Bloggy Friday: More fun with Rice ...
I have to say that it has been fun watching the comments section blow up over Jim Rice -- not to mention what's happening over at Baseball Primer. It has inspired me to work on a project that I don't know if I will get done today ... but it has been a little while since I've tried one those mass absurd statistical analysis. I'm putting one together now. Hold on.
In the meantime, brilliant reader Anonymous -- boy, you post a lot of comments, Anon -- offers this challenge:
Perhaps one of the anti-Rice contingent would like to swat this factoid out of the way:
Among ballplayers with at least 382 homers and a .298 career batting average, everyone other than Rice is in the Hall or expected to make it when they are eligible.
First off, this is probably not true -- Larry Walker qualifies even under these rather restrictive standards, and I suspect he won't go to the Hall of Fame. Second, I would not consider myself part of the anti-Rice contingent so much as someone who believes he was a great player who falls just shy of the Hall of Fame standards I have set.
However, I am not here to swat away this factoid so much as add a few more.
-- Among players with at least 1,400 strikeouts and fewer than 700 walks, everyone other than Rice is not in the Hall of Fame.
-- Among players who have grounded into more than 300 double plays and hit fewer than 450 homers, everyone other than Rice is not in the Hall of Fame.
-- Among non-Gold Glove winners who never played on a World Series Champ and had fewer than 2,500 hits, fewer than 400 homers and less than a .300 average, everyone other than Rice is not in the Hall of Fame.
-- Among those players with fewer than 60 stolen bases, fewer than 80 intentional walks who also led the league in outs twice, everyone other than Rice is not in the Hall of Fame.
See, it's fun! Try it for yourself.
19 comments:
Sorry, I wanted to rewrite my comment so I deleted the original entry.
---
I posted about this in the other Rice entry but even looking at the .298/352 benchmark, Rice ends up last and with an OPS+ 12 points less than the guy ahead of him (Larry Walker).
Players who Qualify sorted by OPS+
1. Ruth 207
2. Williams 190
3. Bonds 182
4. Gehrig 179
5. Mantle 172
6. Foxx 163
7. Musial 159
8. Thomas 158
9. Mays 156
10. Ramirez 155
11. Aaron 155
12. Ott 155
13. A Rod 147
14. Piazza 144
15. Walker 140
16. Rice 128
Brilliant post, Joe. This is the old "multiple endpoints" strategy, which one can use to twist stats to their own purposes. Well played.
Awesome!
Yeah, brilliant post, Joe. VERY well played.
[/sarcasm]
You're really make it hard to want to buy the book.
I guess "brilliant reader" is one of those all-purpose adjectives, covering anyone who makes you sit up and take notice.
Having troulbe figuring out who's a Hall of Famer? Just get the DeLorean ready and head back in your wayback machine to a time when Duane Kuiper was your hero. You knew then that DK was not the best player in the game but you loved him anyway. But when you were 10, you did know that Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game. You just knew it. Same way you knew Don Sutton was not one of the best players. And that simple 10 year old analysis can truly help you decide who belongs in the HOF. Before Bill James committed staticide on the game, Jim Rice belonged in the Hall and probably still does. Never once in my lifetime did I ever say to my Dad, "Hey, Don Sutton's pitching tonight. Gotta watch." Heck, I never even drafted him in Strat-O. Jim Rice? Totally different story. Get his plaque ready.
theghoulpool.blogspot.com
"Best" and "most fun to watch" are two different standards.
And to the sarcastic anonymous guy, why not 400 HR and a .300 BA? Because Rice meets neither standard. Why not 350 HR and .290 BA? Because other guys besides Rice will also qualify (including the likes of Ellis Burks).
The Ellis Burks comparison is apt. Burks was a heck of a player, and I would have taken him for my team any day. But nobody's saying he's a Hall of Famer. Rice looks different because he had a very high peak - a gaudy peak. But it was gaudy only in certain respects, and when you look *a little* at his stats - not at the Bill James level, just *a little* - you start coming across the gaping holes in his game.
Rice was a hell of a ball player - obviously better than Burks - and I would have taken him for my team in a heartbeat. But his supporters tend to overrate him because of his big-bad-scariness at his peak. And yet many Sox fans from those days groaned because Rice was forever GIDPing in a pinch. (This is not to mention his defense, etc.)
Oh, and Anonymous, it's specious - or simply weak - to set a multiple-endpoint standard when your man comes in *at the bottom* of the categories in question. You're saying he should be the last guy in the door who fits into that group. If you want to make a fair comparison, drop down to round numbers that he beats handily, e.g. a .280 average and 350 homers. Oh, except to do so will undercut your efforts, since you'll uncover a lot of players like Andres Galarraga - very good players, but not Hall of Famers.
Jim Rice was very good. But so was Paul O'Neill (played his tail off, played harder defensive positions, key player on 5 world champions), and O'Neill's not a HoFer by any standard. Dwight Evans was a hell of a player. Don Mattingly was a hell of a ballplayer who had a similarly high peak to Rice. But he's not a HoFer, either - and shouldn't be. We could go on.
Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of the Very Good.
I'll try one more time to post my two cents on this debate. I'm 40 grew up in Newton, Mass and would go to see 15-20 games at Fenway between 73-83. I'll admit straught away I was a Yaz guy, my number was 8 through my playing career and I saw Rice as the guy who replaced Yaz in left but NEVER lived up to him as he was supposed to.
In a nutshell my opinion on Rice was - he was incredubly BORING. He was so stiff. Even his stance with those rigid knees and his bat straght up and stiff.
I remember playing whiffle ball at my friend Marcello's house and we'd have so much fun emulatung Yaz (The slow bat twirl), Lynn, Dewey, Carbo, "Boomer" Scott, even Rick Burleson. Rarely would we emulate Rice.
Also, playing stratomatic there were automatic outs. Denny Doyle took the cake, sometimes I didn't even roll. But Rooster and Rice were pretty damn close.
I say this. The HOF'ers on these lists that you guys have been posting were illuminated when they played. Like Yaz, he CARRIED the sox with his passion and play like Joe's excellent breakdown of the end of '67 suggests. Rice had no fire. He did not draw your attention. I always felt if he had the fire of Yaz or Brett or you pick the Hall of Famer - we would have won a couple rings between 75-80. I rememeber those world series with the reds and they just shined. The sox, dependent on young, big Jim Ed just couldn't match the fire of Rose, Morgan et al...
And I rememeber a LOT of ground outs.
If Jim Ed ever gets in I'll tip a beer for him. He has loosened up as a Sox commentator - but if he doesn't it will continue not to bother me.
anon,
I have to wonder what World Series you were watching.
Rice broke his wrist in the month before the 1975 World Series. Its not unreasonable to believe that he might have made the difference had he been able to play.
And as for your wiffleball comment, I could (and did) bat with a different stance for every Red Sox player, and aside from perching up on my toe and acting like I had just come out of traction to play when Yaz came up, nothing came close to that intimidating bat wave of Jim Ed.
Anon, you missed my point entirely. So you think Rice had fire, huh? The fire like the other HOF'ers? The fire of Yaz, or Rose, or Stargell or um... You pick the Hall of Famer? My point about the world series was that the Reds had a sparkle to them that the Jim Ed Sox did not. And I was and remain a huge sox fan. I rememeber Yaz looking at jim Ed like he was a corpse. And if you prefer Jim Ed's stance to Yaz's in whiffle ball, well, that's your problem. I prefer my shining stars to SHINE. But it's one man's opinion. Who happened to watch his whole career in person, (and suffer through it.)
To change the subject (and maybe take the edge off things a little)...I too grew up a red sox fan and spent a lot of time playing wiffleball and imitating the likes of Yaz, Fisk, etc. at the plate (and tiant on the mound...i've already tried teaching el tiante's windup to my 4-year old).
Sometimes, when not playing wiffleball, my buddies and I would take turns playing a sort of batting stance charades (we did other players, too...at least I remember seeing Joe Morgan a lot).
It's fun reading about other Red Sox fans doing the same thing growing up. I wonder if this is universal for kids no matter where you grew up? It seems like an odd question now to ask of other adults.
Maybe you could bring it up at work while interviewing someone: "I want you tell me about your strengths and weakenesses...but before that, let's see if you can identify any of these '70's era batting stances."
Or just put it at the bottom of your own resume and see if anyone asks about it..."proficient in Word, Excel and imitating Batting Stances of the 1975 Boston Red Sox."
Anon,
the simple fact is that you wrote as if Rice were to blame for losing the '75 World Series.
Instead of blaming his lack of "sparkle" did it ever occur to you that those "great" teams fell short because they never had any pitching??
Rice and his stoicism had nothing to do with it.
Snydes,
Substitute "'78 Red Sox" and you've got me to a "T". :0)
I wonder if there's anyone out there proficient in every batting stance Yaz ever used? That would be even more impressive than being able to rattle off one season's lineup.
So you agree with me, Rice was "stoic". I'll ask you again. Did Rice share any of the passion, fire and "must win" at all costs attitude of the other HOF'ers? I say no. I say if he did, the Sox would have won a few between 75-80. I think he epitomized the one base at a time, slogging, wait for the three run homer rep of the team during those years.
Joe or anyone - I'd like your opinion on this idea of "fire" being a qualification, or at least a factor in some writers not voting for Rice. Or maybe it's just lasting impressions from a tough time as a Sox fan.
As far as stances go - oh yeah, we used to do them all. And as far as Yaz, they were all variations on the same theme, so not so very difficult to emulate.
No, I don't think stoicism had anything to do with the failures of those teams, I note that you don't even begin to address my point that the fundamental flaw was a lack of pitching, not station-to-station, three run homer offense.
So, let's flip this around a bit - do you really think Lou Piniella and Paul O'Neil have rings because they were heart-on-sleeve (some would say whiny jerks) players?
Its ridiculous. They happened to play for superior teams and did their small to middling part on those teams.
And last but not least, my point about Yaz's stances was keeping all of them straight by year. I still say that's challenging.
Ha! '75 was a little before my time, but I had most of the late 80s Royals stances down pat. Danny Tartabull (and the similar Julio Franco stance) was my favorite.
My brother and I played wiffleball one on one, and when it was my turn to bat I would go down through the lineup 1-9 as whoever was Brett, Bo Jackson, Kevin Seitzer, etc. I taught myself how to switch-hit trying to imitate all the lefties.
I was hoping a non-Red Sox fan would turn turn up. It seems like wiffleball is the common link among batting stance junkies.
Re: "Face of the Royals" - Grienke doesn't even rate a mention? WTF?
Post a Comment