Should the Hall of Fame be renamed the Hall of Statistical Achievement?

[Cowtipper]

I notice more and more that people are relying very, very heavily on statistics and statistical analysis to determine if someone is Hall of Fame worthy or not. But statistics should not be the only that is taken into consideration when they consider a player. How famous was the player during his time? How was he perceived? Where did the people of his time place him on the echelon of greatness?

With complex number crunching, you can take a guy who doesn't really seem that great at first glance (read: Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans) and make them seem like a first ballot Hall of Famer, while you can take a guy who had pretty good numbers (read: Jake Beckley) and make him seem like a loser who shouldn't be sniffing the Hall's doorway. Similarly, a lack of statistical milestones (read: Albert Belle) could also stop them from getting into the Hall.

People often try to make statistical algorithms and formulas that should determine how good a player was/is, but I don't believe that should determine a person's final opinion. How highly regarded a player was during his time, among other things, should help determine whether a player gets in.

If people are going to use JUST statistics to determine whether a player should get in, then perhaps the Hall of Fame needs a name change.

[SABR Matt]

:banghead:

The numbers don't just fall from the sky, Cowtipper. They happen in a context. If you don't make an effort to understand the contexts, you'll never understand greatness in baseball and you'll never have an appreciation based on informed rationale.

[SteveJRogers]

I notice more and more that people are relying very, very heavily on statistics and statistical analysis to determine if someone is Hall of Fame worthy or not. But statistics should not be the only that is taken into consideration when they consider a player. How famous was the player during his time? How was he perceived? Where did the people of his time place him on the echelon of greatness?

With complex number crunching, you can take a guy who doesn't really seem that great at first glance (read: Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans) and make them seem like a first ballot Hall of Famer, while you can take a guy who had pretty good numbers (read: Jake Beckley) and make him seem like a loser who shouldn't be sniffing the Hall's doorway. Similarly, a lack of statistical milestones (read: Albert Belle) could also stop them from getting into the Hall.

People often try to make statistical algorithms and formulas that should determine how good a player was/is, but I don't believe that should determine a person's final opinion. How highly regarded a player was during his time, among other things, should help determine whether a player gets in.

If people are going to use JUST statistics to determine whether a player should get in, then perhaps the Hall of Fame needs a name change.

I agree, while not to the extreme of ESPN's Colin Cowherd who once said that Jose Canseco should go into the Hall of Fame and Craig Biggio should be shut out, the idea that you can't use your own "Okay, first thing that comes to mind, HOFer or not" judgment call is a bit ridiculous.

I mean it is really disturbing how everyone gets lumped into the "well he isn't a first ballot HOFer" bull crap. Either you ARE a HOFer, or you are NOT a HOFer.

There should be tracking systems of how voters vote, if you didn't vote for the guy on the first crack, you should not vote for him again. There are reasons why you are allowed to vote for up to 10 guys, and it is not so you can waste it on that one guy who was nice to you who you think deserves a vote.

[SteveJRogers]

:banghead:

The numbers don't just fall from the sky, Cowtipper. They happen in a context. If you don't make an effort to understand the contexts, you'll never understand greatness in baseball and you'll never have an appreciation based on informed rationale.

Derek Jeter is going to have just one "magic" number, 3,000 hits. You look at his numbers, they don't scream HOF, yet the majority of people you ask will put him in the Hall, even if he fails to get that number.

Why? Because of stuff that goes beyond the numbers and their context.

Put it this way, Jim Rice should be a Hall of Famer, for the same exact reason Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer. You want to take out Sandy Koufax?

[SABR Matt]

No...Sandy Koufax actually earned his place in the HOF with numbers alone.

Jim Rice did not. Nor does anything he did as a Red Sock merit the kind of hilarious mindless adulation he receives from so many...

And context doesn't just have to include the numerical context. I'm more willing to let a bubble candidate into my HOF if he did something that will be remembered forever, or made some other notable contribution to the game. Schilling, for example, will forever be remembered as a warrior and a hero in Boston and that counts for something.

Jeter is kind of the same story...numerically, he's a bubble candidate if he finishes his career strongly enough and plays long enough. But he left an indelible impression on a whole generation, like it or not.

[SteveJRogers]

Jim Rice did not. Nor does anything he did as a Red Sock merit the kind of hilarious mindless adulation he receives from so many...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, so being the most feared and dominate hitter in the league for a little over a decade means squat.

And context doesn't just have to include the numerical context. I'm more willing to let a bubble candidate into my HOF if he did something that will be remembered forever, or made some other notable contribution to the game. Schilling, for example, will forever be remembered as a warrior and a hero in Boston and that counts for something.

Jeter is kind of the same story...numerically, he's a bubble candidate if he finishes his career strongly enough and plays long enough. But he left an indelible impression on a whole generation, like it or not.


You just made my point about Rice by the way.

Oh, and I have heard people, ignorant yes but people nonetheless question Koufax's numbers in relation to other Hall of Famers, so no, Koufax probably wouldn't get in based on cold, hard numbers. He got in because he was so freaking dominant for a period of time.

[SABR Matt]

Rice was not the most feared hitter for a decade, dude. Do some research. A tiny bit. Just enough to know that while he was playing, so were Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, George Brett, and countless other guys...form lead-off stars to sluggers, all of whom were better hitters than Rice.

[dgarza]

Rice was not the most feared hitter for a decade, dude. Do some research. A tiny bit. Just enough to know that while he was playing, so were Tim Raines, Rickey Henderson, George Brett, and countless other guys...form lead-off stars to sluggers, all of whom were better hitters than Rice.Fear has little to do with research. Someone like Rice being a feared hitter has more to do with emotions and non-rational subjective elements than doing analysis and research into who was a better batter.

[SABR Matt]

Forgive me then for not bowing to the east coast media elitists. Jim Rice wasn't even a particularly GOOD hitter other than one truly outstanding season. And I think anyone watching a game involving Henderson was a lot more scared of him than of Rice.

[SteveJRogers]

Forgive me then for not bowing to the east coast media elitists. Jim Rice wasn't even a particularly GOOD hitter other than one truly outstanding season. And I think anyone watching a game involving Henderson was a lot more scared of him than of Rice.

Really, lets look at your beloved numbers shall we?

11 times hitting 20 homers in a year, including 40 once, 39 three times in an era where home runs were a more meaningful stat. Eight 100+ RBI seasons, finished with a .298 BA, .502 Slugging.

Oh, and this is what Baseball-Reference's HOF monitor standards have to say

Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Finished in the top 5 for MVP voting 6 times.

How is Rice NOT at least deserving consideration for the Hall?

[henrich]

I'm with Rogers on this one sabrmatt. Rice deserves election and I think the reason he is not in right now is more to do with his aloofness with voters, not his numbers, or the emotional impact he had with opposing pitchers. Rice should be elected this year, as no one has had as high of a percentage as Rice and not be selected. the only strike against him is this is Rickey's year and he will be a first ballot hall of famer, I fear some will want to make it Rickey's stage so that Rickey can talk in the 3rd person about himself, all by himself up there.

[jalbright]

I notice more and more that people are relying very, very heavily on statistics and statistical analysis to determine if someone is Hall of Fame worthy or not. But statistics should not be the only that is taken into consideration when they consider a player. How famous was the player during his time? How was he perceived? Where did the people of his time place him on the echelon of greatness?

With complex number crunching, you can take a guy who doesn't really seem that great at first glance (read: Graig Nettles, Darrell Evans) and make them seem like a first ballot Hall of Famer, while you can take a guy who had pretty good numbers (read: Jake Beckley) and make him seem like a loser who shouldn't be sniffing the Hall's doorway. Similarly, a lack of statistical milestones (read: Albert Belle) could also stop them from getting into the Hall.

People often try to make statistical algorithms and formulas that should determine how good a player was/is, but I don't believe that should determine a person's final opinion. How highly regarded a player was during his time, among other things, should help determine whether a player gets in.

If people are going to use JUST statistics to determine whether a player should get in, then perhaps the Hall of Fame needs a name change.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with using some of the best available evidence to evaluate the worthiness of HOF cases in a systematic way. Now, if you're saying that anyone using these systems should realize that for the close cases (one way or the other), they should take a hard second look at the whole picture, I agree. To me, the great value in these systems is that they 1) help sort out the rather clear cases, and 2) highlight cases that deserve further scrutiny, pro and con.

Another problem that is often encountered in a board like this is that you only get snippets of other folks' systems. This fact makes it exceptionally difficult to evaluate the system used by somebody. I know I have a hard time being comfortable with an approach unless I've had the chance to "kick the tires" and really examine an approach and the results it yields. At least I know what many of the strengths and weaknesses of win shares are, and I can hazard reasonable guesses about how various approaches to using those numbers will work out. I know SABR Matt has poured an enormous amount of work into his evaluations, and I respect that, but the truth is, despite the fairly large amount of information I do have about his methods, I'm not as comfortable with it as I am with win shares. I know even less about WARP3. primarily because there's been no effort to share much of what goes into creating it.

The other thing is that sometimes folks using stat systems, by virtue of the time they've put into creating it, act as though their approach is the "one true way" to evaluate the evidence. Which, in short, is pure poppycock. Even when a system makes all reasonable assumptions, it is entirely possible for someone making different reasonable assumptions to reach significantly different conclusions, particularly among the borderline calls.

[SABR Matt]

Really, lets look at your beloved numbers shall we?

11 times hitting 20 homers in a year, including 40 once, 39 three times in an era where home runs were a more meaningful stat. Eight 100+ RBI seasons, finished with a .298 BA, .502 Slugging.

Oh, and this is what Baseball-Reference's HOF monitor standards have to say

Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Finished in the top 5 for MVP voting 6 times.

How is Rice NOT at least deserving consideration for the Hall?

LOL!

He says he's going to look at my "beloved" numbers and thrtows all of the numbers I can't stand being used out of context at me.

Fenway Park a tremendous hitter's park. The HR counts mean less than they otherwise would. The HOF monitor type stats are essentially meaningless without a context. RBI is a team stat and there can be no doubt that he routinely surrounded by good hitters.

[SABR Matt]

I'm sorry, but I don't see a big problem with using some of the best available evidence to evaluate the worthiness of HOF cases in a systematic way. Now, if you're saying that anyone using these systems should realize that for the close cases (one way or the other), they should take a hard second look at the whole picture, I agree. To me, the great value in these systems is that they 1) help sort out the rather clear cases, and 2) highlight cases that deserve further scrutiny, pro and con.

Another problem that is often encountered in a board like this is that you only get snippets of other folks' systems. This fact makes it exceptionally difficult to evaluate the system used by somebody. I know I have a hard time being comfortable with an approach unless I've had the chance to "kick the tires" and really examine an approach and the results it yields. At least I know what many of the strengths and weaknesses of win shares are, and I can hazard reasonable guesses about how various approaches to using those numbers will work out. I know SABR Matt has poured an enormous amount of work into his evaluations, and I respect that, but the truth is, despite the fairly large amount of information I do have about his methods, I'm not as comfortable with it as I am with win shares. I know even less about WARP3. primarily because there's been no effort to share much of what goes into creating it.

The other thing is that sometimes folks using stat systems, by virtue of the time they've put into creating it, act as though their approach is the "one true way" to evaluate the evidence. Which, in short, is pure poppycock. Even when a system makes all reasonable assumptions, it is entirely possible for someone making different reasonable assumptions to reach significantly different conclusions, particularly among the borderline calls.

I would love for you to explain why you are more comfortable with win shares than PCA. I'm not taking that personally...I'm just curious, because I know presentation is not one of my strengths at the moment.

[DoubleX]

I've said many times on here before that I am concerned when it seems that nothing but complex statistical evaluation is what a person is deciding a Hall of Fame case on. That type of approach is only concerned with numbers on paper - it's too detached from the game itself and the moments and atmosphere that make baseball great.

Of course, statistical evaluation can be extremely helpful in assisting us get better insight into a player or the game in general, and I do place a great deal of emphasis in statistical evaluation, but I don't do so to the exclusion of everything else.

It's a tough balancing act without a right answer, but I do strongly believe that the Hall of Fame is not just about statistics, it's about a lot more, there is very much a subjective element involved which the Hall is meant to both chronicle and tribute. Otherwise, there would be no point to actually watching games, to being a fan, and we could just automatically elect anyone based on some statistical formula - what would be the fun in that?

Jim Rice may be the epitome of the dividing line. On one hand, you have a lot of measures that show that Rice really wasn't all that great. On the other hand, it can't be denied that when he played, he was generally regarded as great, even amongst his peers, regardless of what some deeper statistical analysis says. For me personally, Rice is just under the line, but the fact that he was regarded as a big star in his day (including by his peers), rightly or wrongly, does count for something and shouldn't just be dismissed entirely. It's not quite enough for me, but I can understand why it might be enough for others.

[SABR Matt]

I take exception to the idea that because someone generally comments primarily on the statistical analysis that must mean all he cares about is the statistical analysis. Sabermetricians, as a group, love baseball...they love watching the games...love studying the game...we love the game a lot more than an armchair fan, and the work we put into our study of the statistical history of the game should prove that to you.

The only difference between a well-informed non-statistically-minded fan and a sabermetrician when watching a game is that a sabermetrician will be thinking more about the context in which the events are taking place. When I watch a game, I react just as emotionally as any of you...but when the dust settles after the game, I am more inclined to try to understand how that game evolved and who was responsible.

[DoubleX]

I take exception to the idea that because someone generally comments primarily on the statistical analysis that must mean all he cares about is the statistical analysis. Sabermetricians, as a group, love baseball...they love watching the games...love studying the game...we love the game a lot more than an armchair fan, and the work we put into our study of the statistical history of the game should prove that to you.

The only difference between a well-informed non-statistically-minded fan and a sabermetrician when watching a game is that a sabermetrician will be thinking more about the context in which the events are taking place. When I watch a game, I react just as emotionally as any of you...but when the dust settles after the game, I am more inclined to try to understand how that game evolved and who was responsible.

First, I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just generalizing. Second, I understand where you're coming from, but the actual Hall of Fame, not your personal Hall of Fame, is not just about deep statistical analysis after the fact. If that is to be the method of evaluation, then all you'd need is a formula, and the Hall is about much more than reducing players to a formula.

I'm not saying at all you're not a fan and you're absolutely right that your dedication to statistical evaluation and pursuit of a deeper understanding does very much evidence that passion. I'm just saying that the Hall is about more than numbers. As I said above though, it is a balancing act, and no one has the right answer, I just believe that one method should not be used to the complete exclusion of the other. In that vein, if a person said they voted for Rice because of all the hype in his career and didn't care at all that his case is weakened greatly under statistical scrutiny, I'd take issue with that as well.

Finally, I bolded that last part of your post because I think it very much epitomizes why many people can take offense to your line of thinking, or at least your presentation. Whether you meant it this way or not, it comes off as a holier than thou attitude, as if you have some deeper ability to understand the game than those who might not care to do as much statistical analysis as you, and that can turn some people off from the very illuminative things you have to offer. Take me for instance - I am very much inclined to gain a deeper understanding of the game, and that very much includes some statistical analysis. And while I do more analysis than probably 95% of the fans out there, does the fact that I don't go as deep on that path as you do mean I'm endeavoring any less than you to understand? That I am unable to put things in context? Your statement would suggest that you do indeed believe that, and as someone who does take pride in having a deep understanding of the game, I do take offense to that implication. Just because I don't do it exactly the same as you, doesn't mean I'm trying any less or doing it wrong, as your tone seems to imply. There is no one right way to try to put things in context and understand that context. You understand the game better in the way you choose to understand it, but that doesn't mean that your way is the only way to gain a deeper understanding of the game.

[Cowtipper]

The other thing is that sometimes folks using stat systems, by virtue of the time they've put into creating it, act as though their approach is the "one true way" to evaluate the evidence. Which, in short, is pure poppycock. Even when a system makes all reasonable assumptions, it is entirely possible for someone making different reasonable assumptions to reach significantly different conclusions, particularly among the borderline calls.
That is one thing that I really can't stand - when someone has a system that they deem THE right way of evaluating a player...even if their system finds Jose Vidro to be better than Jeff Kent or Tim Wallach to be better than Mike Schmidt. It's not that their system is wrong - it's just that WE'VE been wrong this entire time.

And this is partly what I mean by look at more than just stats. In the New York Mets thread, I have a Hall of Fame going there, and I've voted for Ron Swoboda and not Ken Boswell. Why? They're fairly similar statistically, after all (in that, they both weren't the best hitters in the world). So why Rocky and not Boswell? Because Ron Swoboda has a lot more nostalgia attached to him. He had more individual "oh yeah, I remember that!" moments to make himself more memorable. Extend, twist and contort that to fit this topic, and I hope you see my point.

[SABR Matt]

First, I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just generalizing. Second, I understand where you're coming from, but the actual Hall of Fame, not your personal Hall of Fame, is not just about deep statistical analysis after the fact. If that is to be the method of evaluation, then all you'd need is a formula, and the Hall is about much more than reducing players to a formula.

I'm not saying at all you're not a fan and you're absolutely right that your dedication to statistical evaluation and pursuit of a deeper understanding does very much evidence that passion. I'm just saying that the Hall is about more than numbers. As I said above though, it is a balancing act, and no one has the right answer, I just believe that one method should not be used to the complete exclusion of the other. In that vein, if a person said they voted for Rice because of all the hype in his career and didn't care at all that his case is weakened greatly under statistical scrutiny, I'd take issue with that as well.

Finally, I bolded that last part of your post because I think it very much epitomizes why many people can take offense to your line of thinking, or at least your presentation. Whether you meant it this way or not, it comes off as a holier than thou attitude, as if you have some deeper ability to understand the game than those who might not care to do as much statistical analysis as you, and that can turn some people off from the very illuminative things you have to offer. Take me for instance - I am very much inclined to gain a deeper understanding of the game, and that very much includes some statistical analysis. And while I do more analysis than probably 95% of the fans out there, does the fact that I don't go as deep on that path as you do mean I'm endeavoring any less than you to understand? That I am unable to put things in context? Your statement would suggest that you do indeed believe that, and as someone who does take pride in having a deep understanding of the game, I do take offense to that implication. Just because I don't do it exactly the same as you, doesn't mean I'm trying any less or doing it wrong, as your tone seems to imply. There is no one right way to try to put things in context and understand that context. You understand the game better in the way you choose to understand it, but that doesn't mean that your way is the only way to gain a deeper understanding of the game.

If one more person describes what i do as some cold reduction of humans to a "formula" I'm going to go bananas.

[Cowtipper]

If one more person describes what i do as some cold reduction of humans to a "formula" I'm going to go bananas.

I'm pretty sure what you're doing is reducing humans to a formula.

;)

[DoubleX]

If one more person describes what i do as some cold reduction of humans to a "formula" I'm going to go bananas.

So long as you stop implying that somehow only your approach, formulaic or not, is the only or best way to have an enlightened understanding of the game. For instance, everything you've said about Rice in this thread strongly implies that you're just going on numbers. The fact that he was perceived as a big star and feared hitter while he played, a sentiment echoed by many of his peers, should count for at least something. We'll all differ on the degree, but you seemed completely dismissive of these Fame aspects, and thus have apparently reduced Rice to some kind of formula based on numbers. If that is the case, that essentially eliminates the need to actually watch and take in the game as it occurred. Rather, it would suggest that the only way to really appreciate the game is by statistical analysis after the fact, as if it was just a computer simulation. That doesn't strike you as formulaic? That doesn't seem to imply that there is nothing to be garnered from appreciating the game at its most basic level, as a game? Perhaps I'm offbase here, but I'm just going off your treatment of Rice in this thread.

[SABR Matt]

I have never implied that only my particular approach to sabermetrics is correct...I have argued strongly for the basic logic that underpins what I do.

I will, however, go on outright STATING (no implication required, Chico) that no one is qualified to judge who should be in the hall of fame if they fail to make use of sabermetric tools at least in the general sense...they must account for the context in which any player created his achievements, they must place that player within the general context to which he belongs on their list, and they must make a clear and decisive case for why they deviate from the numbers when it becomes necessary to do so. Don't just tell me, categorically, that Jim RIce is a HOFer because he was the most feared hitter in the AL for a decade...PROVE TO ME THAT THIS WAS IN FACT THE CASE. Do something besides state opinion as fact and dismiss evidence I provide to the contrary with the handwave of "eeeeww...it's math!! It's so impersonal!!!"

[DoubleX]

I will, however, go on outright STATING (no implication required, Chico) that no one is qualified to judge who should be in the hall of fame if they fail to make use of sabermetric tools at least in the general sense...they must account for the context in which any player created his achievements, they must place that player within the general context to which he belongs on their list, and they must make a clear and decisive case for why they deviate from the numbers when it becomes necessary to do so. Don't just tell me, categorically, that Jim RIce is a HOFer because he was the most feared hitter in the AL for a decade...PROVE TO ME THAT THIS WAS IN FACT THE CASE. Do something besides state opinion as fact and dismiss evidence I provide to the contrary with the handwave of "eeeeww...it's math!! It's so impersonal!!!"

I completely agree with you, and for what it's worth, I apologize if I was generalizing you. It cuts both ways - if people believe they can really understand a player without delving at least a little into some deeper statistical analysis, than they're missing something, IMO. As I said above, it's a balance, and that balance will be different for everyone, but the balance needs to account on some level for both analysis and subjectivity, even if just a little (though I would favor more analysis, truth be told).

Here's a good example. I've exchanged some emails with a well known member of the BBWAA regarding Bert Blyleven (among other things). This member is a great source for player movement, but when it comes to Hall of Fame evaluation, he can be a joke. I presented him a very detailed and statistical laden argument for Blyleven, comparing him to his Hall of Fame peers, and then also pointing out the inordinate amount of games (by date of game played) he deserved to win during his prime but didn't due to poor run support, and how because of his team, he didn't get to that magic 300 win total, like Don Sutton, a player whom he voted for. Despite all this, his response was that Blyleven didn't have enough of an "impact." He basically dismissed everything I said because of his subjective assessment of Blyleven's "impact." In doing so, he failed to realize that his perception of Blyleven was skewed because Blyleven's record seldom reflected just how well he pitched.

EDIT: I removed the name of the writer.

[SABR Matt]

I think by now anyone with even 1/8th of a mind for the statistical analysis side knows that Blyleven not being in the hall is a complete joke. Anyone taking even a little bit of their time to understand context...to understand how the numbers happened the way they did...is going to see Blyleven as a HOFer almost immediately.

I'm not saying everyone here has to build their list first with the numbers and then make tweaks for subjective considerations the way I do...but I am saying that if I make a strong statistical case for a player and you (the general you...not you personally DX) hand-wave it away as just some cold hard mathematical bull and try to paint me as a guy who only cares about data and doesn't do anything else, then I'm going to ignore you because that's not analysis worth my time and it's not respectful to the work I do.

[DoubleX]

I'm not saying everyone here has to build their list first with the numbers and then make tweaks for subjective considerations the way I do...but I am saying that if I make a strong statistical case for a player and you (the general you...not you personally DX) hand-wave it away as just some cold hard mathematical bull and try to paint me as a guy who only cares about data and doesn't do anything else, then I'm going to ignore you because that's not analysis worth my time and it's not respectful to the work I do.

That's fair, and again, I apologize for getting carried away and making generalizations about you. My original post in this thread was basically what you're saying, but on the other side - that subjectivity shouldn't be totally dismissed in favor of deep statistical analysis. I think we can agree that there needs to be some mix, but it will vary depending on the person. And I am in complete agreement with you that subjectivity or word of mouth by itself won't cut it. For me, subjectivity is meant as a supplement, with the statistical analysis as the base. I don't get into the sabermetrics as much as you do, mainly because I recognize how time consuming and complicated it can get, but I do appreciate their value and try to incorporate various measures that I feel comfortable with as much as possible.

EDIT: I want to go back to Rice and Blyleven for a second. They are two really good examples of the difference of what can be ascertained from perception versus analysis. Rice was regarded as a much better player than he actually was, and it doesn't take much analysis to see that. Fenway provided him with a very favorable hitting environment, he couldn't keep up those numbers on the road, and when adjusted for park and era, his numbers really don't stand out as much as the hype would indicate. On the other side, there's Blyleven. The raw numbers are good, but don't leap out at as particularly dominant, and that unfortunately was the perception of him. A little analysis though shows just how good Blyleven was and how those superficial stats don't do him justice. So these are two good examples of how greater analysis can give us a much better understanding how good these players were. That being said, it is the Hall of Fame, and that subjective Fame factor counts for something, so I can understand why Rice would have enough of that quality for some to get him over the top. But in line with what you said above about bubble candidates, the subjective factor should come in as a supplement, and should not be the primary basis. Rice is very much on the bubble for me. Without the subjective elements, he's clearly on the outside in that Hall of Very Good. With the elements, I still lean against his induction, but can understand why some feel he belongs, and I probably wouldn't complain much if he is elected. The bigger problem isn't so much that he'd be elected, it's the similar or better players that aren't getting their due.

[SABR Matt]

As I'm a large-hall guy, I really am not going to throw a tantrum if Rice gets elected...because I do understand that he's a guy who is TREMENDOUSLY popular among a certain subset of baseball fans that matters when talking about fame. If it were called the hall of greatness, I would be pretty upset to see Rice in...but it's not...there's an element of popularity that gets involved.

I just don't like to see people make claims they can't really back up with some kind of evidence. You can indeed back up a subjective claim with evidence...Bill_Burgess does this all the time for the deadball stars, but a lot of fans seem content to believe what they want to believe and not make an effort to explain how that opinion got formed and decide if it makes sense.

No sabermetrician is 100% about the numbers...the reason that's what we talk about is that non one else is really talking about it the way we do...we're trying to provide insight that we feel like we're in a unique position to provide...fill a void if you will. So yeah...we're always going to lead off with the numbers and what they mean. That doesn't mean that's all we're capable of seeing.

[DoubleX]

I just don't like to see people make claims they can't really back up with some kind of evidence. You can indeed back up a subjective claim with evidence...Bill_Burgess does this all the time for the deadball stars, but a lot of fans seem content to believe what they want to believe and not make an effort to explain how that opinion got formed and decide if it makes sense.

I think you could find that kind of evidence for Rice, though you might not find someone who as zealously pursues it as Bill does with the deadball era. :) One problem though with some of the subjective evidence from that era though is an even greater tendency to romanticize (plus less of a historical perspective), but that was true of many aspects of life.

BTW, I'll probably regret bringing this up, but have you ever heard of the Win Method (I actually feel silly calling it a method because there is no real method to it)? I had some members in the Yankees forum adhering to it like dogma. It was extremely maddening to deal with as it was completely devoid of logic. Basically, any player that wins a World Series, is automatically better than any player that hasn't, even if the winning player didn't contribute much to his team's winning effort. It also applied to pitchers, so a mediocre pitcher that wins 20 games for a good team is automatically better than a good pitcher than wins 17 games for a terrible team.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Derek Jeter is going to have just one "magic" number, 3,000 hits. You look at his numbers, they don't scream HOF, yet the majority of people you ask will put him in the Hall, even if he fails to get that number.

Why? Because of stuff that goes beyond the numbers and their context.

Put it this way, Jim Rice should be a Hall of Famer, for the same exact reason Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer. You want to take out Sandy Koufax?

They don't? Even putting aside the 3,000 hits let's look at Jeter's "numbers". I won't even delve into any fancy-pants sabermetrics, just numbers that most HoF voters will look at. Jeter is likely to have 2,000 runs scored. That is far more impressive than 3,000 hits. Only eight players have scored over 2,000 runs ever. Jeter has eleven 100-run seasons already. He has six 200-hit seasons, one of the highest totals in major league history. That is impressive. He'll end up with a career BA over .300. He'll most likely have over 280-300 HRs and about 525-550 doubles. Jeter is a shortstop. He's numbers scream "Hall of Fame shortstop". Jeter really is one of the greatest hitting shortstops ever. Seriously, can you name 8-10 shortstops in history who were better hitters than Jeter? Even if Jeter was a career Royal or Pirate he'd still be thought of as a HoFer.

[SABR Matt]

I think you could find that kind of evidence for Rice, though you might not find someone who as zealously pursues it as Bill does with the deadball era. :) One problem though with some of the subjective evidence from that era though is an even greater tendency to romanticize (plus less of a historical perspective), but that was true of many aspects of life.

BTW, I'll probably regret bringing this up, but have you ever heard of the Win Method (I actually feel silly calling it a method because there is no real method to it)? I had some members in the Yankees forum adhering to it like dogma. It was extremely maddening to deal with as it was completely devoid of logic. Basically, any player that wins a World Series, is automatically better than any player that hasn't, even if the winning player didn't contribute much to his team's winning effort. It also applied to pitchers, so a mediocre pitcher that wins 20 games for a good team is automatically better than a good pitcher than wins 17 games for a terrible team.

I've seen that in action, yes. I've never heard it referred to as "the win method"...LOL

Nothing annoys me more as "evidence" than stuff like that.

[SABR Matt]

They don't? Even putting aside the 3,000 hits let's look at Jeter's "numbers". I won't even delve into any fancy-pants sabermetrics, just numbers that most HoF voters will look at. Jeter is likely to have 2,000 runs scored. That is far more impressive than 3,000 hits. Only eight players have scored over 2,000 runs ever. Jeter has eleven 100-run seasons already. He has six 200-hit seasons, one of the highest totals in major league history. That is impressive. He'll end up with a career BA over .300. He'll most likely have over 280-300 HRs and about 525-550 doubles. Jeter is a shortstop. He's numbers scream "Hall of Fame shortstop". Jeter really is one of the greatest hitting shortstops ever. Seriously, can you name 8-10 shortstops in history who were better hitters than Jeter? Even if Jeter was a career Royal or Pirate he'd still be thought of as a HoFer.

Let's delve into the "fancy pants" sabermetrics for a second.

The shortstops who are identifiably better hitters than Jeter by the PCA Marker:

1) Honus Wagner
2) George Davis
3) Robin Yount
4) Arky Vaughan
5) Alex Rodriguez
6) Ernie Banks

Right now Jeter has 104.5 marker points for offense and 0.8 (yes...zero decimal eight) marker points for defense through 2005, based on estimates for 2006-2008 I would up the offensive number up 11.8 for 2006, 8.5 for 2007 and 6.0 for 2008 which would place him at 130.8 for offense, right in the same neighborhood as Luke Appling for 7th greatest hitter of all time at short.

What kills Jeter on my all-time list is his historically terrible defense. He's getting literally ZERO marker credit for defense...he's that bad.

[jjpm74]

Don't just tell me, categorically, that Jim RIce is a HOFer because he was the most feared hitter in the AL for a decade...PROVE TO ME THAT THIS WAS IN FACT THE CASE. Do something besides state opinion as fact and dismiss evidence I provide to the contrary with the handwave of "eeeeww...it's math!! It's so impersonal!!!"

Playing Devil's Advocate here (I'm not a Jim Rice advocate):

1. In order to do that, the person doing so would need to present an argument from a qualitative rather than a quantitative perspective. Why would they when you are completely dismissive of that approach and have implied time and time again that you will not consider such approaches?

2. Why is anyone going to try to convince you of anything when you enter into every argument with the whole "I'm right and my approach is better than everyone else's" attitude? You ASSUME that the person on the other end is a complete idiot (at least that is how you come off). That's a poor way to approach a debate.

[AstrosFan]

How can you prove something qualitatively?

[dgarza]

How can you prove something qualitatively?Let's take Rice as an example. To prove that Rice was a feared hitter, one would only have to produce statements made at the time which say exactly that (first hand accounts mainly). Articles, interviews, news stories, etc.

[jjpm74]

Let's take Rice as an example. To prove that Rice was a feared hitter, one would only have to produce statements made at the time which say exactly that (first hand accounts mainly). Articles, interviews, news stories, etc.

That's it in a nutshell and since what you're trying to prove is a perception, it is not something that could be proven by crunching numbers in an example such as this. As far as whether or not that perception if proven accurate from the player's time has any significant merit in their HOF case; that's up to each individual to decide. For me, the perception of a player at the time they were playing is useful when looking at borderline candidates. To someone else, that perception might not be seen as a useful tool. Either way, this approach is one that should be used sparingly as evidenced by who from the NeL and pre-Nel is in Cooperstown. Nevertheless, it's a perfectly valid approach to research.

[curveball]

Personally, I would put a lot more weight on detailed statistical analysis, than I would on personal observations.

I keep hearing about how Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball when he played, but detailed statistical analysis contradicts this.

Derek Jeter won gold gloves three consecutive years, and I think many observe him as an excellent defensive shortstop. SABR Matt says that he is a poor defensive shortstop. At least SABR Matt has attempted to back up his argument with some detailed analysis, so I would be more inclined to believe his opinion. I would love to see some statistical analysis by somebody who believes that Jeter is excellent defensively.

Sabermetrics, or any detailed statistical analysis has evolved the game of baseball by leaps and bounds. We all have our perceptions of players. We can't follow or be intimately familiar with every player. We will enjoy certain players, dislike certain players, and be unfamiliar with others. I just can't see how someone can honestly feel that they have formed an educated, and qualified opinion about a player without delving deeply into their statistics, and particularly the more important ones.

For arguments sake, let us say that we have a perfect formula that will allow us to input a player's statistics, and it will come up with a number that perfectly sums up their worth. What would be wrong with that? Of course, we will never come up with a perfect formula that will properly weigh every stat over different eras, but if it was possible, I think it would be great. It would take a lot of the fun out of evaluating players through perception, but I think that is what these people fear the most, which is that their perceptions are wrong.

Sabermetrics, or detailed statistical analysis is an attempt to properly weigh statistics, and quantify them in a proper context. We can all form our personal opinions about players, and hopefully we are all open minded enough to accept any detailed analysis that can change our opinion, whether it be for better of for worse.

I remember playing those baseball simulations when I was younger, and every time I selected a pitcher, I pretty much disregarded wins, and w/l %, because I felt that that was an absolutely useless stat. I preferred to pick those pitchers with sterling eras, and a boatload of strikeouts, because I have always had an affinity towards strikeout pitchers. To this day, I have always wanted to ask those programmers who create these baseball simulations as to whether wins, and w/l % for pitchers had any bearing in their game. I believed that I could input the stats for pitcher A as something like w/l record of 2-15, with an era of 2.57. For pitcher B, I could input a w/l record of 22-3, with an era of 4.35. These two pitchers would be on the same pitching staff, and although I never tried it, I would be pretty certain that pitcher A would end up having the better w/l record, and era, after I played the simulation.

To me, all sabermetrics, and detailed statistical analysis has only enhanced my understanding of the game. It has reinforced many of my beliefs on how overrated some players, and certain stats are. It has also made me realize that I have underrated some players, and certain stats. I honestly don't know how anybody would object to their place in studying the game, and how useful they really are.

[AstrosFan]

Seems like everyone we talk to on this site that was there says Rice was the most feared hitter of his day, and yet Matt isn't accepting that as proof that he was. Seems like we need a little more than first hand accounts. I'm not saying they're worthless, but I think he's looking for something a little more scientific in the way of proof.

[dgarza]

That's it in a nutshell and since what you're trying to prove is a perception, it is not something that could be proven by crunching numbers in an example such as this.I'll add that the numbers and "stats" would be number of accounts pro and con.

[dgarza]

Seems like everyone we talk to on this site that was there says Rice was the most feared hitter of his day, and yet Matt isn't accepting that as proof that he was. Seems like we need a little more than first hand accounts. I'm not saying they're worthless, but I think he's looking for something a little more scientific in the way of proof.Scientific like measureing how much pitchers physically sweated while facing Rice?

[Domenic]

I feel that the Hall of Fame is still a proper name.

If Cal Ripken Jr. had retired after breaking of Lou Gehrig's record, following the 1995 season, I feel that he would have still garnered over 98% of the vote. That would be without several markers that made him a statistical standout - he would have retired with 2371 hits, 327 HR, and significant tumbles down the career lists for runs and RBI. While his career would have still be quite good, particularly for a shortstop, he would have looked less "shiny" - yet that would not have diminished his electability. I believe Ripken could have hit like Omar Vizquel for his career - but his streak and personality would have still put him over the top.

I feel that, on the whole, statistics play a big part in the selection process. However, I also feel that a great deal of time is spent deliberating a player's perceived greatness. Ozzie Smith does not have the statistics for the Hall, and defense isn't truly quantifiable - he made if for his flashiness and personality. A player with the same career of Smith, save the backflips, cartwheels, and charm would not make the Hall of Fame.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that it goes both ways. Players that have the "it factor" have a significant leg up on those players that don't. Statistics may hold the most weight, but a player's perception plays a significant role, as well.

[dgarza]

I keep hearing about how Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball when he played, but detailed statistical analysis contradicts this.

Detailed statistical analysis of on-field baseball statistics do not contradict this nor do they support it. They say nothing about it at all.

It's like looking at baseball stats to find out who was the most well liked ior hated player. You'll get nowhere.

[AstrosFan]

When it comes to discussing Rice's HOF candidacy, everywhere you go, anyone who writes or talks about him brings up how feared he was. Sportswriters, players, and shmucks like you and me :) They call him the most feared hitter of his day. Matt knows this. He's made the rounds. And yet simply hearing it said or reading it is not constituting proof for him. I am assuming here, but I think it logical that he wants scientific proof, or at least a strong body of scientific evidence.

Perhaps when he gets back he can tell you what he's looking for. One scientific way might be to measure IBB adjusted for the players you bat behind and in front of.

[jjpm74]

Derek Jeter won gold gloves three consecutive years, and I think many observe him as an excellent defensive shortstop. SABR Matt says that he is a poor defensive shortstop. At least SABR Matt has attempted to back up his argument with some detailed analysis, so I would be more inclined to believe his opinion. I would love to see some statistical analysis by somebody who believes that Jeter is excellent defensively.

Taking this example, the statistical analysis will reveal whether Jeter is above or below league average defensively. Not whether or not Jeter is actually a poor shortstop. The first statement is a quantifiable fact. The second is an opinion and depends on what one considers poor defensively.

Methodology: Can a short stop be below league average but not seen as a liablility to his team as a short stop? Yes they can. To back up that methodology, a person might site other examples of short stops that were below league average but not a liability to their team and arrive at the following conclusion:

"I don't personally believe Jeter is anything special defensively and the perception that he is essentially comes from one magical play known in NY as "the toss." I do not believe he is a liability to his team on the field defensively just because he is at or below league average defensively, however."

[Domenic]

Scientific like measureing how much pitchers physically sweated while facing Rice?

What about something like intentional walks? Imperfect, of course, but it could be something to work with.

Something like his pitches per plate appearance could indicate how pitchers pitched to him... considering his middling plate discipline, it could be indicative of a pitcher or manager's perception of Rice. I doubt there are good records of this, though.

[curveball]

Detailed statistical analysis of on-field baseball statistics do not contradict this nor do they support it. They say nothing about it at all.

It's like looking at baseball stats to find out who was the most well liked ior hated player. You'll get nowhere.


My mistake, I should have said that detailed statistical analysis seems to indicate that "although Rice was perceived to be the most feared hitter in baseball, that there were other hitters who should have been feared more."

People also used to think that the world was flat. Oh, how wrong our perceptions can be.

[Freakshow]

Players that have the "it factor" have a significant leg up on those players that don't. Statistics may hold the most weight, but a player's perception plays a significant role, as well.But it should not, according to the Hall's stated rules. "Fame" has never been one of the criteria that voters have been instructed to consider for election. That voters have made it one has led to many of their poorest selections.

Election to the Hall of Fame is intended to confer fame upon those judged to have the greatest achievement, not to celebrate the level of fame or "fear inspiring" a player attained.

[DoubleX]

Seems like everyone we talk to on this site that was there says Rice was the most feared hitter of his day, and yet Matt isn't accepting that as proof that he was. Seems like we need a little more than first hand accounts. I'm not saying they're worthless, but I think he's looking for something a little more scientific in the way of proof.

There's a disconnect between what superficial perception and what deeper statistical analysis shows in respect to Rice. The perception, for whatever reason, likely because he hit a lot of homeruns and high batting averages while playing on very good and visible teams and ended with pretty good raw numbers for his era, was that Rice was a great and feared hitter. This isn't just what fans and the media thought, but also Rice's peers within the game. However, a little digging into the statistics shows that Rice wasn't as good as the raw numbers and perception indicate. Fenway isn't Coors Field, but it's a very hitter friendly park and Rice's numbers seemed to have benefited greatly from playing there. However, adjusting for park is not something that people really thought about at that point in time. His 128 OPS+ is good, but for his position and career length, it doesn't really stand out as Hall of Fame impressive.

This is why, IMO, there needs to be some kind of balance. One can't just completely ignore the perception, it was there - Rice was a bona fide star. It is a fact that he was perceived as a dominant and feared hitter, even if deeper analysis shows he wasn't (though "fear" is not something that can be quantitatively assessed like dominance can; meaning if a pitcher or opposing team "feared" Rice, even if unjustified, that could definitely effect their approach to Rice). It is after all the Hall of Fame, and those subjective things count on some level.

[jjpm74]

When it comes to discussing Rice's HOF candidacy, everywhere you go, anyone who writes or talks about him brings up how feared he was. Sportswriters, players, and shmucks like you and me :) They call him the most feared hitter of his day. Matt knows this. He's made the rounds. And yet simply hearing it said or reading it is not constituting proof for him. I am assuming here, but I think it logical that he wants scientific proof, or at least a strong body of scientific evidence.

Perhaps when he gets back he can tell you what he's looking for. One scientific way might be to measure IBB adjusted for the players you bat behind and in front of.

You cannot measure fear. The best you could do statistically to prove or disprove this statement would be to look at intentional walks, pitches per at bat, etc... But how useful will this information be to a pitcher who faced him and was convinced that every time Rice came up he'd smack the ball out of the ballpark?

[AstrosFan]

I'll wait for Matt to answer that, as it was his statement that led to this discussion. All I'll say is that I don't necessarily disagree with you - fear in and of itself is probably unmeasurable. However, it is meaningless to me, since Rice was not one of the top 20 left fielders ever, and neither fame nor fear is going to make that up.

[Domenic]

But it should not, according to the Hall's stated rules. "Fame" has never been one of the criteria that voters have been instructed to consider for election. That voters have made it one has led to many of their poorest selections.

Election to the Hall of Fame is intended to confer fame upon those judged to have the greatest achievement, not to celebrate the level of fame or "fear inspiring" a player attained.

The Hall's mission statement is: "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers..."

What does exceptional mean? It's a vague term, and can be interpreted in many different ways.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Fame is obviously a vague term, as well - but I would consider 'inegrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions' to be purely anecdotal, and entirely subjective.

[dgarza]

What about something like intentional walks? Imperfect, of course, but it could be something to work with.

I thought about that. It is one poosibility, however, there are 3 problems.

1. It is just one measure. And we would need more than just one measure to see a clear picture. It's like just looking at batting average to rate a batter.

2. IBBs are very situational and they would have to be more deeply analyzed, like AstrosFan said.

3. The sample size to pretty small.

[Domenic]

I thought about that. It is one poosibility, however, there are 3 problems.

1. It is just one measure. And we would need more than just one measure to see a clear picture. It's like just looking at batting average to rate a batter.

2. IBBs are very situational and they would have to be more deeply analyzed, like AstrosFan said.

3. The sample size to pretty small.

It is certainly flawed - Ozzie Smith had more intentional walks, and I would never consider him a 'feared' hitter. Still, it's something to work with - I think the pitch counts could work well, in conjunction with this, though.

[jjpm74]

My mistake, I should have said that detailed statistical analysis seems to indicate that "although Rice was perceived to be the most feared hitter in baseball, that there were other hitters who should have been feared more."

This is a much better statement as it puts the presenter in a strong position to prove or disprove the statement statistically. One could utilize whatever advanced statistics they are comfortable with to generate a list of players and show where Rice falls in relation to these players to illustrate your point.

People also used to think that the world was flat. Oh, how wrong our perceptions can be.

Agreed, but we also shouldn't just dismiss them as whooey as they do serve a purpose. ;)

[Freakshow]

The Hall's mission statement is: "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers..."

What does exceptional mean? It's a vague term, and can be interpreted in many different ways.It "can be", but in this instance the HOF tells us exactly how to apply their mission statement in electing players:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Fame is obviously a vague term, as well - but I would consider 'inegrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions' to be purely anecdotal, and entirely subjective.The point remains: "fame" is not among the criteria to consider for electing players to the HOF. There are indeed some subjective elements we are asked to consider, mostly areas where Rice fares poorly, anecdotally. I don't see where Rice's fame (and in some cases, his infamy*) contributes anything to his team.

*Infamous for hitting into tons of GDP, or for a surly demeanor.

[Domenic]

It "can be", but in this instance the HOF tells us exactly how to apply their mission statement in electing players:
The point remains: "fame" is not among the criteria to consider for electing players to the HOF. There are indeed some subjective elements we are asked to consider...

I seem to be in the minority, here, but I am addressing the topic - whether or not the Hall of Fame should be renamed the Hall of Statistical Achievement. Voters are obviously instructed to consider a player's subjective worth, in terms of personality, character, leadership, and the like. This is, in a nutshell, fame - measuring a player through public perception and subjectivity is essentially a definition of 'fame.' In many case, such as those of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken Jr., I feel that the player's character was the primary consideration of the voters.

[AstrosFan]

There is zero argument that Ripken doesn't have the numbers to merit first-ballot induction. Ozzie was a better offensive SS than he is typically given credit for, and with his outstanding defense, he is one of the top ten shortstops ever. You can easily make a statistical argument for his inclusion into the Hall. Fame is not needed.

[Domenic]

There is zero argument that Ripken doesn't have the numbers to merit first-ballot induction. Ozzie was a better offensive SS than he is typically given credit for, and with his outstanding defense, he is one of the top ten shortstops ever. You can easily make a statistical argument for his inclusion into the Hall. Fame is not needed.

I'm not saying that fame is needed - rather, I am saying that, given their fame, their statistics took a backseat. In some circumstances, a player's public perception is worth more than their statistics - I believe that Ripken and Smith are in that mold. I'm not diminishing or discounting their statistics in any way, shape, or form.

[AstrosFan]

I figured as much; I just wanted to get the statistical point across.

[Freakshow]

I seem to be in the minority, here, but I am addressing the topic - whether or not the Hall of Fame should be renamed the Hall of Statistical Achievement. Voters are obviously instructed to consider a player's subjective worth, in terms of personality, character, leadership, and the like. This is, in a nutshell, fame - measuring a player through public perception and subjectivity is essentially a definition of 'fame.' In many case, such as those of Ozzie Smith and Cal Ripken Jr., I feel that the player's character was the primary consideration of the voters.From my POV, you're taking the HOF's precisely worded definition of a HOFer and running with it, appending it with your own ideas: "personality" and "leadership" are not stated criteria.

Keep in mind that the term "hall of fame" is anachronistic, now something of a misnomer. A "hall of fame" is intended to be above the Cult of Celebrity, to honor exceptional achievement rather than renown. To confer fame, not to honor a charismatic personality. Unfortunately, the average voter is as oblivious of this distinction as the average fan. And so we sometimes get selections such as Rice, based more on renown than achievement.

So the answer to the topic query is "no". Statistical achievement is important, but by itself cannot define a hall of famer. Otherwise, they would have no problem with Pete Rose. Or Mark McGwire.

[Mike90]

When it comes to discussing Rice's HOF candidacy, everywhere you go, anyone who writes or talks about him brings up how feared he was. Sportswriters, players, and shmucks like you and me :) They call him the most feared hitter of his day. Matt knows this. He's made the rounds. And yet simply hearing it said or reading it is not constituting proof for him. I am assuming here, but I think it logical that he wants scientific proof, or at least a strong body of scientific evidence.

Perhaps when he gets back he can tell you what he's looking for. One scientific way might be to measure IBB adjusted for the players you bat behind and in front of.

I feel like I'm missing something. Why does it matter how feared Rice was? The amount of fear a player inspires is not relevant if it doesn't translate into production. If I had to pick between a non-scary shortstop with a .400 OBP or Jason Voorhees, I would pick the player who could actually win me some games rather than the scary guy.

P.S. Rice had three seasons in the top ten for IBB: a 5th-place finish, 9th and 10th. Those numbers are not adjusted for his teammates, but I think it's hard to argue that pithers were paralyzed with fear when Rice stepped to the plate.

[dgarza]

I feel like I'm missing something. Why does it matter how feared Rice was? The amount of fear a player inspires is not relevant if it doesn't translate into production. If I had to pick between a non-scary shortstop with a .400 OBP or Jason Voorhees, I would pick the player who could actually win me some games rather than the scary guy.
You're thinking like someone trying to build a team. But evaluating a player for the HOF is not directly building a team, it is honoring an individual (sometimes the HOF honors individual-based qualities that may or may not translate to team-based qualities), so there can be some differences between the two kinds of thinking for the two kinds of ends.

[dgarza]

IBBs 1974-1989

Cnt Player IBB G From To
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+----+
1 Mike Schmidt 198 2259 1974 1989
2 George Brett 190 2124 1974 1989
3 Ted Simmons 157 1921 1974 1988
4 Eddie Murray 155 1980 1977 1989
5 Dave Parker 155 2123 1974 1989
6 Dave Winfield 145 2213 1974 1988
7 Dale Murphy 141 1829 1976 1989
8 Garry Templeton 134 1823 1976 1989
9 Jose Cruz 129 2015 1974 1988
10 Keith Hernandez 127 2045 1974 1989
11 Darrell Evans 125 2288 1974 1989
12 Bill Madlock 121 1785 1974 1987
13 Rod Carew 120 1593 1974 1985
14 Jack Clark 110 1658 1975 1989
15 Tim Raines 110 1275 1979 1989
16 Ron Cey 110 1908 1974 1987
17 Reggie Jackson 105 1894 1974 1987
18 Steve Garvey 104 2004 1974 1987
19 Andre Dawson 103 1871 1976 1989
20 George Foster 101 1743 1974 1986
21 Ben Oglivie 101 1588 1974 1986
22 Darrell Porter 100 1625 1974 1987
23 Gary Carter 98 2007 1974 1989
24 Bill Buckner 97 2113 1974 1989
25 Ken Singleton 97 1594 1974 1984
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+----+
Cnt Player IBB G From To
+----+-----------------+---+----+----+----+
26 Leon Durham 96 1067 1980 1989
27 Pedro Guerrero 96 1242 1978 1989
28 Dan Driessen 96 1630 1974 1987
29 Chris Speier 94 1800 1974 1989
30 Al Oliver 93 1643 1974 1985
31 Ron Oester 92 1212 1978 1989
32 Chili Davis 90 1186 1981 1989
33 Harold Baines 89 1428 1980 1989
34 Tony Gwynn 88 1060 1982 1989
35 Don Baylor 88 2063 1974 1988
36 Chris Chambliss 88 1788 1974 1988
37 Wade Boggs 87 1183 1982 1989
38 Pete Rose 85 1865 1974 1986
39 Warren Cromartie 85 1038 1974 1983
40 Don Mattingly 82 1015 1982 1989
41 Greg Luzinski 82 1474 1974 1984
42 Bob Boone 80 2063 1974 1989
43 Carlton Fisk 80 1859 1974 1989
44 Mike Scioscia 80 1070 1980 1989
45 Larry Parrish 79 1891 1974 1988
46 Bob Watson 78 1229 1974 1984
47 Kent Hrbek 77 1156 1981 1989
48 Jim Rice 77 2089 1974 1989
49 Carl Yastrzemski 77 1339 1974 1983

[Captain Cold Nose]

Who did Rice have batting directly behind him in the order? That is pretty important.

[AstrosFan]

That's the key. Because it was often Yaz or Fisk.

[Freakshow]

AL, IBB, bats R, 1975-86
Cnt Player IBB G PA From To
+----+-----------------+---+----+-----+----+----+
1 Don Baylor 77 1706 7225 1975 1986
2 Jim Rice 72 1766 7754 1975 1986
3 Buddy Bell 62 1507 6366 1975 1985
4 Hal McRae 56 1565 6335 1975 1986
5 Carlton Fisk 53 1493 5992 1975 1986
6 Andre Thornton 52 1189 4998 1977 1986
7 Doug DeCinces 51 1501 5974 1975 1986
8 Lou Piniella 47 897 3010 1975 1984
9 Toby Harrah 43 1625 6760 1975 1986
10 Gorman Thomas 40 1359 5257 1975 1986
11 Dwight Evans 39 1663 6880 1975 1986
12 Bobby Grich 38 1516 6146 1975 1986
13 Dave Winfield 38 847 3668 1981 1986
14 Robin Yount 38 1704 7379 1975 1986
15 Lance Parrish 37 1146 4674 1977 1986
16 Joe Rudi 36 767 2998 1975 1982
17 Tony Armas 35 1220 4808 1977 1986
18 Amos Otis 35 1148 4774 1975 1983
19 Willie Horton 35 787 3201 1975 1980
20 Cliff Johnson 34 925 3190 1977 1986
21 Chet Lemon 33 1467 5887 1975 1986
22 Richie Zisk 33 875 3497 1977 1983
23 Lee May 32 862 3323 1975 1982
24 Bobby Bonds 30 704 3020 1975 1979
25 Thurman Munson 30 709 3049 1975 1979 Baylor is more feared than Rice! :laugh Per PA, so are Bell, Thornton, Piniella, Winfield, Rudi, etc.

[Mike90]

You're thinking like someone trying to build a team. But evaluating a player for the HOF is not directly building a team, it is honoring an individual (sometimes the HOF honors individual-based qualities that may or may not translate to team-based qualities), so there can be some differences between the two kinds of thinking for the two kinds of ends.

I get this thinking I guess, but I don't agree with it. If we accept the not-necessarily-true assumption that Rice was feared more than his value would indicate, then why should he get any extra credit for that? Not just from a "building a team" perspective, but from a "fame" perspective. We know that a lot of that fear was due to hitting at Fenway Park (.320 BA and 208 HR at home, .277 BA and 174 HR on the road in virtually the same number of plate appearances), and that a little bit more of that fear came from playing with and hitting behind some really good players. Should we honor Rice for having the good fortune of playing in a great hitters' park with really good teammates? Something seems wrong about that. Rice should get credit for what he actually did, IMO, not for things that were out of his control.

[dgarza]

Baylor is more feared than Rice! :laugh Per PA, so are Bell, Thornton, Piniella, Winfield, Rudi, etc.Looking at the way he took all those balls to the body, I'd be afraid of a tough guy that Baylor too.

[brett]

Seems like everyone we talk to on this site that was there says Rice was the most feared hitter of his day, and yet Matt isn't accepting that as proof that he was. Seems like we need a little more than first hand accounts. I'm not saying they're worthless, but I think he's looking for something a little more scientific in the way of proof.

Baseball-digest polled managers every year as to who they felt was the most dangerous hitter in the league. At least from '80 to '86 when Rice stopped being any good, it was Brett, Murray, Mattingly, and I think Baines might have slipped in one year, or was second a couple of times.

[dgarza]

I get this thinking I guess, but I don't agree with it. If we accept the not-necessarily-true assumption that Rice was feared more than his value would indicate, then why should he get any extra credit for that? Not just from a "building a team" perspective, but from a "fame" perspective. We know that a lot of that fear was due to hitting at Fenway Park (.320 BA and 208 HR at home, .277 BA and 174 HR on the road in virtually the same number of plate appearances), and that a little bit more of that fear came from playing with and hitting behind some really good players. Should we honor Rice for having the good fortune of playing in a great hitters' park with really good teammates? Something seems wrong about that. Rice should get credit for what he actually did, IMO, not for things that were out of his control.I would like to clarify that I wasn't making my point here directly regarding Rice, it was more about the approach in general.

If we were to look at a specific player, probably a good example would be Nolan Ryan, where the value of his strikeouts from a "HOF" perspective is much greater (and justly so) than the value of his strikeouts from a "team building" perspective.

[brett]

I would ask this: did Rice have the TALENT to produce a hall of fame career if he had had a different mindset at the plate? Was he doing what was thought to be valuable at the time? He is 29th all time in MVP shares. The only player ahead of him who is not in or unlikely to go in is Dave Parker.

I am not pro-Rice, but I am a little amazed that the voters have been smart enough to actually excude him this long.

[Domenic]

From my POV, you're taking the HOF's precisely worded definition of a HOFer and running with it, appending it with your own ideas: "personality" and "leadership" are not stated criteria.

Keep in mind that the term "hall of fame" is anachronistic, now something of a misnomer. A "hall of fame" is intended to be above the Cult of Celebrity, to honor exceptional achievement rather than renown. To confer fame, not to honor a charismatic personality. Unfortunately, the average voter is as oblivious of this distinction as the average fan. And so we sometimes get selections such as Rice, based more on renown than achievement.

So the answer to the topic query is "no". Statistical achievement is important, but by itself cannot define a hall of famer. Otherwise, they would have no problem with Pete Rose. Or Mark McGwire.

Statistics are not a stated criteria, either, if you want to be specific. A player's record could be construed in an infinite number of directions. The entire voting by-laws are subjective - I take "integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team" to mean personality and leadership, in addition to numerous other things. I don't really think I am grasping at straws here.

[dgarza]

From my POV, you're taking the HOF's precisely worded definition of a HOFer and running with it, appending it with your own ideas: "personality" and "leadership" are not stated criteria.
But we know that "character" is.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But we know that "character" is.

"character" = DO NOT GAMBLE. You can be a jerk, but only to an extent. Maybe you'll be lucky enough to just be "misunderstood".

[dgarza]

"character" = DO NOT GAMBLEI'm guessing you are being serious?

I would have never had guessed that "character" was a euphemism for "do not gamble". I still cannot read it that narrowly.

[Freakshow]

Statistics are not a stated criteria, either, if you want to be specific. A player's record could be construed in an infinite number of directions. Yes they are: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record,...." It's playing semantic gmes to pretend this was intended to mean something other than statistics. The entire voting by-laws are subjective - I take "integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team" to mean personality and leadership, in addition to numerous other things. I don't really think I am grasping at straws here.How about "playing fast and loose with the intent of the rules." The rules as written point to specific, positive character attributes. The application of these to a particular player is bound to be subjective. But you shouldn't try to reword them to fit your understanding.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm guessing you are being serious?

I would have never had guessed that "character" was a euphemism for "do not gamble". I still cannot read it that narrowly.

Not fully serious, no. There are certain things a player cannot do and that's one of them. There aren't many others that would directly cause a player to fall short. Antisocial behavior gets forgotten over time, for the most part. Unless it involves gambling.

[SABR Matt]

Playing Devil's Advocate here (I'm not a Jim Rice advocate):

1. In order to do that, the person doing so would need to present an argument from a qualitative rather than a quantitative perspective. Why would they when you are completely dismissive of that approach and have implied time and time again that you will not consider such approaches?

2. Why is anyone going to try to convince you of anything when you enter into every argument with the whole "I'm right and my approach is better than everyone else's" attitude? You ASSUME that the person on the other end is a complete idiot (at least that is how you come off). That's a poor way to approach a debate.

Your points 1 and 2 are essentially the same point. You don't like me or my approach. Got it.

Moving on to something of substance...I am most certainly NOT "dismissive" of qualitative elements and I've given some examples of when such things come into play on a regular basis here at Fever. I am dismissive of arguments that aren't based on logical reasoning. You CAN logically deduce a qualitative point such as whether Jim Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball"...I've seen it done many times here by the historians in the room...and that is accomplished by providing evidence that is consistent with that belief - preferably first-person or second-person sources commenting on the popular opinion within the game about Rice. The History forum is LITTERED with primary and secondary sources and quotes discussing deadball, 19th century and liveball era stars. That's the kind of historical perspective I respect. Short of real persuasive debate, you're just spitting opinions into the wind without some form of numerical analysis.

[SABR Matt]

Let's take Rice as an example. To prove that Rice was a feared hitter, one would only have to produce statements made at the time which say exactly that (first hand accounts mainly). Articles, interviews, news stories, etc.

Bingo.

That's what I'm looking for. Show me proof and I'll listen...spit opinions at me and mock the hard work I do and I'll think nothing of it.

[digglahhh]

Your points 1 and 2 are essentially the same point. You don't like me or my approach. Got it.
You CAN logically deduce a qualitative point such as whether Jim Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball"...I've seen it done many times here by the historians in the room...and that is accomplished by providing evidence that is consistent with that belief - preferably first-person or second-person sources commenting on the popular opinion within the game about Rice.

And, then of course, Matt and I can respond by saying that in 1985 alone George Brett garnered 40% of Rice's career total intentional walks...

Don't all "the most feared hitters of their generations" accrue intentional walks at about half the rate of Robin Ventura over similar career lengths?...

The feared slugger thing was good marketing, but the ad gurus on the inside don't always buy the same products they happen to be selling.

[SABR Matt]

Good point digg.

Not only was Rice not commonly intentionally walked...he was often the guy they pitched TO after walking other people because the conventional wisdom was that he was easy pickings for the DP. I'm not saying the DPs should all be counted against Rice...but it's a sign that the league felt he could be pitched to strategically.

[Domenic]

Yes they are: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record,...." It's playing semantic gmes to pretend this was intended to mean something other than statistics.

Okay - it does not specify what statistics, though. Should it be Triple Crown numbers? All the statistics under the sun? Should sabremetrics come into the discussion? If so, how much so? Should these statistics be compared to others in/not in the Hall of Fame already? How should the context of that player's career be weighted?

I am certainly breaking down the semantics here, but "a player's record" is subjective. As is. . .

How about "playing fast and loose with the intent of the rules." The rules as written point to specific, positive character attributes. The application of these to a particular player is bound to be subjective. But you shouldn't try to reword them to fit your understanding.

Forget my own reading of the guidelines, then. While they may be structured to point to positive characteristics, they are also highly subjective. Contributions to a team, for example, can be skewed in ridiculous manners - Albert Pujols barely eeked out the MVP over Ryan Howard due to this.

Look at Jim Rice in the context of the guidelines. A traditionalist voter will see a player that hit nearly .300 for his career, belted 382 HR, won an MVP, made the All-Star team eight times, led the league in HR three times and RBI a couple of times. Good record, and good contributions to his team. He is beloved in Boston, was/is a chairman of The Jimmy Fund, and might have saved a young boy's life during a game. Integrity, character, etc.

I am not grasping at straws here - the Hall of Fame voting guidelines are very loose, as they should be... stringent voting guidelines would remove the necessity for voting, essentially creating a model player.

[Paul Wendt]

Derek Jeter is going to have just one "magic" number, 3,000 hits. You look at his numbers, they don't scream HOF, yet the majority of people you ask will put him in the Hall, even if he fails to get that number.

Why? Because of stuff that goes beyond the numbers and their context.

Put it this way, Jim Rice should be a Hall of Famer, for the same exact reason Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer. You want to take out Sandy Koufax?

Is there a name for bad segue?
Derek Jeter to Jim Rice, huh?

Rice was already strong when he arrived in the majors but he matured physically just as the American League expanded, and he put up three very good seasons at bat 1977-79. The second one was inflated by home ballpark and moreso by teammates. Dwight Evans, Carl Yaz & Co. took a shitload of walks, and rapped a lot of base hits too. That brought Jim Rice to the plate again and again, 746 plate appearances and 677 at bats! The gaudy 46 homeruns were 1 every 15 atbats, a good season but not good for a slugger's best season.

The memory of Jim Rice is built on a few years numbers, especially the 400 total bases and 46-139 in 1978.

David Ortiz is the example you may be looking for, someone feared as a batter beyond what "the numbers" support.
I'm sure Yankees fans and staff if not players feared Ortiz a helluva a lot more in 2003 and 2004 playoffs than they feared Jim Rice in 1978.

[SABR Matt]

David Ortiz had the kind of peak that you need to be a HOF batter. If he could field, he'd be a hall of famer...or if he had Edgar Martinez' staying power into his late thirties (still possible)...

[RubeBaker]

Generally a player is great because of great statistical achievement.

But considering that there are managers, commissoners, league presidents, and Candy Cummings, it isn't just stats that get a player into the hall.

[PVNICK]

I was a big Jim Rice fan and recall all the lore, the sanpping bats (back when they were not maple) on check swings, strongest man in the league etc. but really he stopped being in the conversation as best player in the league after 1979. We have 1975-1979 or 1977-1979 wher ehe wa sthe best or close to the best player in the AL, at least by the triple crown numbers. After that he was a solid, good player in a great lineup who could rack up big RBI numbers with Boggs and Dewey batting 1/2 with their .400 odd OBPs. I don't see how his argument is significantly superior to either of his two near contemporaries Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly, even giving him credit for a mystique and a scary glare and mustache, those guys were perennial GG winners, which he was not.

[dgarza]

Is there a name for bad segue?
Derek Jeter to Jim Rice, huh?


Besides non sequitur?

[digglahhh]

I think there are two things that truly scare the living daylights out of a team, when thinking about having to pitch to a hitter. And Rice doesn't fit.

One, is the combination of incredible strike zone judgment and tremendous power. Along with above average contact skills, this makes the perfect hitter. The archetype for this player is Ted Williams, or steroid Barry (and to a large extent natural Barry too, actually). You can't get this guy out by expanding the zone because he won't fall for it - and, if you throw him a strike there's a good chance he'll hammer it. This is the make-up that truly endears the IBB. His discipline is so good that you're working with diminishing returns for trying to make him go fishing. Chances are, he won't bite, and if you make a mistake trying the nibble, you're screwed. This is a hitter who has very little weakness. Add in-prime Chipper, steroid Giambi, and Helton at Coors to the recent list. Further, guys like Ortiz, Ramirez, and Pujols really made themselves more dangerous by improving their eyes throughout their careers. Though Ortiz and Manny are still more prone to the K than the others. Though he lacked truly elite Power, this was what Brett was and Rice wasn't.

The other is the Yogi Berra, Vlad make up. The guy who can't really be pitched to because he can, and will, hit anything, no matter how much you intend it to be a "purpose pitch." Clemente and Soriano were in this mold too, as would Ichiro if he had enough power to actually scare other teams, as opposed to just really irritate them. These guys can be pitched to, but the risk is omnipresent. The BAs that guys like Clemente, Berra, and Vlad maintained despite horrendous zone judgment was a testament to the risk of pitching to them at all.

Rice was scary, but could be pitched to. You didn't want to make a mistake, and you probably wanted to stay away from situations where you had to throw him a strike, but in the big picture you could often handle him (especially on the road) by keeping the ball out of the zone (and low). Rice was very scary in a limited capacity, but he often got himself out - truly elite hitters don't do that all that often. There was a viable strategy to pitch to Rice - there was no viable strategy to pitch to Bonds or Williams, or to a large extent Vlad - that's what really scares teams.

[brett]

Absolutely, people knew they could pitch to Rice. Ironically, the one year that he started to get respect as a smart/dangerous hitter was '86 (career high walks, career low K rate, and after that year, he was done! I don't think anyone expected him to disappear after '86 like that. Still, I think that both Mattingly and Bonds were voted more dangerousby the managers that year.

[DoubleX]

Still, I think that both Mattingly and Bonds were voted more dangerousby the managers that year.

This is nitpicking, but by "Bonds" did you mean Boggs? Bobby was retired and Barry was a struggling rookie in '86.

[brett]

This is nitpicking, but by "Bonds" did you mean Boggs? Bobby was retired and Barry was a struggling rookie in '86.

Yes Boggs. It's reflexive typing.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Bill James wrote that Mike Hargrove was known as "The Human Rain Delay" because he'd always call time, step out of the batters box, fidget with his batting gloves, etc. James argued that if Hargrove played today, no one would notice because everyone else does it now.

Is that what happened with Rice and the "most feared hitter" meme? Is it just that, during his era, there were not nearly so many huge, menacing-looking hitters like there are today?

[SABR Matt]

Possibly...

I mean Rice was a big scary looking dude...

But if he were the most feared hitter of his time based on his size...wouldn't the pitchers have dealt with him the way they deal with Bonds now? Or at least...along similar lines? Maybe the media talked up Rice so much because THEY were the ones focused on his size...

[KCGHOST]

Stat guys like me just prefer to have real evidence to support their arguments. If you don't use stats then you are kind of down to the "I know what I saw" and "you can't tell me differently" sort of proof.

A current example of this to me is the media proclamation the David Ortiz is the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox. They do this with no more proof than seeing him on SportsCenter getting some bigs hits and the Red Sox winning two World Series after an 80+ year drought.

Now does anyone seriously think Ortiz was a better clutch hitter for the Red Sox than Ted Williams?? Do you have any real proof other than mentioned in the above paragraph?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Possibly...

I mean Rice was a big scary looking dude...

But if he were the most feared hitter of his time based on his size...wouldn't the pitchers have dealt with him the way they deal with Bonds now? Or at least...along similar lines? Maybe the media talked up Rice so much because THEY were the ones focused on his size...

Rice is listed at 6'2", 205 lbs. Even for his time that wasn't "big scary".

[curveball]

Stat guys like me just prefer to have real evidence to support their arguments. If you don't use stats then you are kind of down to the "I know what I saw" and "you can't tell me differently" sort of proof.

A current example of this to me is the media proclamation the David Ortiz is the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox. They do this with no more proof than seeing him on SportsCenter getting some bigs hits and the Red Sox winning two World Series after an 80+ year drought.

Now does anyone seriously think Ortiz was a better clutch hitter for the Red Sox than Ted Williams?? Do you have any real proof other than mentioned in the above paragraph?


Why bother having proof, when someone can simply perceive something to be true? It is much more work to actually do the statistical research to see if in fact, David Ortiz is the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history. Before someone actually makes such a bold statement, I think they should do some serious quantitative analysis, but hey, that's just me.

All perception does is give you a certain idea, or impression of something you have seen. I may perceive something, but I will always rely on quantitative analysis if available, before I come to any definitive conclusions to these perceptions I may have.

I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph. There is always a reason as to why some arguments don't come backed up with statistical research, and that is because the statistical research will not support the argument.

[SABR Matt]

Rice is listed at 6'2", 205 lbs. Even for his time that wasn't "big scary".

Must have been how he carried himself then...LOL IDK...I'm trying to find reasons to explain the Rice love-fest...the data doesn't explain it...his stature doesn't explain it...the way he was treated by pitchers doesn't explain it...what's left??

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Must have been how he carried himself then...LOL IDK...I'm trying to find reasons to explain the Rice love-fest...the data doesn't explain it...his stature doesn't explain it...the way he was treated by pitchers doesn't explain it...what's left??

It's why I asked the question. If there is no evidence of any kind to support the "feared" label, then how has this label endured for so long?

[digglahhh]

He was a (relatively) large (relatively) afro-ed black man. His game was built to a large degree on power and strength. The guys creating the "feared" label were not other players, but broadcasters and sportswriters - AKA - old, white guys.

I'm just throwing it out there. Racial archetypes deserve a mention in the discussion of how a guy like Jim Rice may have earned the rep as the most feared hitter in the game, when his statistical record supports no such argument.

These dudes ain't scared of some all-American looking Mormon, centerfielder from Oregon named Dale freaking Murphy.

How about a lanky, blond mullet wearing fella, with a much more broad skill set by the intimidating name of Robin Yount?

At least George Brett had a temper and liked to skirt-chase and put down the sauce...

[SABR Matt]

LOL...Brett will forever be remembered as the guy who had to be restrained from killing an umpire in front of 50 thousand people. That dude was a scary mo-fo if you crossed him.

I guess Rice was seen as scary because of the swagger and viciously hard swing he used to take.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He was a (relatively) large (relatively) afro-ed black man. His game was built to a large degree on power and strength. The guys creating the "feared" label were not other players, but broadcasters and sportswriters - AKA - old, white guys.

I'm just throwing it out there. Racial archetypes deserve a mention in the discussion of how a guy like Jim Rice may have earned the rep as the most feared hitter in the game, when his statistical record supports no such argument.
These dudes ain't scared of some all-American looking Mormon, centerfielder from Oregon named Dale freaking Murphy.

How about a lanky, blond mullet wearing fella, with a much more broad skill set by the intimidating name of Robin Yount?

At least George Brett had a temper and liked to skirt-chase and put down the sauce...

Here we go again, right diggs? ;) Dave Winfield was a much larger black man (6'6") and he was never described as "scary". :think:

[SABR Matt]

Dave Winfield never hit 40 HRs and his swing was level and smooth, not ferocious and aggressive.

[DoubleX]

Winfield also looked like a friendly guy with a big smile that he flashed a lot. Rice often looked angry.

[SABR Matt]

That kind of goes to my point though DX...Rice had a threatening baseball persona because of his scowl and his arrogant swagger and his Geoff Jenkins-style "how the heck does he swing that hard and not dislocate his shoulder?!" swing.

Winfield was more like Ken Griffey Jr. at the plate...joking around with the umpire and the other team's catcher, smiling at the pretty girls in the crowd, and taking a very level, very nice looking swing.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Winfield also looked like a friendly guy with a big smile that he flashed a lot. Rice often looked angry.

LOL,! I grew up watching both Winfiled and Rice. Rice always seemed more reserved and stoic than angry. Kind of like Eddie Murray.

[SABR Matt]

Really, HWR? I didn't grow up watching Rice hit, but his swing in ESPN Classic footage always looked really REALLY violent...

[DoubleX]

LOL,! I grew up watching both Winfiled and Rice. Rice always seemed more reserved and stoic than angry. Kind of like Eddie Murray.

Maybe, but Rice did seem scarier than Murray. :)

I was at Oldtimers Day at Yankee Stadium this year and had great seats close to the field. I probably was within 20 feet of Winfield at one point and I have to say, he is a very, very big guy. Granted, in his playing days, particularly early on, he was pretty lanky, but as he filled out, I can definitely see how his physical presence would be intimidating, even despite that great smile.

Has anyone here read Shut Out by Howard Bryant? It's about the Red Sox (and to a larger extent, Boston) and race issues. It gives a pretty good glimpse into what Rice's perspective and disposition were at the time.

As for Rice's swing, my image of it is as a pretty big and hard swing. The kind where the player looks unbalanced and somewhat awkward after a swing and miss.

EDIT: I don't really doubt that Rice was regarded as a feared hitter in his day. I can't cite specific sources, but I definitely feel like the impression that has been cultivated for me, through things I've read and heard, including from players, is that Rice was feared. Though, the point made earlier that he was not intentionally walked a lot is a good and interesting one. How much of that may have had to do with lineup protection? I don't know who typically batted behind Rice during his peak years, but the Sox had a number of good hitters in those years. Also, given the emphasis of the time on traditional stats, with Rice being among the league leaders in homeruns, slugging, and RBI for about a five year stretch, it would make sense that teams would internalize that as Rice being fearsome.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Really, HWR? I didn't grow up watching Rice hit, but his swing in ESPN Classic footage always looked really REALLY violent...

I was thinking more of his facial expressions and mannerisms. Granted my memories are from the late 1970s-early 1980s. He did have a big swing, though. That I do remember.

[Paul Wendt]

I think there are two things that truly scare the living daylights out of a team, when thinking about having to pitch to a hitter. And Rice doesn't fit. . . .
I suppose this discussion mainly concerns the emotions of fans and even owners but not players or teams. David Ortiz scares Yankees fans more than Jim Rice ever did, etc. Whether he scares the Yankees, I don't know.

How long was Willie McCovey called the most feared batter in baseball? Still true during Jim Rice's peak seasons, I guess. That was about ballplayers. McCovey hit the ball so hard that some pitchers feared him; fans and men with mikes feared vicariously for the pitchers. Firstbasemen and maybe even secondbasemen probably entertained the thought, what if I am a split-second slow someday, or distracted at just the wrong moment? Thirdbasemen play "up" more frequently than firstbasemen do, so a hard-hitting, strong rhb like Jim Rice may instill more fear in thirdbasemen than a McCovey does across the diamond. But I'm not sure that Jim Rice did instill more fear.


HWR
>>LOL,! I grew up watching both Winfiled and Rice. Rice always seemed more reserved and stoic than angry. Kind of like Eddie Murray.
<<
DoubleX
>>Maybe, but Rice did seem scarier than Murray.

The Jim Rice scowl a la Eddie Murray is another matter, not for fans or ballplayers but for writers. Who is the scariest for a rookie scribe to approach and interview. Dave Winfield? No problem. Rice or Murray? Scary.

[Paul Wendt]

>>Originally Posted by SABR Matt View Post
Possibly...

I mean Rice was a big scary looking dude...

But if he were the most feared hitter of his time based on his size...wouldn't the pitchers have dealt with him the way they deal with Bonds now? Or at least...along similar lines? Maybe the media talked up Rice so much because THEY were the ones focused on his size...
<<

Rice is listed at 6'2", 205 lbs. Even for his time that wasn't "big scary".

He was and may still be a very strong man.
He looked like joe six-pack beside Dave Parker on the cover of Sports Illustrated (1978 MVPs).

Regarding the vicarious feelings of fans and mikemen for players and for rookie writers in locker rooms, the smile makes a big difference. Dave Parker and Dave Winfield sometimes flashed the big smiles.

--
Back in Willie McCovey's heyday Frank Howard was a big strong white man whose demeanor must have preempted some fears of the kind fans and mikemen feel vicariously. But he would still terrify pitchers and thirdbasemen if he hit a lot of hard ground balls and low line drives. Unfortunately, or not, the Senators were not much on TV. I don't recall whether Frank Howard did hit the ball in a way likely to be frightening. Frank Howard was only Home Runs (2) in agate type. The career statistics show GIDP about 1/3 fewer than Jim Rice in PA about 1/6 fewer, a significantly lower rate.

[highpockets]

No doubt Rice was a feared hitter. But being a feared hitter isn't a sufficient condition for the Hall of Fame. Gus ZERNIAL was a scary hitter. Frank Howard was a REAL scary hitter.

I can't see the relevance of these superlative tags. "The Most Feared Hitter of his Generation," "The Greatest Living Ballplayer," "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business."

If they're true, then there'll be ample data to support a Hall-of-Fame claim. If they're illusory, then they really don't add to anyone's qualifications, do they?

[PVNICK]

Speaking of scary, what about Al Hrabosky?