Rice versus Perez

[Professor]

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

-Prof

[leecemark]

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

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

[J W]

Very concise and well, er, said, leecemark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

stats as usual grabbed from baseball-reference.com

[Cougar]

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

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

[Professor]

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

Back to the matter at hand.....

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

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

-Prof

[dgarza]

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

[Professor]

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

[four tool]

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

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by four tool

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

Perez GREAT years 69-70-73

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

[DoubleX]

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

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

What made the Big Red Machine so big and great? Two hall of famers? No, that's not enough. Three, if you count Rose? What about Four? Four Hall of Famers would definitely cement the legacy of the Big Red Machine.

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

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by dgarza

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

Don't forget Davey Concepcion knocking on the door.

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by Cougar

Don't forget Davey Concepcion knocking on the door.

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

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by dgarza

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

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

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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

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

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by dgarza

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

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

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by dgarza

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

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

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

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

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

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

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

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

[2Chance]

This appeared around the time of his enshrinement, on MLB.com:

One of baseball's greatest run producers, Perez retired as the 14th-best RBI man in Major League history. (1652)

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

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

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

Until his selection as a Hall of Famer, for years Perez had the distinction of being the best RBI man to not be in Cooperstown.

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

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by Cougar

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

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

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

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

[Cougar]

Originally Posted by DoubleX

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

Every living member. Molly and Eck vote next year.

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by 2Chance

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

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

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

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

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

[2Chance]

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

IMO, this would be the answer to your question.

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

[four tool]

Originally Posted by dgarza

Perez GREAT years 69-70-73

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

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

[The Dude]

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

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

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

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

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

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