Roy White over Jim Rice!?

[DoubleX]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dgarza]

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

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

[DoubleX]

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

[julusnc]

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

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

White was a good major Leaguer but nothing more.

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

[Brooklyn]

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

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

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

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

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

[Captain Cold Nose]

Does White still work for the Yankees?

[dgarza]

http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...hope_for_rice/ - last 2 paragraphs

Which years are being compared here?

[leecemark]

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

[J W]

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

[AG2004]

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

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

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

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

Finally, we'll look at win shares.

Lifetime
White - 263
Rice - 282

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

Best five consecutive seasons
White - 140
Rice - 127

Win shares per 162 games
White - 22.65
Rice - 21.85

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

[DoubleX]

Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose

Does White still work for the Yankees?

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

[PumpsieGreen]

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

Thanks,
Pumpsie

[Brad Harris]

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

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

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

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

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

[ElHalo]

Originally Posted by Chancellor

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

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

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

[leecemark]

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

[ElHalo]

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

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

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

[leecemark]

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

[ElHalo]

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

[The Commissioner]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by ElHalo

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

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

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

[Freakshow]

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

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

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

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

[leecemark]

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

[dgarza]

Originally Posted by The Commissioner

El, I think perhaps that might be more of a generational thing. The problem is that you seem to have caught Rice at the tail end of his career when he truly was no better than Greenwell.

Right. I can say that the X-player I remember was a washed up 1st baseman. I shouldn't let this personal recollection cloud my judgement of this same player who was the premier OFer for a decade just because I didn't personally observe him then.

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

[AG2004]

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

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

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

[The Commissioner]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

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

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