had a below average BB rate, when you're expecting a slugger to have a BB rate at much higher than league average (i.e., take a look at Jason Giambi or Jim Thome... and neither of them are even HoF calibre sluggers). Jim Rice had 52 BB's per 162 games... I'd like to see at least 80 BB's from a slugger.

But, all in all... he just wasn't that good. Not HoF calibre.

As you said, he had a short career, and if a short career guy's getting in, he's supposed to be very, VERY dominant... and Rice just wasn't.

His career OPS+ of 128 is behind such active players as Magglio Ordonez, Tim Salmon, Bernie Williams, and John Olerud... not a HoF'er in the bunch.

His best season for OPS+ was 158, in 1978... to put that in perspective, Jim Edmonds had an OPS+ of 161 last year. So in Jim Rice's VERY BEST YEAR, when he was MOST DOMINANT... he was not quite as good as the second best guy on the team that finished third in the NL Central last season.

And note: A whole lot of Rice's pain in the OPS department comes from his lack of BB's... he finished in the top 10 in SLG 8 times, the top 10 in BA 7 times... but the top 10 in OBP only twice, and never higher than 9th.

In contrast, Ralph Kiner, the prototypical short career HoF'er... put up OPS's in his best five year run of 173, 146, 184, 156, 184. Rice's best five year run? 121, 148, 158, 154, 123. Not quite up to par.

So there. He just wasn't that good. And BB's were a big part of it.

[Cougar]

Either way... it's not make or break, just an obvious point. He had a below average BB rate, when you're expecting a slugger to have a BB rate at much higher than league average (i.e., take a look at Jason Giambi or Jim Thome... and neither of them are even HoF calibre sluggers). Jim Rice had 52 BB's per 162 games... I'd like to see at least 80 BB's from a slugger.

But, all in all... he just wasn't that good. Not HoF calibre.

As you said, he had a short career, and if a short career guy's getting in, he's supposed to be very, VERY dominant... and Rice just wasn't.

His career OPS+ of 128 is behind such active players as Magglio Ordonez, Tim Salmon, Bernie Williams, and John Olerud... not a HoF'er in the bunch.

His best season for OPS+ was 158, in 1978... to put that in perspective, Jim Edmonds had an OPS+ of 161 last year. So in Jim Rice's VERY BEST YEAR, when he was MOST DOMINANT... he was not quite as good as the second best guy on the team that finished third in the NL Central last season.

And note: A whole lot of Rice's pain in the OPS department comes from his lack of BB's... he finished in the top 10 in SLG 8 times, the top 10 in BA 7 times... but the top 10 in OBP only twice, and never higher than 9th.

In contrast, Ralph Kiner, the prototypical short career HoF'er... put up OPS's in his best five year run of 173, 146, 184, 156, 184. Rice's best five year run? 121, 148, 158, 154, 123. Not quite up to par.

So there. He just wasn't that good. And BB's were a big part of it.

I don't want to respond to you point-by-point, but quickly:

1. Your argument is based just about completely on BB's, and how they impact OPS+. Home runs aren't good enough; your sluggers have to take walks too. Fine; any player is better off taking more walks; this was not something Rice did very well (although he was far from horrible, either). You want to call it a weakness? OK, although I don't think it so bad that it's worth all the ink we've spent on it.

2. Kiner was better than Rice; no argument. He was also probably the best pure HR hitter, percentage-wise, between Ruth and McGwire. Rice isn't in that class, but that's not the standard for the HOF.

3. Comparing Rice and Edmonds basically makes me question the value of the OPS+ stat. It doesn't meet the face validity test, which basically means I can believe it or my own eyes, but not both. (Er, and the eyes of just about all other contemporary observers, by the way.) I remember 1978; not very well -- I was quite young -- but I do. I certainly remember last year. There's nothing you or anyone else in the world can do to convince me that Edmonds 2003 was as valuable as Rice 1978. It just isn't so. I was there.

3a. My guess is the problem with the OPS+ stat is a change in the variance. There's more spread in the distribution between the best players' OPS+ and the average today than there was 25 years ago. That's actually a very weird pattern, because the tendency has been for rate stats to converge as time passes (I fear steroids may be the only explanation, although expansion also may be a factor), but whatever the reason, it's what's happening, and it's why Rice led his league in the stat while Edmonds was almost 50% behind the leader and 20% behind #2.

4. He is too a Hall of Famer. So there. :p

[four tool]

Why is more HR re Kingman but lower BA rediculous? Rice was a hitter who couldn't average .300 for his career with Fenway as his home park :eek: So his supposed HoF candidacy is based on slugging and HR. That's no more rediculous than looking at Kong's HR numbers, no less but no more. :o

[dgarza]

Compared to most other sluggers, especially those around his era, Rice drew less intentional walks (who batted behind him?) and had a higher avg and better hits/season numbers. The guy hit 200+ hits in a season 4 times, 3 in a row. Sluggers just don't do that. Mays MIGHT have done it, given the schedule.

I'm not saying Rice is any more than a boarderline HOFer (I won't mind seeing him in), but he's more of a case than Perez, I beleive.

[leecemark]

--When people use Kingman as a comparsion for arguing against low average (which Rice was not) sluggers being quailfied as Hall of Famers it is almost always a poor one. Kingman batted .236 with an OBP of .302. Rice outhit him by over 60 points and had a 50 point edge in OBP. He outslugged him too, but that is a narrower margin and taking park effects into consideration I wouldn't argue that Rice truely had more power. I would definately say he was the greater player though. Rice was a key player on some very good teams, while Kingman had trouble holding a job. Rice was an above average defender for much of his career, while Kingman was terrible. I am not a big Rice supporter, but it is an insult to compare him to Kingman.

[dgarza]

I will give Dave Kingman this : He has got to have been to only player to end his career on a 35 HR season. McGwire & Ted Williams did it with 29. Greenberg with 25.

How close was this guy from hitting 500? 2 years? That would have been a real HOF issue there. Anybody know if he just didn't make the Giants' cut in 87 or was he injured or did people actually start to notice his AVG?

[Cougar]

Why is more HR re Kingman but lower BA rediculous? Rice was a hitter who couldn't average .300 for his career with Fenway as his home park :eek: So his supposed HoF candidacy is based on slugging and HR. That's no more rediculous than looking at Kong's HR numbers, no less but no more. :o

OK, I'll grant it's not "rediculous".

Otherwise, I'm with DG and LM.

[Cougar]

I will give Dave Kingman this : He has got to have been to only player to end his career on a 35 HR season. McGwire & Ted Williams did it with 29. Greenberg with 25.

How close was this guy from hitting 500? 2 years? That would have been a real HOF issue there. Anybody know if he just didn't make the Giants' cut in 87 or was he injured or did people actually start to notice his AVG?

Kong did have amazing power. He finished with Oakland. Yeah, they noticed the BA, and his age, and his unpleasant disposition, and that he couldn't play the field, amd that the team was about to get good.

The biggest factor however may have been that they were able to get Reggie Jackson back for a swan song season. A team can't gave two 40-year old DH's. Thing is, strictly speaking, Kingman may have been better at that stage. But Reggie was Reggie.

No other AL team wanted to take Kong on as an everyday DH. He probably could have hung on as a nuclear-option PH somewhere, but all he really wanted was 500 HR anyway, and he wasn't going to get it that way. So he quit.

You're absolutely right that the Hall dodged a bullet. We won't see Kingman's like again, though -- truly unique.

[leecemark]

--As I recall the A's were starting to field some of the good young talent that made up their 88-90 pennant winners in 1987 and had no interest in resigning Kingman. He wasn't ready to hang them up, but nobody else was interested either. He hadn't played more than a handfull of games in the field during his 3 years in Oakland so his options were pretty much limited to the AL as a DH. I guess nobody needed a one dimensional enormous pain in the butt for the 1987 season.

[leecemark]

Hi Cougar, You were a bit quicker on the trigger with that one - and a little more in depth too. Nice post.

[dgarza]

Kingman signed w/ Giants for 87...so what happened there?

***sorry, don't want to turn this into a KINGMAN thread, but...?

[dgarza]

Kong did have amazing power. He finished with Oakland. Yeah, they noticed the BA, and his age, and his unpleasant disposition, and that he couldn't play the field, amd that the team was about to get good.

The biggest factor however may have been that they were able to get Reggie Jackson back for a swan song season. A team can't gave two 40-year old DH's. Thing is, strictly speaking, Kingman may have been better at that stage. But Reggie was Reggie.

.

:D
Right, Reggie only hit .220 in 87. Kingman might have been able to actually have a better AVG than Reggie for once. :crazy

[leecemark]

--DG, I just checked his transaction record and he did indeed sign with the Giants in July 1987, but didn't play any games. I don't recall that episode, just that no one wanted him the 86-87 offseason. Maybe he got some minor league ABs and showed the Giants he couldn't play - or maybe he just wanted to retired with his original team. Anybody know anything about this curtain call of Kingman's?
'

[Cougar]

Kingman signed w/ Giants for 87...so what happened there?

***sorry, don't want to turn this into a KINGMAN thread, but...?

No, good question. So he did, on July 11. I'd had no idea, amd I've no idea why Kong never played for the big club.

He started with the Giants; maybe he wanted to retire as one?

Anyone out there know? I'd be interested to find out too.

[dgarza]

Now that I look at the standings....The giants ended up in 1st. I'm not sure where they stood in July, but they had a backup outfielder named Mike Aldrete who ended up hitting .325. Perhaps they were not expecting that, didn't want to hurt their chances at 1st, and decided to drop the vet.

Any difinative answers out there?

[AndrAust]

Boys,
There was a year in the '70s where Tony Perez drove in about 105 runs and it seemed like the usual Perez year. However, that year, he set the record for a player coming up to bat with the most runners in scoring position. He actually batted about .215 with runners in scoring position. Certain stats, like RBI, must be looked at with more scrutiny.

By the way, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzutto and Arky Vaughn, all shortstops of the '40s and '50s who are now in the HOF, (1) would not make the HOF if they played today, (2) would not be all stars if they played today, (3) would not start on any big league team today, (4) would most likely not be good enough to even play big league ball today.

Just some thoughts.

[ElHalo]

Boys,
There was a year in the '70s where Tony Perez drove in about 105 runs and it seemed like the usual Perez year. However, that year, he set the record for a player coming up to bat with the most runners in scoring position. He actually batted about .215 with runners in scoring position. Certain stats, like RBI, must be looked at with more scrutiny.

Yes, everyone knows this.


By the way, Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzutto and Arky Vaughn, all shortstops of the '40s and '50s who are now in the HOF, (1) would not make the HOF if they played today, (2) would not be all stars if they played today, (3) would not start on any big league team today, (4) would most likely not be good enough to even play big league ball today.

Just some thoughts.

This is completely ridiculous. Rizzuto is one of the worst players in the Hall, granted, but if he were in the game today, he certainly would be a starter. We have the likes of Niefi Perez, Alex Cintron, and Craig Counsell starting at SS in baseball right now... somebody would absolutely be able to use Rizzuto. And Reese was better than Rizzuto.

But, even granted that Reese and Rizzuto are marginal HoF'ers at best (though they'd both certainly be starters today... probably not All Stars, at least in the AL), you should have your baseball fan credentials revoked for saying that about Arky Vaughan. Arky is one of the three or four best SS's ever (behind Wagner and ARod, ahead of pretty much everybody else... sorry, Cal Ripken and/or Ernie Banks fans). Take Nomar Garciaparra, switch a little bit of power for a whole lot of plate discipline, add some "excellent fielder" sauce, and keep him healthy over a whole career, and you got Arky Vaughan. If Vaughan was in the majors right now, he'd be a superstar. I'm a huge Derek Jeter fan, huge Yankee fan... Vaughan's better than Jeter. He'd be the best SS in baseball right now, since ARod's playing 3B.

[leecemark]

--I agree with your RBI comment, but your SS comment is pretty far out there. Phil Rizzuto is a pretty marginal Hall of Famer, but he is pretty comaparable to Omar Vizquel - probably better. Pee Wee Reese had skills similar to Barry Larkin - although in this comp I like the modern guy better. Reese isn't a first tier Hall of Famer, but he belongs. Arky Vaughn was one of the best hitting shortstop ever. I'd say he was at least as good and probably better than Nomar Garciaparra. With Nomar's recent injury history, it seems pretty clear to me Vaughn is going to end up with the better career.
--If you look at their raw numbers Garciaparra looks a little better 323/370/555 to 318/406/453, although Vaughn still looks pretty damn good. Adjusted for park and era they look almost exactly the same - Vaughn 136 OPS+ and Garciaparra 135 - with Nomar's decline phase still to come. In a relatively short career, Vaughn is 60th all time in Balck Ink and 78th in Grey. I've got Arky ranked 5th all time amoung shortstops. Depending on how you look at things, I guess I could see him anywhere in your top 10. However, If you're leaving him out of your top 10 or believe he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame I suggest you take a closer look.

[Meathead44]

Rice deserves to be in the Hall, period.

He was one of the most dominating hitters in his time. Don't compare his numbers with guys of other eras, especially guys of today. When you compare his numbers to the players playing when he did, his numbers clearly stand out. OPS is over rated. Try this stat (Runs+RBI-HR)/Plate Appearences. When he retired, he was top 20 in baseball history in that catagory. He's the last guy to lead his league in HR's and Triples in the same year. The only other guys to do it in the last 70 years were Mantle and Mays.

As for career numbers, Rice's career was cut short by arthritic wrists and failing eyesight. He wasn't able to wear contacts because his eyes had a bad reaction to them and glasses made him lose sight of the ball. His wrists required cortizone shots for him to play his last 2 seasons.

[four tool]

Ted Williams didn't think Rice should be in the Hall, Ted said that Rice was a GOOD but not a great hitter. And Ted hung around the Red Sox a lot in those days. I saw Rice and I agree with Ted

[NOMAR22]

Ted Williams didn't think Rice should be in the Hall, Ted said that Rice was a GOOD but not a great hitter. And Ted hung around the Red Sox a lot in those days. I saw Rice and I agree with Ted

OUTRAGES! Jim Rice is a HOF!

[four tool]

So you know more about hitting than Teddy Ballgame?

[leecemark]

--Four Tool, that is at least three times in this thread you've said Rice is not a hall of Famer "because Ted Williams said he was only a good hitter". One man's opinion is not an argument ender. I watched alot of baseball in the 70s and don't remember anybody being a more feared slugger in the back half of the decade. When he was active he was often refered to as a future Hall of Famer. It is only after his career that his image has been tarnished, looking back at him through the prism of advanced metrics.
--Yes, he did have a big home park boost and he hit into too many DPs. He isn't quite the slam dunk I thought he was 20 years ago and I'm not sure if I'd vote for him or not (leaning toward yes). He is certainly a reasonable candidate though.

[four tool]

I keep bringing up Ted's comments because of posts like Rice is automatic. The evidence is not compelling--not only a lot of DPs but also relatively few walks. Lynn was considered a better hitter some years, and Puckett was also feared as a hitter.

Rice's case is not solid enough for me, especially after watching him play. Many New Englanders who watched him play for his career said the same thing, Jim is not HOF material--and we said it when he retired, we didn't flip-flop years later. Ted's comments just gave a focus to what we had seen with our own eyes.

[leecemark]

--Lynn was a better player, if not a better hitter. For his first 5 years Freddy looked like he was on his way to being an all time great. He proved to be too fragile and wasn't quite the same guy after leaving Boston though. Even with his drop off, I think Lynn has a reasonable HoF case. He matches up pretty well with the 2nd tier Cfer like Averill and Wilson.
--Puckett was a first ballot Hall of Famer so Rice not being as good as him doesn't mean he isn't one. I think Rice was a better hitter at his peak than Puckett, but those peaks were 10 years apart so even if you disagree that wouldn't be a counter point to my comment about Rice being considered the best hitter in the game in the late 70s. Puckett advantage comes mostly from his being a CFer and having better intangibles (i.e. he was regarded as more likeable and as a team leader).

[four tool]

Good points, and i agree Puckett and Rice should boith be in or not in, however, I'm also not sold on Kirby, I have very high standards for the HOF

[Professor]

Geez, I never expected this thread to reach three pages. :atthepc

I tend to agree with posters who point out that you have to harken back to the era in which a particular ballplayer plied his craft. My two overarching criteria are these: Does a player possess the basic, at-first-glance, requisite numbers to merit consideration? --and-- Was he considered to be one of the most feared, most highly-regarded players of his ilk for a period of several consecutive years?

The answers to both of those queries in Rice's case is an affirmative. Metrics are fine -- and I don't presume at all to belittle them -- but I don't believe that they should be the determining factor in a ballplayer's potential enshrinement. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in play.