Roy White over Jim Rice!?

[DoubleX]

I need some help making sense of this one...

During the Yankees telecast last night, Michael Kay cited a comment by Bill James in the Boston Globe stating the Roy White's career was better than Jim Rice. I don't know if James also implied that White is thus more Hall worthy than Rice, but the Yankees announcers nonetheless took it that way.

Now I know Roy White was a very good player on some poor Yankees teams and was a great complimentary piece on some great Yankees teams, but I have never thought of him as being anything remotely near Hall of Fame worthy or better than say current players like Matt Lawton or Marquis Grissom or recent players like Lenny Dykstra and Andy van Slyke (though White endeared himself more than these guys by playing for some great Yankees teams); but I can't make sense of how Roy White was a better player and was more valuable to his team than Jim Rice?

White was twice an all-star ('69 and '70) and his best season was 1971 during which he batted .296, 22 homeruns, 94 RBIs, 109 runs and 24 SBs. He never hit more than 19 homeruns in any other season and only topped 80 RBI's one other time. He never batted over .300 and only once finished in the top 10 in batting ('71). He never won any major awards or finished in the top 10 in MVP voting, compared to six top 5 finishes for Rice including a win.

Here are some career totals for the two players with 162 game averages in parentheses:

White Rice
Years 15 16
Hits 1803 (155) 2452 (190)
HR 160 (14) 382 (30)
RBI 758 (65) 1451 (113)
Runs 964 (83) 1249 (97)
SB 223 (20) 58 (4)
Avg. .271 .298
OBP .360 .352
OPS+ 121 128

The Fenway effect aside, with the exception of stolen bases and a slight difference in OBP, Rice blows White out of the water in every category.

White may have been better in the field and on the bases than Rice, but Rice's vastly superior hitting should make this a no brainer, so could someone please explain why Bill James may have thought this?

[dgarza]

Either he's saying Rice is less Hall worthy than a player who is not Hall worthy

Or maybe he's including post-player careers?????

[DoubleX]

I don't know what he meant, but I assume it was just playing careers since Michael Kay kept saying that Bill James said Roy White had a better career than Jim Rice. And Michael Kay and Ken Singleton kept saying that if you take away Rice's MVP year ('78), it would be easier to see that White is better. How the heck can that be? Rice had 6 or 7 other seasons with similar production to '78, White never had one such season, let alone 6 or 7 seasons that were even half as productive.

[julusnc]

Roy White is not even on the same page as Jim Rice.

Jim Rice was the best player in the American League a couple of years and Roy White was never even the best player on his own team.

White was a good major Leaguer but nothing more.

The New York Yankee mouth pieces would spout enough crap to make you believe Jason Giambi is the second coming of Lou Gehrig also :)

[Brooklyn]

I didn't hear the commentary, but I also fidn it hard to believe.

White never had a top-10 in MVP voting, only played on two all-star teams, doesn't rank in the top 100 in any career categories, has a black ink of only 8 and grey ink of 73. A nice player but not a superstar. He top comparisons are to jose Cardenal and Claudell Washington, which sounds about right.

Rice has 1 MVP, as well as finishing third twice, 4th twice, and 5th once. He made 8 all-star teams. He is in the top 100 career slugging percentage, hits, total based, home runs, RBIs and extra base hits. His black ink is 33 and grey ink is 176, both above the average of hall of famers. His top (non active) comparisons are Orlando Cepeda and Duke Snider, which again sounds about right.

Rice was one of the premier players in the league for a decade, White never was. There is really no comparison - rice should be in HOF conversations (and I presonally believe he should be in), but no one would ever confuse Roy White for a Hall of Famer.

Again, I didn't hear the commentary, but I have to belive the Yankees announcers took it out of context. These two just don't compare.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Does White still work for the Yankees?

[dgarza]

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2004/07/25/theres_grain_of_hope_for_rice/ - last 2 paragraphs

Which years are being compared here?

[leecemark]

--The Yanks announcers got it right. In his New Historical Baseball Abstract James has a lengthy article on why he thinks White was better than Rice. Basically, he say parks effects, more walks and less GIDP for White overcome the huge difference in raw numbers and most people's perceptions. He ranks White 25 and Rice 27 amoung LFers. I don't buy it myself, but it is what James had to say.

[J W]

Eh... Jim Rice is a LOT closer to the Hall than Roy White is anyway. Bill James' is just one opinion... and I don't think it's a ridiculous one, but like leecemark I disagree with him in going that far against Rice.

[AG2004]

I'll summarize from The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

James points out that Rice's typical triple-crown states from 1979-79 were 34, 114, .311, while White's typical states from 1968-72 were 15, 74, .283. However, White had 87 walks per season compared to Rice's 46, struck out only 58 times as compared to Rice's 118, and stole 20 bases per year compared to Rice's 8 with a better stolen base percentage. White also grounded into fewer double plays, and had more sacrifice hits and flies than Rice.

Now, according to James, Rice was creating 115 runs per season, while White was creating 94 per season. But during White's playing days, the AL averaged 3.80 runs per team per game, and Yankee Stadium reduced runs scored by 9%. During Rice's peak period, the AL averaged 4.34 runs per team per game, and Fenway Park increased run scoring by 20%. According to James, "Making that adjustment, White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24 games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73)."

James then proceeds to state that White made 419 outs per season, while Rice made 456, and White was better than Rice in the field. He also points out that in 1977 and 1979, Rice hit 39 home runs, but only 12 of them were on the road; White in his best years would hit 10 home runs at home, and 10 on the road.

Finally, we'll look at win shares.

Lifetime
White - 263
Rice - 282

Best three seasons
White - 34, 29, 29
Rice - 36, 28, 28

Best five consecutive seasons
White - 140
Rice - 127

Win shares per 162 games
White - 22.65
Rice - 21.85

That's Bill James' argument. He states that "There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream." For the record, James placed White as the 25th best major league left fielder of all time, while he placed Rice 27th on the list of left fielders.

[DoubleX]

Does White still work for the Yankees?

Roy White replaced Lee Mazilli as the Yanks Firstbase and Outfield coach after Lee was named manager of the Orioles. I believe he was coaching in the A's system for the past few years and was a Yankees coach for a few years in the 80's.

[PumpsieGreen]

When I read this in James's book, I immdiately disagreed. White wasn't a bad player by any means, but he wasn't the perennial All-Star, threatening offensive force that Rice was. He may have had a better eye than Rice, but Rice has hall credibility, and White doesn't. Rice was argubaly the most feared hitter in the American League at his peak. White may have been faster, too, but he just wasn't the threat that Rice was, and Rice's hitting abilities put him above White in my eyes.

Thanks,
Pumpsie

[Brad Harris]

James ranking White as the 25th greatest left fielder in history over Rice as the 27th is not necessarily the same as James saying that White is "more Hall-worthy" than Rice. James might very well have simply been trying to follow the system's logic to the extreme just to make the point that (a) Rice wasn't as good as some people believe and (b) White was better than many people remember.

Much the same as James ranking of Craig Biggio as the 5th greatest second baseman in history. Biggio certainly wasn't then (nor will ever be) the 5th best ever, but the controversy surrounding the selection certainly brought an awful lot of attention to Biggio's fabulous career, creating a spotlight on a great player that otherwise might have slipped under the radar. Perhaps James wasn't so much saying that Biggio is de facto the 5th best second baseman, so much as he belongs in the discussion of the 10-best ever?

Those who've read as much James as I have would probably be inclined to agree that the man is a good writer who often elects to make a statement to illustrate his point more than attempting to make the statement itself definitive. James is - first and foremost - a writer, no a scientist.

Rice was a legitimately great player for a brief period and a very good one for an extended period. White was a very good player for an extended period. I think James just saw some similarities in their value and used the occassion to draw attention to his point-of-view on both players. I doubt that, given the opportunity, James himself would select White over Rice to play for his team if he could go back to both when they were young and James had games to win. The ratings were a product of a formula. Keep in mind, also, that the highest possible input of the formula for those rankings is the subjective part, which might be the reason White was #25 to Rice's #27.

Either way, without that in the book, is it likely that two Yankee announcers would have mentioned Roy White at all in the broadcast? After all, how many Yankee fans, under the age of, say, 21, have ever even heard of Roy White?

[ElHalo]

Either way, without that in the book, is it likely that two Yankee announcers would have mentioned Roy White at all in the broadcast? After all, how many Yankee fans, under the age of, say, 21, have ever even heard of Roy White?

Well, all of them, I'm sure, seeing as how he's the Yankees current first base coach. Before he became the Yanks' first base coach, though, I can assure you that almost none would be the answer to that question.

Although you might also be able to question how many baseball fans under the age of 21 have heard of Jim Rice. I'll tell you that I'm over 21, by a handful of years although not decades, and when I hear the name "Jim Rice," the first thing that pops into my head is the guy who used to be an outfielder for the Washington Senators in the 20's, Sam Rice (one of my favorites, by the way). In the pantheon of Red Sox' heroes, Jim Rice isn't exactly a Ted Willams, Carl Yastremski, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr, etc... he's not even a Mike Greenwell.

[leecemark]

--Well he's not Ted Williams, but he's not Mike Greenwell either. I'm not sure how popular Rice may be in Boston, but he was better than Greenwell and Pesky and probably Doerr. For a few years he was a superstar and for most of his career a nice guy to have in your lineup. He doesn't exactly have my wholehearted endorsement for the Hall of Fame, but he's better than any number of current members.

[ElHalo]

Rice better than Pesky? Better than Doerr? You really think that?

Obviously Rice is better than Greenwell, but I was trying to make the point that he's no so much better than that level of a player as to warrant Hall of Fame talk. Mike Greenwell's best full season OPS+ was 160 in 1988. Rice's was 158 in 1978. Rice is probably better than Greenwell as far as overall career value goes, since Greenwell's peak was fairly short... but I don't think he's leaps and bounds better than Greenwell. They're both guys who you'd like to have on your team, and you'd like to have in the lineup, if you can slot them in in the seventh or eighth slot, and if I absolutely have to have one of them in a fifth slot, I'd go with Rice... but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I just don't see how Rice is a Hall of Famer. If Rice is a HoF'er, then Ellis Burks, Willie Horton, Irish Meusel, and Garret Anderson are HoF'ers.

[leecemark]

--Pesky yes.
--Doerr probably not, but I could argue it reasonably well if I was motivated for whatever reason.
--I was a Willie Horton fan as a kid, but he was not as good as Rice and neither was Burks or Muesel nor is Anderson.
--Rice's numbers don't scream Hall of Fame and, as I said in my previous post, I don't give him an unqualified endorsement. He was the scariest hitter in the AL in the late 70s though and made an impression that sticks with me.
--The "new and improved" stats don't seem to match the player I remember and I haven't quite decided whether to ignore the numbers and say yes or believe them and say no to Jim Rice Hall of Famer. I usually go by the numbers, but not always and its more complicated when the numbers don't agree with my personal observations.

[ElHalo]

Well, you do remember him much better than I do. I remember Rice mostly as a guy who got pretty lucky in hitting well in the WS against the Mets, even though he was really just a role player by that point. I look at the numbers, and far from screaming "Hall of Fame," they don't even scream "MVP consideration." They pretty much whisper "hey, if you try hard, you might be able to argue that I'm better than Rocky Colavito or Irish Meusel... but probably not." I guess that, between the personal memory of him being the equivalent of, say, Ruben Sierra, the personal memory that he was far, far below the talent level of Mike Greenwell (albeit at the end of his career... now that I've gotten on a Greenwell kick, I can't stop; he used to be my second favorite player in baseball, after Mattingly), and the numbers that look ordinary... I just don't get what the Jim Rice fuss is about.

[The Commissioner]

Well, you do remember him much better than I do. I remember Rice mostly as a guy who got pretty lucky in hitting well in the WS against the Mets, even though he was really just a role player by that point. I look at the numbers, and far from screaming "Hall of Fame," they don't even scream "MVP consideration." They pretty much whisper "hey, if you try hard, you might be able to argue that I'm better than Rocky Colavito or Irish Meusel... but probably not." I guess that, between the personal memory of him being the equivalent of, say, Ruben Sierra, the personal memory that he was far, far below the talent level of Mike Greenwell (albeit at the end of his career... now that I've gotten on a Greenwell kick, I can't stop; he used to be my second favorite player in baseball, after Mattingly), and the numbers that look ordinary... I just don't get what the Jim Rice fuss is about.

El, I think perhaps that might be more of a generational thing. The problem is that you seem to have caught Rice at the tail end of his career when he truly was no better than Greenwell. However, for a good chunk of the late '70s it could be argued that he was the premier hitter in all of baseball. Being a few years older than you, my memories of Rice are of a player that was truly a dominant force in his prime.

Leece, I would say that the reason why Rice's numbers have resulted in such dissonance between them and your memories, is because you are refelcting on his stats out of context. Yes, in this "new and improved" :rolleyes: era even his single season high of 46 homeruns seems rather unimpressive. However, you have to recall that at the time it not only marked the highest single season A.L. total in a decade, but put him 12 homers, or 26%, ahead of his closest A.L. competitor that season. That's the largest differential in the A.L. since Mantle in 1956!!!

While James may point out that "White stole 20 bases per year compared to Rice's 8 with a better stolen base percentage", he apparently neglected to mention that besides homeruns, Rice also had more doubles and triples. That may have helped compensate just a wee bit for what he lacked in the stolen base department. By the way, just another random fact, which may help to exemplify Rice's dominance in thsoe years: In 1978, Rice became the first palyer to lead the A.L. in both triples and home runs since Mantle did it in 1955. Those are the only two times that feat has ever been accomplished in American League history... including the deadball era!!!!

Chancellor, I think you may have hit on the exact problem when you stated that "The ratings were a product of a formula." The problem is that it's a flawed formula. Any formula that results in White being ranked higher than Rice on some sort of value system for left fielders is inherently flawed in it's methodology.

I honestly can't understand why James is still seen by many in the media as the arbiter of baseball truths? The more I read items such as this, the more I have to question his aptitude for analysis and his supposed sage-like wisdom. Then again, what do I know? I'm not a senior operations adviser to a team playing below the level of the Texas Rangers this season.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, you do remember him much better than I do. I remember Rice mostly as a guy who got pretty lucky in hitting well in the WS against the Mets, even though he was really just a role player by that point..

How many role players drive in 110 runs while getting 200 hits? Outside of Don Mattingly, he was about the best everyday player in the AL that year.

Rice was an all-star caliber player for a decade or so in an era where players would have one or two really good seaons and then drop off (like any other era, now that I think about it). It was unfortunate that his best years came at a time that happened at the formulative years of the stathead. Nobody had eye-popping offensive numbers of any sort at this time, and the best players are getting unjustly marginalized for it.

[Freakshow]

Now 20 years after the publication of Pete Palmer's The Hidden Game of Baseball people still struggle mightily with relative statistics. I think this is the gist of the puzzlement over Roy White being seen as on the same plane as Jim Rice. Every judgement of players must be made mindful of the run environment in a certain time and place.

Another element is the shape of their talents. Obviously, fans will notice the slugger more than the player with subtler and broader skills. Homers are listed prominently for all to see; skills like taking a walk, taking the extra base or making a great catch are invisible in the box score. This leads to the one-dimensional slugger being named to more all-star teams and getting more votes for awards than the broad-base contributor, due to the attention-grabbing nature of the former's contribution. Again, it's the old idea that specialists get overrated, while all-around quality gets overlooked.

I'm not going to pick up the gauntlet and defend ranking White over Rice; most fans will never buy it no matter what anyone says. But to me, you need some really solid evidence before you dismiss Bill James' opinions. He isn't called "The Sultan of Stats" for nothing. He has spent the past 30+ years of his life reaching these conclusions, so he stands on a lot firmer ground in these matters than you or I.

Remember, too, that James rankings go beyond his formulas. He considers subjective elements, intangible effects on their teams. Comparing their personalities, it would seem like a slam-dunk advantage for White over the moody Rice. Sometimes James makes too much of this and he would be the first to tell you there's no meaningful difference between #25 and #27; in his next book Rice may be ahead of White.

[leecemark]

--The "new and improved" stat I am primarily refering to is OPS+. Rice's career number of 128 is pretty good for a LF, but far below those of the top players at that positon. Since his raw numbers WERE exceptional in comparison to the league, that suggests he was helped tremendously by his home park.
--I see his 46 HR in 1978 as easily as impressive or more so than the 60s put up recently by Sammy Sosa and others. His three 39 HR seasons were equally as impressive as anybody putting up 50 over the last decade. I have no problem putting his actual numbers in context with the inflated totals of the last 10 years. The question for me is "was he a good player made great by Fenway or a great player being overly discounted for Fenway?".

[dgarza]

El, I think perhaps that might be more of a generational thing. The problem is that you seem to have caught Rice at the tail end of his career when he truly was no better than Greenwell.
Right. I can say that the X-player I remember was a washed up 1st baseman. I shouldn't let this personal recollection cloud my judgement of this same player who was the premier OFer for a decade just because I didn't personally observe him then.

If the "Jim Rice" that pops into your mind if from the 20s, that's not Jim Rice's problem. I mean, the "Jim Rice" that pops into my mind is a corned beef salesman...

[AG2004]

I have Rice's home/away splits here; the data is from retrosheet.org.

Year HR BA OBP SLG
1975 12/10 .313/.304 .357/.343 .520/.464
1976 12/13 .299/.266 .339/.291 .509/.455
1977 27/12 .321/.319 .375/.377 .683/.509
1978 28/18 .361/.269 .416/.325 .690/.512
1979 27/12 .369/.283 .425/.337 .728/.472
1980 11/13 .305/.283 .351/.323 .523/.487
1981 10/ 7 .307/.263 .360/.309 .493/.394
1982 9/15 .330/.285 .396/.350 .480/.509
1983 16/23 .325/.283 .383/.337 .535/.566
1984 17/11 .288/.272 .334/.313 .506/.428
1985 11/16 .350/.232 .391/.309 .540/.434
1986 10/10 .337/.310 .387/.381 .526/.454
1987 7/6 .305/.252 .391/.326 .447/.374
1988 9/6 .276/.254 .362/.301 .453/.365

I'd say he was a good player made great by Fenway.

[The Commissioner]

But to me, you need some really solid evidence before you dismiss Bill James' opinions.

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on James to produce some really solid evidence in order for us to take his opinions seriously?

[The Commissioner]

I have Rice's home/away splits here; the data is from retrosheet.org.

Year HR BA OBP SLG
1975 12/10 .313/.304 .357/.343 .520/.464
1976 12/13 .299/.266 .339/.291 .509/.455
1977 27/12 .321/.319 .375/.377 .683/.509
1978 28/18 .361/.269 .416/.325 .690/.512
1979 27/12 .369/.283 .425/.337 .728/.472
1980 11/13 .305/.283 .351/.323 .523/.487
1981 10/ 7 .307/.263 .360/.309 .493/.394
1982 9/15 .330/.285 .396/.350 .480/.509
1983 16/23 .325/.283 .383/.337 .535/.566
1984 17/11 .288/.272 .334/.313 .506/.428
1985 11/16 .350/.232 .391/.309 .540/.434
1986 10/10 .337/.310 .387/.381 .526/.454
1987 7/6 .305/.252 .391/.326 .447/.374
1988 9/6 .276/.254 .362/.301 .453/.365

I'd say he was a good player made great by Fenway.

That still shows a fairly even split of 206 homers at home and 172 away.

[AG2004]

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on James to produce some really solid evidence in order for us to take his opinions seriously?

Actually, I think his win shares formula led him to the conclusion that White was better than Rice - White comes out ahead even before you get to the subjective component.

Part 1 - Career Win Shares. James divides the career total by 10, then takes the harmonic mean between that number and 25. White comes out at 25.64; Rice at 26.55.

Part 2 - Average of win shares for the best three seasons. White has 30.67; Rice has 30.67.

Part 3 - Average win share per season during the player's five best consecutive years. White has 28.00; Rice is at 25.4.

Part 4 - Win shares per 162 games. White's at 22.65; Rice is at 21.86.

Part 5 - Timeline adjustment. This is year of birth, minus 1800, divided by 10. This is 14.3 for White, and 15.3 for Rice.

The totals of the objective components are 121.26 for White and 119.78 for Rice.

A lot of James' argument consists of number-crunching, and adjusting the raw numbers for league and park context. I wouldn't go far to say that he proves his case, but he does support it well.

As for the other numbers - Rice was batting .277/.330/.459 on the road during his career. White was batting .270/.361./.391 on the road during his.

[csh19792001]

I'll summarize from The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

James points out that Rice's typical triple-crown states from 1979-79 were 34, 114, .311, while White's typical states from 1968-72 were 15, 74, .283. However, White had 87 walks per season compared to Rice's 46, struck out only 58 times as compared to Rice's 118, and stole 20 bases per year compared to Rice's 8 with a better stolen base percentage. White also grounded into fewer double plays, and had more sacrifice hits and flies than Rice.

Now, according to James, Rice was creating 115 runs per season, while White was creating 94 per season. But during White's playing days, the AL averaged 3.80 runs per team per game, and Yankee Stadium reduced runs scored by 9%. During Rice's peak period, the AL averaged 4.34 runs per team per game, and Fenway Park increased run scoring by 20%. According to James, "Making that adjustment, White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24 games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73)."

James then proceeds to state that White made 419 outs per season, while Rice made 456, and White was better than Rice in the field. He also points out that in 1977 and 1979, Rice hit 39 home runs, but only 12 of them were on the road; White in his best years would hit 10 home runs at home, and 10 on the road.

Finally, we'll look at win shares.

Lifetime
White - 263
Rice - 282

Best three seasons
White - 34, 29, 29
Rice - 36, 28, 28

Best five consecutive seasons
White - 140
Rice - 127

Win shares per 162 games
White - 22.65
Rice - 21.85

That's Bill James' argument. He states that "There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream." For the record, James placed White as the 25th best major league left fielder of all time, while he placed Rice 27th on the list of left fielders.

Excellent post. Good to see someone is out there, looking deeper.

Jim Rice vs. Roy White may be the ARCHETYPE example of the contrast between players whose value is overrepresented by conventional statistics, versus players whose contributions are underrepresented on paper.

Fitting that these two guys are brought up here, because Rice is considered by many who saw him play to be one of the most overrated players in recent times, while Roy White is just the opposite. One guy put him the big numbers in the categories that people pay attention to- RBI's and HR's, while doing none of the little things and intangibles that win baseball games. Striking out a ton and never taking walks. Plus, apparently he was a complete ***hole, hated by most of the guys on his team (read "The Curse of The Red Sox).

White was a winning player who did all of the little things- making key, heads up plays in the field, moving a baserunner ahead with place hitting, sacrificing, stealing bases in important situations, drawing walks more than he struckout, being a positive clubhouse influence and a team leader.

Kudos to Bill James. Occasionally, the guy is right on the money.

[csh19792001]

I have Rice's home/away splits here; the data is from retrosheet.org.

Year HR BA OBP SLG
1975 12/10 .313/.304 .357/.343 .520/.464
1976 12/13 .299/.266 .339/.291 .509/.455
1977 27/12 .321/.319 .375/.377 .683/.509
1978 28/18 .361/.269 .416/.325 .690/.512
1979 27/12 .369/.283 .425/.337 .728/.472
1980 11/13 .305/.283 .351/.323 .523/.487
1981 10/ 7 .307/.263 .360/.309 .493/.394
1982 9/15 .330/.285 .396/.350 .480/.509
1983 16/23 .325/.283 .383/.337 .535/.566
1984 17/11 .288/.272 .334/.313 .506/.428
1985 11/16 .350/.232 .391/.309 .540/.434
1986 10/10 .337/.310 .387/.381 .526/.454
1987 7/6 .305/.252 .391/.326 .447/.374
1988 9/6 .276/.254 .362/.301 .453/.365

I'd say he was a good player made great by Fenway.

AG-
Great work! I might tend to agree with your assessment, after looking at those figures.

[csh19792001]

That still shows a fairly even split of 206 homers at home and 172 away.


That's not fairly even, just lends the impression of such. Players typically have between 300-700 more at bats on the road if they bat more than 8,000 times during their career. So a guy who has more HR's at home has a distinct advantage over a long career. Look at Raffy Palmeiro, for instance.

You can find active player splits at SI.com.



http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/hammer

You can collate those numbers in that link with these below to find out who had the park advantage/disadvantage for homers (Bonds' numbers are all there)

Player...........Home AB............Road AB
Aaron............5972.................6392
Ruth..............4033.................4366
Mays..............5239.................5642

Looks like the Babe had it toughest (although certainly not tough compared to most) and Bonds has the greatest advantage on the home/road splits.

I really would love to have fourtool to post the splits again for all the great players- they're really invaluable.

[NOMAR22]

I'll summarize from The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

James points out that Rice's typical triple-crown states from 1979-79 were 34, 114, .311, while White's typical states from 1968-72 were 15, 74, .283. However, White had 87 walks per season compared to Rice's 46, struck out only 58 times as compared to Rice's 118, and stole 20 bases per year compared to Rice's 8 with a better stolen base percentage. White also grounded into fewer double plays, and had more sacrifice hits and flies than Rice.

Now, according to James, Rice was creating 115 runs per season, while White was creating 94 per season. But during White's playing days, the AL averaged 3.80 runs per team per game, and Yankee Stadium reduced runs scored by 9%. During Rice's peak period, the AL averaged 4.34 runs per team per game, and Fenway Park increased run scoring by 20%. According to James, "Making that adjustment, White's 94 runs per season represent about 26 games worth of team offense (94 divided by 3.65), while Rice's 115 runs represent about 24 games worth of offense (115 divided by 4.73)."

James then proceeds to state that White made 419 outs per season, while Rice made 456, and White was better than Rice in the field. He also points out that in 1977 and 1979, Rice hit 39 home runs, but only 12 of them were on the road; White in his best years would hit 10 home runs at home, and 10 on the road.

Finally, we'll look at win shares.

Lifetime
White - 263
Rice - 282

Best three seasons
White - 34, 29, 29
Rice - 36, 28, 28

Best five consecutive seasons
White - 140
Rice - 127

Win shares per 162 games
White - 22.65
Rice - 21.85

That's Bill James' argument. He states that "There isn't an ocean between them, just a stream." For the record, James placed White as the 25th best major league left fielder of all time, while he placed Rice 27th on the list of left fielders.

Thanks for confiming what i have been saying all along. "Win Shares" is a gimmick (wothless stats)to evaluate a players career. Bill James is a big joke.

[NOMAR22]

Well, all of them, I'm sure, seeing as how he's the Yankees current first base coach. Before he became the Yanks' first base coach, though, I can assure you that almost none would be the answer to that question.

Although you might also be able to question how many baseball fans under the age of 21 have heard of Jim Rice. I'll tell you that I'm over 21, by a handful of years although not decades, and when I hear the name "Jim Rice," the first thing that pops into my head is the guy who used to be an outfielder for the Washington Senators in the 20's, Sam Rice (one of my favorites, by the way). In the pantheon of Red Sox' heroes, Jim Rice isn't exactly a Ted Willams, Carl Yastremski, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr, etc... he's not even a Mike Greenwell.

Your a joke. Jim Rice was 10 times better than Mike greenwell.

[NOMAR22]

Rice better than Pesky? Better than Doerr? You really think that?

Obviously Rice is better than Greenwell, but I was trying to make the point that he's no so much better than that level of a player as to warrant Hall of Fame talk. Mike Greenwell's best full season OPS+ was 160 in 1988. Rice's was 158 in 1978. Rice is probably better than Greenwell as far as overall career value goes, since Greenwell's peak was fairly short... but I don't think he's leaps and bounds better than Greenwell. They're both guys who you'd like to have on your team, and you'd like to have in the lineup, if you can slot them in in the seventh or eighth slot, and if I absolutely have to have one of them in a fifth slot, I'd go with Rice... but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I just don't see how Rice is a Hall of Famer. If Rice is a HoF'er, then Ellis Burks, Willie Horton, Irish Meusel, and Garret Anderson are HoF'ers.

Did you ever get to watch when Jim Rice use to single handed beat the Yankees? Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in the AL for 5 years or more.

[NOMAR22]

El, I think perhaps that might be more of a generational thing. The problem is that you seem to have caught Rice at the tail end of his career when he truly was no better than Greenwell. However, for a good chunk of the late '70s it could be argued that he was the premier hitter in all of baseball. Being a few years older than you, my memories of Rice are of a player that was truly a dominant force in his prime.

Leece, I would say that the reason why Rice's numbers have resulted in such dissonance between them and your memories, is because you are refelcting on his stats out of context. Yes, in this "new and improved" :rolleyes: era even his single season high of 46 homeruns seems rather unimpressive. However, you have to recall that at the time it not only marked the highest single season A.L. total in a decade, but put him 12 homers, or 26%, ahead of his closest A.L. competitor that season. That's the largest differential in the A.L. since Mantle in 1956!!!

While James may point out that "White stole 20 bases per year compared to Rice's 8 with a better stolen base percentage", he apparently neglected to mention that besides homeruns, Rice also had more doubles and triples. That may have helped compensate just a wee bit for what he lacked in the stolen base department. By the way, just another random fact, which may help to exemplify Rice's dominance in thsoe years: In 1978, Rice became the first palyer to lead the A.L. in both triples and home runs since Mantle did it in 1955. Those are the only two times that feat has ever been accomplished in American League history... including the deadball era!!!!

Chancellor, I think you may have hit on the exact problem when you stated that "The ratings were a product of a formula." The problem is that it's a flawed formula. Any formula that results in White being ranked higher than Rice on some sort of value system for left fielders is inherently flawed in it's methodology.

I honestly can't understand why James is still seen by many in the media as the arbiter of baseball truths? The more I read items such as this, the more I have to question his aptitude for analysis and his supposed sage-like wisdom. Then again, what do I know? I'm not a senior operations adviser to a team playing below the level of the Texas Rangers this season.

Well said and i agree with you Bill James is a joke.

[digglahhh]

Great work Nomar.

Real baseball acumen exhibited in those last three posts. The research was outstanding and you made some pretty ballsy statements, but then managed to back them up with bulletproof evidence.

Many people forget that Jim Rice used to take on the Yankees by himself, and often win- with one hand no less...

[DoubleX]

Great work Nomar.

Real baseball acumen exhibited in those last three posts. The research was outstanding and you made some pretty ballsy statements, but then managed to back them up with bulletproof evidence.

Many people forget that Jim Rice used to take on the Yankees by himself, and often win- with one hand no less...

Don't forget that one game against the Yankees in '79 when Rice only batted with the bat in his mouth and went 4-4, 2 HR, 2B, BB, 6 RBI. I've never seen anything quite like that. I've heard rumors to the effect that he was considering before a game with the Yankees in 1980, batting against the Yankees with the bat wedged in his derrier, but a sore hammy made him think twice about that. :)

All sarcasm aside, Nomar, please, if you're going to drudge up these ancient threads, in which the person's opinion you're attacking may no longer even be held by that person, please at least provide something substantive. Otherwise, there really is no point in rehashing these ancient threads with ancient opinions.

[dl4060]

Well, all of them, I'm sure, seeing as how he's the Yankees current first base coach. Before he became the Yanks' first base coach, though, I can assure you that almost none would be the answer to that question.

Although you might also be able to question how many baseball fans under the age of 21 have heard of Jim Rice. I'll tell you that I'm over 21, by a handful of years although not decades, and when I hear the name "Jim Rice," the first thing that pops into my head is the guy who used to be an outfielder for the Washington Senators in the 20's, Sam Rice (one of my favorites, by the way). In the pantheon of Red Sox' heroes, Jim Rice isn't exactly a Ted Willams, Carl Yastremski, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr, etc... he's not even a Mike Greenwell.



This is a ridiculous thing to say. In the late 70's Rice was the most feared hitter in the American League. On your list he is behind Williams, and probably Yaz. In 1979 you would be very hard pressed to find someone who thought that Rice would not go into the HOF. As late as 1986 that was certainly true. Jim Rice was as highly thought of as anyone in the late 70's. When did Mike Greenwell ever hit .315 with 46 homeruns? Frankly I am amazed you are this clueless. Jim Rice was a legend when he was in Boston. Everyone assumed he would wind up with over 500 homeruns. His lifetime BA was .298, which is impressive for a power hitter. In the age of sabermetrics Rice has lost some of his luster, but at the time he was looked at as a truly awesome hitter. I am sorry to beat a dead horse, but how do you really know this little about Jim Rice. To say Rice is below Mike Greenwell in the minds of Red Sox fans is absurd. My dad always felt in the late 70's and early 80's that Rice was the best hitter to play for the sox since Ted Williams. Before you post again, please look at his stats season by season. .320 with 39 homeruns in 77', .315 with 46 homeruns in 78', .325 with 39 homeruns in 79', .305 with 39 homeruns in 83. When he played he was looked at as a surefire hall of famer. There was a time when he was the second highest paid player in baseball. He was an all-star 8 times, he finnished in the top five in MVP voting 6 times. Frankly for someone who likes baseball as much as you clearly do to not know all of this is amazing. As I said before, with modern sabermetric methods his star has dimmed, but in the late 70's Jim Rice was PERCEIVED to be the most dangerous hitter in the AL. "He's not even a Mike Greenwell" is the most absurd statement I have read on the website. I know you are a Yankee fan, but do you really hate us sox fans so much
:D that you put Rice behind Greenwell?

[538280]

Roy White was a terrific player, who was underrated because he played for the Yankees at one of the few times they weren't a great team. He did everything pretty well but nothing great, which is probably another reason why he was underrated.

Jim Rice was very overrated because he came up with a storm, posting very good years (but not as good as perceived) 1977-1979. Then, after that he was a pretty good slugger but nothing special. A classic player overrated by the Triple Crown stats.

Who's better? I'm well aware everyone rates Jim Rice ahead, and I probably agree with them. But, I did read the Bill James article on them and I must say it is somewhat persuading. It's not like he made a blanket statement claiming that White's advantages (more walks, less GIDP, park context, league context) outweigh Rice's, like many of you seem to be saying. He actually ran through using runs created per out, and compared them to league. He found White was the better hitter (creating more runs per out) than Rice was.

Many of you also seem to be looking at just raw numbers, without realizing the league took a jump in offense in the late 1970s. There was a world of difference between their offensive contexts, ample amount to make White the more valuable player despite the difference in raw numbers.

Overall, the statistical evidence to me would seem to suggest White was the better player. But, it's a huge jump to put an MVP who was known to be extremely feared behind a guy who was considered a dissapointment.

[leecemark]

--Rice was probably a little overrated when active because people didn't realize how much of a boost he got from Fenway and how his lack of walks and high number of GIDP subtracted from his value. White was probably underrated because he did everything pretty well, but wasn't great at anything. It does not follow that White was better. The gulf between them narrows when you look beneath the numbers, but it is too wide to be completely made up. Rice has a reasonable HoF case, but White has none what so ever.
--Bill James ignored his sytem in other cases where it varied so wildly from conventional wisdom (as I bypass my own system when the results yield something that doesn't appear to make sense). He just doesn't care much for Jim Rice and choose to make him an example of a player exposed by the underlying numbers. Plus a few outrageous claims help sell books:D .

[Budtaff]

I remember reading James' abstract and the article on Rice vs. White when it first came out. I thought then, and still think now, that Rice was clearly the better player. I grew up in NY as a Yankee fan in the 70's and saw tons of Yankee Games and saw Rice quite frequently as a result. And as a Yankee fan I admit Rice was truly a great player over an extended period of time. I loved Roy White, don't get me wrong he just wasn't the same caliber player as Rice.

If you were a GM back then and you had your pick to start your franchise with one or the other (in their prime) who do you take? Regardless of whether I'm playing in the Grand Canyon I'm taking Rice.

If you were a starting pitcher back then did you revolve your game plan and pitching scheme around White? NO, but you sure as hell did for Rice.

Was I scared ******** when Rice came up in the 9th inning of the 78 playoff game as the winning run.....YOU BET!!! :eek:

Just my $.02 for what it's worth.

[538280]

--Bill James ignored his sytem in other cases where it varied so wildly from conventional wisdom (as I bypass my own system when the results yield something that doesn't appear to make sense). He just doesn't care much for Jim Rice and choose to make him an example of a player exposed by the underlying numbers. Plus a few outrageous claims help sell books:D .

Mark, James was NOT ignoring his system in putting White over Rice. His system has White at 121.26 and Rice at 119.83. He was going with his rating system by placing White ahead. Rice has a slight lead in career WS, and they're the same in three year peak. White is better in 5 year consecutive peak and per 162 games, though, and Rice's slight timeline lead isn't enough to make up for it.

Read his article over. You'll see, taking his runs created per out in context, that White was actually better. I certainly can see why you'd rate Rice ahead, I even probably agree, but James was not making an outrageous claim just to help sell books or to get a reaction. He was going with what his measures told him to do.

[leecemark]

--You didn't understand my post. I said James ignored his sytem in OTHER cases where the numbers dicated results that seemed at odds with common sense. If my system told me White was a better player than Rice I'd either do some tinkerign with it or ignore the numbers in that instance.

[rugbyfreak]

James ranking White as the 25th greatest left fielder in history over Rice as the 27th is not necessarily the same as James saying that White is "more Hall-worthy" than Rice. James might very well have simply been trying to follow the system's logic to the extreme just to make the point that (a) Rice wasn't as good as some people believe and (b) White was better than many people remember.

Much the same as James ranking of Craig Biggio as the 5th greatest second baseman in history. Biggio certainly wasn't then (nor will ever be) the 5th best ever, but the controversy surrounding the selection certainly brought an awful lot of attention to Biggio's fabulous career, creating a spotlight on a great player that otherwise might have slipped under the radar. Perhaps James wasn't so much saying that Biggio is de facto the 5th best second baseman, so much as he belongs in the discussion of the 10-best ever?

Those who've read as much James as I have would probably be inclined to agree that the man is a good writer who often elects to make a statement to illustrate his point more than attempting to make the statement itself definitive. James is - first and foremost - a writer, no a scientist.

Rice was a legitimately great player for a brief period and a very good one for an extended period. White was a very good player for an extended period. I think James just saw some similarities in their value and used the occassion to draw attention to his point-of-view on both players. I doubt that, given the opportunity, James himself would select White over Rice to play for his team if he could go back to both when they were young and James had games to win. The ratings were a product of a formula. Keep in mind, also, that the highest possible input of the formula for those rankings is the subjective part, which might be the reason White was #25 to Rice's #27.

Either way, without that in the book, is it likely that two Yankee announcers would have mentioned Roy White at all in the broadcast? After all, how many Yankee fans, under the age of, say, 21, have ever even heard of Roy White?

From rugbyfreak, 4 April '06:

This is the best example I've seen yet of what happens when one prays too much to one philosophy, in this case Sabermetrics, because, as innovative and fresh as it may be, it is just like any other school of thought: It cannot possibly have all the answers. You're looking at one of the world's most ardent Yankee fans, who was reared not on those automatic Yankees of the '50s and early '60s, but on the dreadful late '60s/early '70s teams, when the franchise was handed a long overdue dose of humility, before retooling under Steinbrenner. Perhaps the most enduring symbol of this new humility (except for maybe Horace Clarke) was Roy White, who, along with Bobby Murcer, was the closest thing we had to a star. God bless him, he was the solidest of citizens, who showed up, played hard every day, hustled through some awful seasons, and battled that deadly sun in leftfield better than anyone ("It gets late early out there," Yogi famously said, when he was moved to that murderous cauldron late in his career.) He was also the only cleanup hitter in baseball who choked up (and should have been batting leadoff)! Nobody in baseball deserved to be part of a successful team more than he did, and, with justice prevailing, he was an integral part of that three-peat team of 1976-77-78 (he was on base for Dent's homer). But as much as I admired and defended him, the very idea that he was even in Rice's league as a player strikes me as absurd, and I'm sure he would say the same.

In college, I studied ancient Greek-style Philosophy and Rhetoric, and there is a name for an argument that, on paper, is flawless and logical. There is only one problem with it: In practice, one intuitively knows it is impossible. It is called Sophistry.

In creating such a case for White over Rice, James, a gifted writer (and presumably, a learned student of rhetoric), is either playing games with us, just to see how far he can push us, or worse, he is so swept up in this statistical religion he has created that he actually believes some of its extreme, counter-intuitive conclusions. I must admit, though, it is in character for him, because, having read "Moneyball", I discovered that one of Sabermetrics' core missions is to discredit the old, gut-feeling methods of talent assessment that have been practiced for decades by the system of bird-dog scouts, in favor of a methodical science of strict statistical analysis. Such a system attempts to prove, through empirical data, that many time-honored precepts of scouting are, in fact, found to be erroneous, once you mine beneath the surface with the numbers, and their traditional perpetuation is nothing more than lazy closemindedness that does the game a disservice. Therefore, he would say, don't trust your gut when it tells you that Rice was a more productive player than White. Trust the numbers instead, because they never lie.

Problem is, the gut is not always wrong, the same way that a radar gun cannot tell you everything you need to know about a pitcher. If it did, hurlers like Eddie Lopat and Randy Jones would never have even gotten a shot. Typical of any overzealous practicioner of New Thought, James seems to fail to realize that revolutionary ideas rarely replace completely the old ones; rather, they act to enhance them, to improve them, to use what still works, and throw out the rest. He can produce all the volumes of data he likes showing that the stolen base has a negligible effect upon the outcome of games. And so we have now learned that perhaps its effectiveness WAS overrated all these years. But you and I both know very well the profound effect a dangerous baserunner can have upon a game. We don't have to prove it, we just know it. (Just ask any pitcher who had to deal with the A's lineup while keeping his eye on Rickey Henderson. Or any Yankee fan who watched Dave Roberts steal their season.)

Having taken him to task for his slight crime of tunnel vision, however, let me say this about James: His gift to baseball, which had long suffered from a morass of stagnant ideas regurgitated through mere rote by generations of managers afraid to try anything new or not "by the book," is that he gave us a new way of looking at things, so that baseball people can make more informed decisions, in concert with their instincts. He didn't invent the concept of on-base percentage as a crucial determinant of a player's effectiveness. (Branch Rickey was talking about it more than 50 years ago.) He simply quantified it so everyone could plainly see it. But he can never claim, nor can any other gurus who follow him, that his is the only way. Such a claim, if I may cite one more term from my days in acadamia, is known as megalomania. And we all know what happens to megalomaniacs.

As for Rice, his place in baseball history is secure, even if a coterie of flawed HOF voters don't see fit to acknowledge it with the ultimate honor. Ask 100 pitchers who they would fear more in a crucial situation, Rice or White, and we know what all 100 of them would say. What more do we need to know? As a dependable, reliable rock in the Boston lineup who showed up every day and produced like few players ever have, Rice's only discernible crime in life seems to have been a slightly curt, business-first personal manner. (I'm sure there are some beat reporters who would put it more bluntly than that, but being a sportswriter myself, I'm all too aware of the characteristically testy, thin-skinned demeanor of your average defenders of the Third Estate, who tend to take umbrage when someone jeopardizes their deadline by daring to assert his own personal space.) But he's hardly in a league with Albert Belle, a bonafide *******, or even Eddie Murray, who was famous for being one of the game's bigtime humps, but who nonetheless found no trouble making it to Cooperstown. Rice simply was not blessed with a whole lot of personal style, but at least he never pretended he did (contrast that with Gary Carter). He simply did his job in a grimly effective way, with perhaps a touch of racial oversensitity. Anybody got a problem with that? Not me. All I know is that, as a Yankee fan, I feared him like no one in the League.

I will end with a slight pat on the back. Let me first say that, as a talent evaluator, nobody ever confused me with one of those bird-dogs. But I remember back in '75, that magical Red Sox year, when Rice and Lynn formed the game's alltime greatest one-two rookie punches. And between the two of them, at least that year, Lynn was the more spectacular, while Rice operated quietly under the radar with a solid, 22-109-.309 season, good enough for Rookie of the Year in any year but the Year of Lynn. But then he got hurt at the end of the year and had to miss that epic World Series, while Lynn continued to dazzle the nation. But there were a handful of us who said, watch out for Rice, he'll be the better of the two. And it took a few years, but damned if it didn't prove true. It was vintage Rice: He snuck up on us all, the Quiet Assassin.

In conclusion, I have this to say to all the HOF voters: Get over whatever bug is up your ass about Rice, and any slights he may have caused you during your glory days on the beat, and give the man who was one of the premier sluggers of his time his just due. Either that, or do the right thing and do baseball a favor by resigning your privilege as a HOF voter. Baseball simply doesn't have time for self-important whiners who commit the ultimate journalistic sin and make themselves part of the story.

[leecemark]

--There is no way I'd call Roy White a better player than Jim Rice. I do think its open to question which of the two rookie outfielders from the 75 Red Sox wound up better though. Freddie Lynn didn't turn out to be the all time great he looked like early and he gets written off as a result. He was a great player for a number of years and went on to have a pretty nice career though. I might well take him over Rice.

[538280]

In creating such a case for White over Rice, James, a gifted writer (and presumably, a learned student of rhetoric), is either playing games with us, just to see how far he can push us, or worse, he is so swept up in this statistical religion he has created that he actually believes some of its extreme, counter-intuitive conclusions. I must admit, though, it is in character for him, because, having read "Moneyball", I discovered that one of Sabermetrics' core missions is to discredit the old, gut-feeling methods of talent assessment that have been practiced for decades by the system of bird-dog scouts, in favor of a methodical science of strict statistical analysis. Such a system attempts to prove, through empirical data, that many time-honored precepts of scouting are, in fact, found to be erroneous, once you mine beneath the surface with the numbers, and their traditional perpetuation is nothing more than lazy closemindedness that does the game a disservice. Therefore, he would say, don't trust your gut when it tells you that Rice was a more productive player than White. Trust the numbers instead, because they never lie.

Typical of any overzealous practicioner of New Thought, James seems to fail to realize that revolutionary ideas rarely replace completely the old ones; rather, they act to enhance them, to improve them, to use what still works, and throw out the rest. He can produce all the volumes of data he likes showing that the stolen base has a negligible effect upon the outcome of games.


First of all, good post and welcome to BBF! :)

Second, anyone who accuses Bill James of having "tunnel vision" and being unable to look beyond the numbers just doesn't understand what Bill James really is or hasn't read nearly enough of him. Bill James, of course, will always be famous for the statistics he uses and the way he uses them, but really Bill James is out there to enhance the game using statistical analysis, not to shun out all other ideas. Here's a quote from him, after he told us what you probably know about Mickey Rivers (and it's a lot) if you watched basball through the 1970s:

"To reconstruct that enormous library of information about the players of another era would be all but impossible; to reconstruct just the sense of one man would require that you read a biography of him-as, indeed, you have probably read a biography of Phil Niekro, a few words at a time, a biography splattered across twenty years of interviews and short bulurbs in The Sporting News.

That is why I believe that, in evaluating players, much respect should be given to the opinions of the player's contemporaries, both a field and in the press box (or, for that matter, in the seats). it's not that they're always right;they're not. The sportswriters of the 1920s were as prone to misjudgments, mistaken impressions about the relative values of different accomplishments, and outright partisanship as are we today. But they knew so much more aobut those players than we do today, or than we ever can. If the sportswriters of his own time did not regard Bill Dickey as a great player-and they did not-we must assume that they had some reason for that. If the p layers who played against Buck Ewing and the sportswriters who reported about him regarded him as the greatest player of his time-and they did-we are not bound to agree with them, but we must respect the fact that they possessed far more knowledge than we can ever hope to obtain about him, about his contemporaries, and about the game they played"

That's Bill James, no kidding. He's really one of the most misunderstood baseaball people. He's about a lot more than the numbers. Get over that Moneyball impression of him, Bill James is not out to make us thing nothing tells the truth but the numbers. He's not out to ruin traditoinal baseball knowledge. He's out to improve our understanding of the game.

Problem is, the gut is not always wrong, the same way that a radar gun cannot tell you everything you need to know about a pitcher. If it did, hurlers like Eddie Lopat and Randy Jones would never have even gotten a shot.

Now that's a stupid analogy, that really proves nothing. A radar gun says one thing about a pitcher-how hard he throws. It doesn't say whether or not his pitches have movement, it doesn't say how good his curveball is, it doesn't say whether or not he can change speeds of his arm angle to fool hitters. It doesn't say whether he knows how to pitch and work the count. It doesn't say anything about his control. It tells one thing-how hard he throws.

Only evaluating a pitcher on what the radar gun says is exactly against what Bill James says to do with statistics. He says not to focus on just one statistic, but instead look at all of them and see how they come together to form the player's value. Evaluating pitchers on only the radar gun is exactly like evaluating hitters only on batting average. That's exactly the sort of thing James warns against.

He can produce all the volumes of data he likes showing that the stolen base has a negligible effect upon the outcome of games. And so we have now learned that perhaps its effectiveness WAS overrated all these years. But you and I both know very well the profound effect a dangerous baserunner can have upon a game. We don't have to prove it, we just know it. (Just ask any pitcher who had to deal with the A's lineup while keeping his eye on Rickey Henderson. Or any Yankee fan who watched Dave Roberts steal their season.)

That's exactly the type of statement that does drive statistical people crazy against "going with the gut". Yeah, a basestealer can have an effect on the game. Yeah, there are some moments when it's necessary to steal a base. James isn't denying that. To claim that he is is again misunderstading his motives. He's trying to give us a better understading of the game, by showing us that it's not always smart to steal a base. That perhaps in a tie score when Dave Roberts or Rickey Henderson gets on base you shouldn't ALWAYS steal. He's not trying to cancel out all traditional knowledge, he's trying to improve it.

[csh19792001]

That still shows a fairly even split of 206 homers at home and 172 away.

Percentage wise, that's kind of disparate, actually. Especially given that over a career, everyone bats more on the road (typically at least 300AB's more over a long career). This is attributable to the fact that the visiting team always bats in the ninth and only less than half the time at home. Rice didn't have that many more AB's on the road, but speaking in generalities about splits, the home park advantage should be largely mitigated by the greater number of opportunities on the road over the course of a career.

Regardless, Rice was made from very good to great (and awesome in his best years) by Fenway Park.

Career
Fenway
.320 .374 .546
Road
.277 .330 .459

1978 (his monster year- 400 total bases)
Fenway
.361 .416 .690 (28 homers)
Road
.269 .325 .512 (18 homers)

1977 (his other monster year)
Fenway
.321 .375 .683 (27 homers)
Road
.319 .377 .509 (12 homers)

And for those who say "well, splits don't mean anything"...

I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I know for a fact that in the case of Fenway, OPS+ and the other standard park factors that people always use don't account for handedness and other factors (how the park affects doubles, triples, average, walks, etc). As a result, the common metrics are at times going to be very misleading because they assume all parks are symmetrical and affect all hitters equally.

Fenway has usually been a much better park for right handed hitters (particularly RH power hitters) than for lefties. So the stats like OPS+ taken from baseball-reference are generally going to make right handers who played at Fenway look better than they should, and vice versa for lefties.

Ironically, though, Bill James rests on the subjective factors to make his final decision which drives many statheads crazy because they can't be absolutely quantified. But White was a team player in every sense of the word, and he did all the little things (some of this is evidenced by statistics, much of it isn't). Rice in many ways was the antithesis of White...an inordinately selfish player and person.

There's extensive excerpts regarding Rice's character and impact on the team in The Curse of The Bambino by Dan Shaughnessy.

Regardless of whether Win Shares supports the idea that he was better than Rice, I think White was a greater baseball player. I come from a huge extended family of Yankee fanatics, ranging from 45-85 years of age. After I read the James' Abstract, I asked them what they thought about Roy White. They general sentiment conveyed was that although nobody gives him any recognition at all, seeing him day in and day out for 15 years made it obvious that he was much more important to the Yankees than the numbers suggest.

[csh19792001]

--There is no way I'd call Roy White a better player than Jim Rice.

Well, you probably should.

[dl4060]

Well, you probably should.

No he probably should'nt.

Yes common metrics do have different effects on different players. However, some players have more of an ability to take advantage of their park than others. This makes them valuable, and it helps their team win games. Wade Boggs had a unique ability to prosper at Fenway, but after he left he hit just as well as a Yankee as he had his last few years as a red sock. There are some posts about this in the Boggs verse Gwynn thread, he actually became a great hitter at Yankee stadium. He was able to taylor his game to suit the park. I wonder if there are any pitchers out there who pitched to both players and would call White a more dangerous hitter than Rice?

[csh19792001]

No he probably should'nt.

Yes common metrics do have different effects on different players. However, some players have more of an ability to take advantage of their park than others.

Since Rice never played anywhere else, you could make that claim for Boggs but I don't see how you could do so for Rice. Boggs demonstrated he could adapt to Yankee Stadium and take advantage of its idiosyncracies.

What you base this claim about adaptability off of other than his actual performance away from Fenway?

If he was so adaptable as you claim he was, it stands to reason that he would be able to cater his swing to parks on the road with a pretty high degree of efficacy as well. His lifetime road numbers are .277/.330/.459- that's not even that good for a right fielder, let alone great, let alone alltime (warranting of HOF status). I'll grant that since most players do slightly better at home, so his numbers should be higher- but he hit FIFTY points higher in BA/OBP and nearly 100 points higher in slugging!! Maybe it's just me, but when I see an outfielder with mediocre career road numbers, it doesn't sceam "greatness" to me.

Still at work, but if I get a chance I'll present the more in depth RH park factor data later on.

XX said it best:

I don't know if that is so much of an adjustment as it is taking advantage of that very favorable feature of the park.

There is a reason why so many batting titles have been won by Red Sox players, including guys like Bill Mueller, Carney Lansford, Pete Runnels, and Billy Goodman, guys that should ordinarly have no business winning a batting title.

Fenway makes decent hitters look fairly good (see the above four players), good hitters look very good (see Bobby Doerr, Joe Cronin, Jim Rice, Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, I'm inclined to even put Nomar in this category), and great hitters look amazing (see Carl Yastrzemski, Manny Ramirez, Wade Boggs).

Also, in and of itself, being more feared at the plate does not make one guy a greater baseball player the other.

[leecemark]

--Chris, when you say White was a great team player and did all the little things well, what are you based that on? You are far too young to have seen White play and he isn't exactly a guy who gets written about alot. You'd have to really dig to get a good picture of what kind of player was beyond his stats. Somehow I doubt you've done that kind of indepth anyalysis on a minor star of the 70:) s. I saw him play alot and thought he was a pretty nice player, but he was never the kind of guy anybody was going to want to build a team around.

[Freakshow]

but he was never the kind of guy anybody was going to want to build a team around.
In a sense they did, as he was the only player the Yankees held onto from the down years in the 60's until the champions of the 70's.

From BBLibrary:

White was the quiet leader of the Yankees in a period when their lackluster, sometimes abysmal play was an embarrassing contrast to the franchise's long winning history. His consistently solid performance was finally rewarded in the mid-1970s when the club regained its winning touch; in that period he provided a dignity beyond many of the team's more obviously talented stars.

White hit home runs from both sides of the plate in the same game five times and also switch-hit triples in a game on September 8, 1970, which nobody has ever done more than once in a season. He had speed, too, and stole 233 bases in his career. He was in double figures in steals every season except for his first and last years, and he stole a career-high 31 bases in 1976 at the age of 32. His fielding was just as steady as his other talents, and in 1975 he fielded 1.000, the first Yankee ever to play an errorless season. League-leading performances offensively came in 1972 (99 walks), 1973 (639 at-bats), and 1976 (104 runs). In 1971 he set the AL record for sacrifice flies in a season with 17.

White came up briefly in 1965, the year of the Yankees' collapse, and stuck in 1966, when they dropped to last place. He achieved everyday status in 1968 and hit .267 with 17 HR, 20 steals, 89 runs, and 73 walks. Military service interrupted his 1969 season, when he made the All-Star team, but he had a career year in 1970 with personal highs of 22 HR, 109 runs, 94 RBI, and a .296 batting average. He continued to provide the Yankees with consistent everyday play at the plate and in left field until an injury in 1978 slowed him. He helped the Yankees to their first pennant since 1964 in 1976, and to back-to-back World Championships in 1977-78. In the 1976 LCS he tied the ML mark for walks in a five-game series (5), and his six doubles tied the ALCS lifetime record. His best postseason came in 1978 despite just having come off the DL; he hit .313 in the LCS, with a game-winning sixth-inning HR in the clincher, and hit .333 with a HR and four RBI in the World Series. He later played in Japan, but returned to the U.S. to coach for the Yankees.

[csh19792001]

--Chris, when you say White was a great team player and did all the little things well, what are you based that on?

Like I said, from everyone I asked in my family who watched the guy play day in and day out, including my dad, who played at D-I ball at The University of Miami and knows a thing or two about the game. I come from a die hard baseball family.

Also, what I've read and heard about Rice's character has basically all been negative, with the converse being the case for White. Shaughnessy is a card carrying Red Sox Nation member and like Ed Lynn, tends to skew things positively in favor of Sox greats. That makes what he reveals in his book even more salient. Obviously Jim Rice was not the type of guy you'd want to build your team around, irrespective of what we think of White.

[leecemark]

--FS, I guess I should have said he wasn't the kind of player you build a good team around:) . I suppose White was the Yankees best player a season or two during their down years in the late 60s/early 70s. I expect their fans wished that wasn't true though.
--Chris, if Rice was simply a product of Fenway how do you explain his road numbers being better than White's? Rice hit for higher average on the road than White did overall inspite of the fact almost all players hit a little better at home. Rice's road slugging was over 50 points higher than Whites career mark. White was better at drawiing walks, but I didn't think you gave that much weight.

[dl4060]

Since Rice never played anywhere else, you could make that claim for Boggs but I don't see how you could do so for Rice. Boggs demonstrated he could adapt to Yankee Stadium and take advantage of its idiosyncracies.


I claimed Boggs had such an ability. Rice MAY have been able to adapt very well to other parks, he just never got the chance.


"If he was so adaptable as you claim he was, it stands to reason that he would be able to cater his swing to parks on the road"

The opposite is true. Hitters who have strongly taylored their game to one park are likely to have difficulty adapting to other parks in the short term. Boggs did not adapt well on the road while he played in Boston. Such an adaptation takes time. One cannot simply change style from park to park on a weekly whim. Wade Boggs was not nearly the hitter away from Boston he was at home, but when he went to New York he became a terrific Yankee stadium hitter.

"In the 11 years before Boggs became a Yankee he had a .276 AVG and a SLG of .325 at Yankee Stadium. When he moved to Yankee stadium full time he had a .336 AVG with a .435 SLG at Yankee Stadium."

This was from the Boggs/Gwynn thread, originally posted by Ubiquotous. Boggs was unable to adapt to Yankee stadium as a red sock. As a Yankee, however, he played hit very well there. It seemed when he was given enough time to adjust his approach, he was able to adapt. One would not have expected that when he played for the Red Sox. Some hitters may be able to adapt to different parks, and will thus have big home/away splits, but I would expect that to develop over the course of many seasons, not week to week within a season. If someone plays 81 games at one park, their style may become taylored to that park. They may be able to alter that style to a different park, but that will take playing 81 games(and maybe more, it may take several years) in their new park. With Rice we will never know. In any case, his ability to take advantage a fenway to a greater than normal extent made him very valuable to the Red Sox.


"Also, in and of itself, being more feared at the plate does not make one guy a greater baseball player the other."

In and of itself being more feared is not everything, but it does say something when the people who play the game look at someone as awesome and scary at the plate. If White's career and Rice's career numbers were reversed the opinions of those who played would not be enough to sway my view. But when I look at the numbers they put up Rice's numbers coincide well with the opinions of those who saw him play. The respect Rice's contemporaries had for him, among other things, leads me to believe that he was indeed a player of great ability. I think it may well be that he could have adapted to another stadium and been a star. We will never know. The fact that Rice's contemporaries feared him tells me something, when it fits well with the numbers he put up that tells me more. I guess I should consider myself lucky the Red Sox got Jim Rice and not Roy White.

[538280]

--Chris, if Rice was simply a product of Fenway how do you explain his road numbers being better than White's? Rice hit for higher average on the road than White did overall inspite of the fact almost all players hit a little better at home. Rice's road slugging was over 50 points higher than Whites career mark. White was better at drawiing walks, but I didn't think you gave that much weight.

Simple explanation-there's a big difference between late 70s/80s context and late 60s/70s context.

White's career relative line was 108/113/109. To find Jim Rice's road relative line, I brought the BBRef league averages down by 3%, because they're park adjusted for Fenway. That would make Rice's road relative line 106/101/115.

Projected to the same league averages as Rice, White's equivalent numbers would be .283/.368/.426. Rice hit .277/.336/.455. Who's the more productive hitter? It's pretty close, but I think we'd all go with the first one (White).

Rice did last longer, but that advantage is offset because White was the much better fielder/baserunner.

I would be, now that I look closer, inclined to go with White. It's all a matter of proper adjustments. The perception can be horribly, horribly wrong. The reality, IMO, is that Roy White was indeed a better player than Jim Rice.

[csh19792001]

--Chris, if Rice was simply a product of Fenway how do you explain his road numbers being better than White's? Rice hit for higher average on the road than White did overall inspite of the fact almost all players hit a little better at home. Rice's road slugging was over 50 points higher than Whites career mark. White was better at drawiing walks, but I didn't think you gave that much weight.

Rice being a product of Fenway has nothing to do with White. I brought up Rice's splits because people deem his peak as "incredible" and see his overall numbers and claim he was a truly great hitter. He wasn't. He was a very good hitter who had the good fortune being a right handed power hitter in what was usually the best park for hitting (esp for righties) in his league.

I give drawing walks lots of weight if people also combine that with not making a ton of uselss, boring, selfish outs by striking out. White's BB/K rate is outstanding for the modern era. I also give walks more weight to guys who run well (or very well) because they're inherently more valuable as a result.

For instance, Giambi's OBP greatly overestimates his value to his team becuase he's pathetically slow and incompetent on the basepaths. Rice's BB/K rate is godawful, just another indicator of his selfishness. He didn't run well, couldn't steal a base to save his life, and was a poor fielder at a weak defensive position.

Rememeber Bill James' indicators of baseball intelligence? I'm sure Rice doesn't exactly come out swimmingly there, either. I give a lot of weight to intelligence and selfless play.

White still comes out about equal in terms of overall statistical value (that's already been flushed out in full early in this thread). White's intangibles and the fact that he was a much better all around baseball player (and could contribute in all areas instead of just the batters' box) make him greater, IMO.

[538280]

Rice being a product of Fenway has nothing to do with White. I brought up Rice's splits because people deem his peak as "incredible" and see his overall numbers and claim he was a truly great hitter. He wasn't. He was a very good hitter who had the good fortune being a right handed power hitter in what was usually the best park for hitting (esp for righties) in his league.

I give drawing walks lots of weight if people also combine that with not making a ton of uselss, boring, selfish outs by striking out. White's BB/K rate is outstanding for the modern era. I also give walks more weight to guys who run well (or very well) because they're inherently more valuable as a result.

For instance, Giambi's OBP greatly overestimates his value to his team becuase he's pathetically slow and incompetent on the basepaths. Rice's BB/K rate is godawful, just another indicator of his selfishness. He didn't run well, couldn't steal a base to save his life, and was a poor fielder at a weak defensive position.

Rememeber Bill James' indicators of baseball intelligence? I'm sure Rice doesn't exactly come out swimmingly there, either. I give a lot of weight to intelligence and selfless play.

White still comes out about equal in terms of overall statistical value (that's already been flushed out in full early in this thread). White's intangibles and the fact that he was a much better all around baseball player (and could contribute in all areas instead of just the batters' box) make him greater, IMO.

Chris, I'm glad I agree with you on something (seems to never happen!), but how can you say something like that, and not be so high on Joe Morgan? Morgan's walks, like you say, are of the most valuable kind.

Morgan didn't strike out much either. His strikeout to walk ratio was actually far better than even White's.

And you mention Bill James' intelligence indicators....

[leecemark]

--Chris, Jim Rice wasn't a gold glover, but he was a respectable outfielder. He was also far from a terrible baserunner. He hit 15 triples twice, leading the league once and finishing 2nd the other, in a park that is not particularly condusive to picking up the 3 baggers. He didn't steal many bases because the Red Sox as a team weren't interested in running (not that he was going to be Rickey Henderson with another club:) ) As for striking out = selfish player, that is simply one mans opinion (or should I say obsession in this case?). I see them as just part of the package for most sluggers and not especially damaging to the team.

[csh19792001]

--Chris, Jim Rice wasn't a gold glover, but he was a respectable outfielder. He was also far from a terrible baserunner. He hit 15 triples twice, leading the league once and finishing 2nd the other, in a park that is not particularly condusive to picking up the 3 baggers. He didn't steal many bases because the Red Sox as a team weren't interested in running (not that he was going to be Rickey Henderson with another club:) ) As for striking out = selfish player, that is simply one mans opinion (or should I say obsession in this case?). I see them as just part of the package for most sluggers and not especially damaging to the team.

Striking out 2.5 times for every walk (and walking at an extremely low rate for a so called incredible slugger) are detriments. Grounding into 315 double plays (at an almost record rate) while doing all those things is doubly daming. Rice still holds the alltime record for single season, also has the second highest total (35). The only thing the guy would have ever led in playing in a pitchers' park like Yankee Stadium would have been GIDP.

And what does a "respectible" outfielder mean? That's just semantic distortion on your part. Rice was relegated to DH for a third of his career games, he didn't have good range, and despite not covering much ground he still managed to make lots of errors in left at Fenway (in the smallest LF in the AL, at that).

If you could cut the nostalgic awe of the big slugging numbers (or shall I say one man's obsession with them?) you might be able to see things clearly here.

[leecemark]

--I'm not especially a fan of Jim Rice. Saying he is better than Roy White is not the highest possible praise is it?
--Rice was a fearsome slugger for a few years in the late 70s and a pretty good one in the early 80s. His Hall of Fame case is not overwhelming, but White's is non-existent.

[csh19792001]

Chris, I'm glad I agree with you on something (seems to never happen!)

Yep! Certainly a nice change of pace. :o


But how can you say something like that, and not be so high on Joe Morgan? Morgan's walks, like you say, are of the most valuable kind.

Morgan didn't strike out much either. His strikeout to walk ratio was actually far better than even White's.

And you mention Bill James' intelligence indicators....

Very good points, Chris.

I'm not nearly as high as you are on Morgan, but I do have him as the third greatest player ever at his position (until recently second greatest), which isn't exactly an insult. Morgan was a Roy White type of player in many ways- as far as being a selfless, highly intelligent team player who did the little things well. Obviously, Morgan was a middle infielder, he had better plate discipline, and he lasted much longer, so he was vastly more valuable over the course of his career.

[csh19792001]

--Rice was a fearsome slugger for a few years in the late 70s and a pretty good one in the early 80s. His Hall of Fame case is not overwhelming, but White's is non-existent.

If HOF voters didn't (still) get starry eyed over stats like RBI's and homeruns and looked at both players as a complete package (i.e., objectively), their cases would be equal in merit.

[leecemark]

--Aren't you big on contemporary observations? I'd be surprised if you could find anybody who would have claimed White was better than Rice while both were active. You reject "revisionist stats" that discount some of your old time favorites (but everybody said they were great at the time!), but jump on board with their dubious conclusions in this case. Why is that?

[csh19792001]

--Aren't you big on contemporary observations? I'd be surprised if you could find anybody who would have claimed White was better than Rice while both were active. You reject "revisionist stats" that discount some of your old time favorites (but everybody said they were great at the time!), but jump on board with their dubious conclusions in this case. Why is that?

I don't have to adhere exclusively to the ethos of Bill James, Jon Holway, Pete Palmer (or, on the other side of the spectrum) Grantland Rice, Tim Murname, and Connie Mack every time, Mark. I'm not going to limit myself by deriving all of my truth from one tributary of information (be it one stat, just statistical analysis, or relying solely on contemporary analysis). People like Sisler have dropped a great deal in my estimation after looking at all of the available statistical evidence, but I'm not going to say he wasn't a great baseball player because he didn't net "X Win Shares". Similarly, I choose Ty Cobb over Ruth because he has near unanimous support as the greatest everyone from everyone who saw both he and Ruth play out their careers, AND he has incredible statistics to boot.

[digglahhh]

The contemporary opinions don't sell White short, they overstate Rice. Its not that White wasn't appreciated, its that Rice was deified. The gap between them is reliant on surface glances and exposed as such by careful analysis.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Eh... Jim Rice is a LOT closer to the Hall than Roy White is anyway. Bill James' is just one opinion... and I don't think it's a ridiculous one, but like leecemark I disagree with him in going that far against Rice.

White is closer to Rice than a lot of people think, but he's not better, at least not if you go by Offensive Winning Percentage. Rice leads White .627 to .612, not a huge lead, but a lead. Rice posted OWPs over .700 three times in his career; White did it once, plus, he was at .697 in 1970. Rice and White are about equal, defensively; White had more speed, but one of the weakest throwing arms of any LF in history. (To his credit, White was excellent at hitting the cutoff man.) IMO, White doesn't make up the difference on defense.

Rice is a little better than White, but he's better. Rice will probably go into the HOF next year, while White will never go. I'm OK with that. Rice's accomplishments (triple crown stats) are pretty obvious; White's are less obvious, and Bill James' assessment of his ability was not the assessment of the observers of his time.

[plask_stirlac]

I was gonna say if you smush out Rice's seasons and adjust them he'd be more like White but White had a spike as well, from 68-72 and then not as great otherwise.

[hellborn]

...
I honestly can't understand why James is still seen by many in the media as the arbiter of baseball truths? The more I read items such as this, the more I have to question his aptitude for analysis and his supposed sage-like wisdom. Then again, what do I know? I'm not a senior operations adviser to a team playing below the level of the Texas Rangers this season.

I'm being awful drudging up things from really old posts, but I couldn't resist...this is from during the 2004 season.
:blush:
It's OK, Commish, we all pull a few rocks sometimes!