Rice, Rice Baby ...
There’s a spirited debate going on here in the comments about the Hall of Fame merits of Jim Rice. The debate is spearheaded by brilliant reader and Rice lobbyist Paul White. I have received numerous thoughtful and thought-provoking emails through the years from Paul on the subject of Jim Rice – and, in fact, I was one of those “morons” who took points away from Rice because of his penchant for the double play. Paul straightened me out pretty good on that one.
For the record: Paul has not changed my mind on Rice – I still do not see him as a Hall of Famer – but he has softened my views.
That’s not the point of this blog, though. I’m always fascinated by the logic of arguments. In a way, this is what I do as a columnist: Try to break down the logic of arguments. Paul makes many good arguments about Rice, but in one place he does something that brushes me wrong, something that I see people do all the time. It is even something I caught Bill James doing in an email once -- and he actually conceded the point. I bring this up because I NEVER win arguments with Bill. I never really even try to win arguments with him; it’s like having LeBron James as a neighbor and playing him one-on-one basketball in the driveway. The point isn’t to win. The point is to enjoy the losing.
ANYWAY, back to Rice. Here is one of Paul’s basic arguments for Rice: There are 18 left fielders in the Hall of Fame right now (the Hall Web site actually lists 20, but they have Dave Winfield as a left fielder and also a couple of other players who may not qualify in your mind as left fielders). And Rice’s statistics rank quite favorably with the median of those in the Hall. Paul offers these statistics – these are Baseball Prospectus’ translated stats, and not actual stats – for the median Hall of Fame and for Rice.
AVG: HOF, .299; Rice, .293
OBP: HOF, .370; Rice, .354
SLG: HOF, .531; Rice, .545
OPS: HOF, .900; Rice, .899
HR: HOF, 480; Rice, 494
RBI: HOF, 1505; Rice, 1471
Rice, as you can see, ranks right there with the big boys. Of course, I very seriously doubt most BBWAA voters are using Baseball Prospectus’ Translated Stats, but for the sake of this blog, let’s concede the point: Let’s say Rice is at least comparable to the median standard set for left fielders in the Hall of Fame.
Paul then makes the bad jump, in my opinion. He believes that writers are doing him a disservice. The standards have been set, and Rice has met these standards and perhaps surpassed them. He’s as good or better than half the left fielders in the Hall and thus the writers should vote him in. This, as I understand it, is the argument.
Other people have pointed out one obvious flaw: That there are numerous outfielders out there who were better than Rice and are not in the Hall of Fame, including his old teammate Dwight Evans. I would agree wholeheartedly (although I have a pretty passionate email from Paul on the subject of Evans vs. Rice – Paul’s good, folks). But this is not my point either.
My point is this: There is more than one way to get into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Over time, yes, it has all blended into one building, which is great. But of those 20 left fielders – let’s use all 20 for counting purposes – nine were inducted by the veteran’s committee. One, Monte Irvin, was inducted by the Negro Leagues Committee. That means half of the Hall of Famers were, in fact, not voted in by the Baseball Writers Association of America.
I’m not saying that these men are in any way less worthy of the Hall of Fame because the writers ignored them. I believe both of those committees have righted some wrongs and put in some great players that we writers flat missed. It's a shame, for instance, that it took a special committee to put in Monte Irvin, who merits mention as one of the greatest players who ever lived, but spent his best years in the Negro Leagues and fighting for our country in World War II.
No, I’m not suggesting the writers' Hall of Famers are somehow superior or more worthy. I’m saying it isn’t logical to hold up the writers to standards which they had absolutely nothing to do with. The fact that Kiki Cuyler or Chick Hafey or Goose Goslin are in the Hall of Fame has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the writers should vote in Jim Rice. These guys were not writers’s choices. They were veteran’s choices. In fact, I would argue that because the voters very specifically DID NOT vote in Goose Goslin, any argument comparing his numbers with Rice’s (Paul points out that they are similar) is entirely backward. Goslin’s numbers weren’t good enough for the writers. So what’s the point?
There are 10 left fielders who were voted in by the writers (I will keep in Winfield and Stargell if only because they are Rice contemporaries). The 10 left fielders voted in by the writers are Brock, Kiner, Medwick, Musial, Simmons, Stargell, Billy Williams, Ted Williams, Winfield and Yaz.
Comparing the median numbers of these 10 with Rice doesn’t look quite as good:
AVG: HOF, .292; Rice, .298.
OBP: HOF, .371; Rice, .354.
SLG: HOF, .517, Rice, .502
OPS: HOF, .888, Rice, .854
HR: HOF 439; Rice, 382
OPS+: HOF 133, Rice 129.
And if you want to go with Baseball Prospectus’ translated stats – which are OUT there by the way; they translate Stan Musial to get 730 career homers – it doesn’t get much better for Rice.
AVG: HOF .299; Rice, .293
OBP: HOF, .369; Rice, .354
SLG: HOF, 560, Rice, .545
OPS: HOF, .919, Rice, .899
HR: HOF 575, Rice, 494
And if you just want to neutralize their stats on Baseball Reference, the gap in slugging percentage closes, but everything else is about the same:
AVG: HOF, 298; Rice, .298
OBP: .HOF, 370; Rice, .351
SLG: HOF, .500; Rice, .500
OPS: HOF, .869; Rice, .851
HR: HOF 453; Rice 390
To further the point, all 10 of the writers-choice left fielders were ranked way above Rice in the Bill James Historical Abstract (Winfield was ranked as a right fielder, but he still ranked much higher). That's only one opinion (though it's a pretty good one), but I simply don’t think Rice was better than any of those 10. Maybe you could argue against Brock, though they were very different kinds of players. Maybe you want to get into the Billy Williams vs. Jim Rice debate. In any case, it seems to me quite clear that using the writer’s 10 left fielders as the standard, Rice does not cut it.
Now, let me also say this. I think the writers WILL vote Jim Rice into the Hall of Fame. Momentum is pushing him to Cooperstown. We writers as a group are of that age, we feel that certain nostalgia for the time period, and Rice in memory was a fearsome hitter. The steroids thing has helped him too … how many columns or articles have you read already that gush how Rice hit homers when men were men, when strike zones were real, when bats were made of balsa wood and whatever? I’m not even saying that Rice going into the Hall of Fame is a bad thing … I mean, no, I’m not voting for him, but Rice was a terrific player and a fearsome hitter. He would not be anywhere near the worst player in the Hall – he wouldn’t even be on the “20 man throw-them-out” ballot that I want to create. Which I suppose is Paul’s main point.
But I’m saying the exact opposite of Paul’s argument is true. If we as writers use our own standards set through the years, we absolutely would not vote for Jim Rice.
71 comments:
Joe, I agree with you. I'm also very impressed. You made a great argument to keep Rice out, without touching on one major flaw.
He was a right handed hitter who played 1/2 his career games in a bandbox that is 315 down the lines. That's like saying Pork Chop Pough was a mistreated legend-in-the-making for the Royals because he hit 22 home runs in Omaha one year, where the south wind on that hill blows 900mph every night.
Well done though.
I agree with aj. I don't think Rice is a worthy Hall candidate. He batted .320 at home and .277 on the road! Given that, I have serious doubts that BPro's stats are valid.
I'm not sure whether to post this here or as part of the original conversation, but I'm not sure where Paul gets a league GDP average of 15%.
Looking at 1984, I get 3360 GDPs in 30860 opportunities or just under 11%. If I limit that to batters with over 100 ABs (to take out pitchers) I get 2964 GDPs in 27402 opportunities for also about 11%. That makes Rice's 17% look pretty bad again (although I agree it's not quite as bad as the 36 GDPs sounds).
I'm curious as to why my numbers differ from Paul's. It's entirely possible that I'm doing something wrong.
And after all this, I agree that focusing on Rice's GDP is the wrong way to approach his HOF candidacy. I would use a high GDP rate as a negative if I were talking someone who's borderline - which I don't think Rice quite reaches yet. In my mind he's firmly in the HOVG, although reasonable minds can differ.
Thanks for this post, I would've otherwise missed White's comments, which are incidentally in the comments for LF Carl Crawford. His arguments are not convincing me, however.
For example, his argument against the many GIDPs Rice hit into (131 GIDP over 4 consecutive years), is to pick the year he hit into the most and claim that he was so good in the other GIDP situations that he was in fact a slightly above average producer in GIDP situations. Well if in over 200 atbats you are arguing that Rice is basically average, how does that help convince anyone that he is a clear hall of famer? Since when is a definition of a Hall of Famer limited to only the GIDP situations? He must have been well below Hall quality in the rest of 1984.
For defense, Bill James has Rice listed as a C+ fielder. That seems about right to me.
Is this the same Paul White that used to grace the pages of Baseball Weekly?
I don't think Rice belongs in the HOF and I think that the fact that Tim Raines will be up for election next year will also hurt Rice. As a contemporary, I think Raines should get in:
Raines: .294 / .385 / .425 (123 OPS+) / 170 HR / 808 SB / 390 Win Shares
Rice: .298 / .352 / .502 (128 OPS+) / 382 HR / 58 SB / 282 Win Shares
Well, Joe to me its pretty obvious you just don't care much for Red Sox left fielders of a particular era. (Yes I'm the same Daniel who has been trying to knock some sense into you on Manny's defense).
And I say this only slightly tongue in cheek.
But I can also say that you're making it tougher for me to want to buy the book.
The bottom line on Jim Rice is that list of offensive categories that he leads over a 12 season period. It epitomizes what Hall of Famer is supposed to mean and it should be the start and finish of any debate about Jim Ed.
Daniel
And one more thing - AJ ain't terribly bright if he thinks that 319 down the line in Fenway is a legitimate reason to downplay Rice's stats.
Anyone with a brain knows that the Monster gives (Bucky Dent) and takes away (I saw dozens of screaming line drives Rice hit that would have been out of every ballpark in the league and were turned into doubles or long singles by the wall).
AJ said...
He was a right handed hitter who played 1/2 his career games in a bandbox that is 315 down the lines.
That band box probably took away more home runs from Rice. Jim used to hit line drive type home runs, guarantee you he hit many balls that would have been out in other ball parks but hit that little thing called Green Monster about half way up.
Wow, I'm famous. Who knew a comment about left field defense would start all of this?
Let me address Joe's main point first. I agree with his basic premise that Rice isn't really a good comparison to prior BBWAA selections. As a body, they have generally stuck to higher standards than the various incarnations of the Veterans Committee. (Which is really unfair to the VC, by the way. I mean, don't you think their average standards would be a touch higher if they had been allowed to consider Ted Williams, Stan Musial, et al? That deck is stacked in favor of the writers.)
My bone of contention is this: The BBWAA doesn't set the standards, the Hall of Fame does. As Joe says, all players selected by both voting bodies should be and are considered equally valid by the Hall, something he agrees with. In that case, why would the voters continue to perpetuate this "higher standards" myth? It doesn't exist, folks. By allowing the Veterans Committee to exist, the Hall is overtly declaring that they don't think the BBWAA has been inclusive enough. This is no longer just a means of electing old-timers, like it originally started out to be. It has long outlived that role. What the VC is now is an open admission by the Hall of Fame that they think the BBWAA is wrong far too often.
Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if the Hall would simply say, "Look, writers, start voting in accordance with the overall standards that have been set. We, the Hall of Fame, are the ones that set them, and we find it kind of insulting that you continue to ignore half of our members as being unworthy of your personal vote. If you'd just start following the standard we have already signed off on, we can ultimately eliminate this backdoor entry process entirely. Otherwise, we're going to either perpetuate this dual system for eternity, which makes everyone look pretty silly, or we'll go hunting for a voting body that will apply the standards that exist instead of their own set of loftier ones."
So, in short, thank you Joe for the more public forum for my rants. It is greatly appreciated. I just happen to disagree with your notion that the BBWAA's voting role should serve the BBWAA's standards rather than the Hall of Fame's. Jim Rice just happens to be a convenient point person to demonstrate that.
Now, to answer some of the other comments here.
1) Every number I cited on the other post's comments was park-neutral. They therefore include Fenway's benefits for Rice. Claiming only tht Rice's lofty Fenway numbers should exclude him from consideration is to ignore two obvious points. First, the mid-70s to mid-80s wasn't the greatest period for offense, which actually served to cancel out many of Rice's home field advantages. Second, many of the Hall of Famers to whom Rice should be comapred played in wildly favorable conditions for offense. That's why neutralizing everyone's numbers before starting to compare is so essential.
2) I may well have screwed up on the league average double play rate, so my apologies. My overall point there wasn't to imply that Rice didn't hit into more than his fair share of DPs. It was to make it clear that they weren't nearly as damaging as most people think.
3) On the same subject, please don't over-extend my analysis of a very slim set of plate appearances to mean that I think Jim Rice should be in the Hall because he was +8 in expected run differential in DP situations in 1984. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm also not quite that dull. All I was attempting to do was attenuate the harsh light in which those double plays are generally portrayed. Citing just the raw GIDP total is unfair and misleading, as I think I demonstrated.
4) I fully agree that Tim Raines was a better baseball player than Jim Rice. He would have a higher slot on my ballot this year if I had one. But he's not in the Hall yet, and likely won't be for a while given the whole crack-vile-in-his-pocket debacle. Therefore, it's not yet clear if he'll ever be part of the overall HOF left field standard to which Rice should be compared.
5) No, I am not the Paul White who wrote for Baseball Weekly. I'm also not the Paul White who was a famous cardiologist. I'm much more witty, charming, handsome and humble than either of them. (Relax, that last part is a joke.)
The bottom line on Jim Rice is that list of offensive categories that he leads over a 12 season period. It epitomizes what Hall of Famer is supposed to mean and it should be the start and finish of any debate about Jim Ed.
Ok, according to Wikipedia, Rice lead the AL in games, at-bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIs, SLG, total bases, extra-base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games and outfield assists from 1975-1986.
First off, I'm not sure that's completely true depending on the number of qualifying at-bats. If I cut it at 2000 ABs (3-4 seasons worth give or take) it looks like Don Mattingly has Rice beat in SLG .539 to .519.
But assuming he did lead in all those categories, what does it mean? Is there value in limiting the comparison just to the AL? Because Mike Schmidt jumps ahead of Rice in Games, Homers (by 90), Runs, Extra-base Hits and Slugging Percentage. In fact, Rice's ML rank for the easily calculable categories:
Games - 3rd
HR - 3rd
Runs - 2nd
RBI - 1st
TB - 1st
EBH - 2nd
AB - 2nd
SLG - 3rd (at least 2000 ABs - you need over 2233 to get Rice to 2nd)
So that's still a pretty impressive list. But then you need to ask why did we pick 1975-1986? Well that's where Rice looks the best.
What if we slide it 3 years back to 1972-1983?
Games - 74th
HR - 5th
Runs - 22nd
RBI - 10th
TB - 10th
EBH - 9th
AB - 40th
SLG - 3rd (at least 2000 ABs - you need over 3749 to get Rice to 2nd)
Still not bad - but remember, we're picking the categories that are most favorable to Rice. I'm still not sure if I'd consider that the resume of a HOFer. Similar things happen when you slide forward 3 years. And that's not even considering his TBs are inflated over others because he didn't walk very much (yes a hit is better than a walk, but looking at raw TB numbers can overstate it).
Look, Jim Rice was a very good player, and no, I don't think he'd be one of the all-time worst HOF choices (although he would probably be one of the worst by the writers). There's definitely an argument for putting him in the Hall, but cherry-picking his best 12 year period and showing where he rates in certain categories against the American League is not a very strong one.
I have no particular opinion on whether or not Jim Rice belongs in the HOF, but I do have a bit of a complaint with the argument made in this post.
You state that "it isn’t logical to hold up the writers to standards which they had absolutely nothing to do with." While this makes surficial sense, I think it really misses a couple of important points.
1: The veterans committee essentially exists to correct mistakes (in their view, of course) made by the writers. Given that the veterans committee essentially has veto power over the decisions made by the writers, doesn't it make sense for the writers to strive to agree with the veterans as much as possible? To not do so is just a waste of everyone's time.
2: If you disagree with the claim that what the veterans have is an affirmative veto, then you basically have to agree with the claim that writers' HoFers are superior to veterans' HoFers. However, you explicitly deny believing in that. So, in your book (not your book, book... which I've purchased two of due to this blog, btw) they are all equal Hall of Famers. Why not compare them as such, and why shouldn't the writers consider the standards of the veterans committee when making their decisions?
- Andy
I completely disagree on the Fenway argument. That thing is a psycological advantage if anything. You've also got to deal with the OTHER teams' left-fielders, misplaying balls off the monster, which happened ALL the time. Who's to say he didn't benefit from that?
You can claim the wall gives and takes away all you want, but the fact remains...he played in a bandbox. Not just any bandbox, but a bandbox famous for boosting the careers of right handed hitters. To ignore it is simply silly. (And Joe didn't even mention it to make his point in about 3000 words.)
Rice was a good ballplayer, probably even great. But he was the benefit of a friendly park tons of coverage (in an age where ESPN was nowhere to be seen) and an obsessive fan base .
If he played for the Twins, he would not be "Rice". He'd simply be "Jim", and you probably would have forgotten him long ago.
AJ -
Let me say this again...All numbers cited were neutralized to account for the various home ballparks, run-scoring eras, differing season leangths, etc. ALL of them. That includes the neutralized stats Joe cited, which is why I suspect he didn't overtly mention Fenway...the neutralized numbers already did so for him.
Dan Turkenkopf -
Your analysis is completely non-sensical.
Number one, how does Don Mattingly, who made his debut in 1982, enter into a discussion of the era that Jim Rice played in (and dominated)?
Number two, since we're talking about the era that Jim Rice PLAYED, how do we decide to shift the analysis backwards to include three seasons that he didn't even play? This is a fair way to compare him to the other players he competed against?
That's completely ridiculous.
The facts are these:
For a period of 12 seasons, Rice led his league in 12 offensive categories.
That is dominance.
That isn't being "very good".
It is domination.
And that, in my book, defines a HoFer.
In my opinion, the arguments to be made against Rice boil down to these:
His career fell of a cliff after 1986 and he was out of the game at a relatively young age. Had this not happened, Rice would have likely finished with somewhere between 430 and 450 homers, and he would already be in the Hall.
I don't believe someone who was that good for that long should be penalized because he didn't hang around to reach certain milestone figures.
AJ,
If Rice played for Minnesota, he would have finished with 600 home runs and would have waited til his second year of eligibility because the writers still would have extracted their pound of flesh for him being a hard ass with them.
You think I exaggerate? Well its painfully obvious that you never watched the man play. He was not Dave Kingman. He had a short, compact, extraordinarily powerful swing, and it produced line drives. Many of those line drives ended up hitting the Monster while still rising. He had incredible strength, and that wall took away far more home runs than it ever gave him.
Dan Turkenkopf -
Your analysis is completely non-sensical.
Number one, how does Don Mattingly, who made his debut in 1982, enter into a discussion of the era that Jim Rice played in (and dominated)?
Number two, since we're talking about the era that Jim Rice PLAYED, how do we decide to shift the analysis backwards to include three seasons that he didn't even play? This is a fair way to compare him to the other players he competed against?
That's completely ridiculous.
I agree it's a completely ridiculous way to analyze a player. But it's exactly what you're doing for Rice. You're picking exactly the seasons he did well even though the seasons don't line up with other players peaks/careers. It's a stronger case if you can pick out the best 12 season period for a lot of his contemporaries (including those who aren't in the HOF) and show that Rice is better.
In my opinion, the arguments to be made against Rice boil down to these:
His career fell of a cliff after 1986 and he was out of the game at a relatively young age.
That and he didn't really get on-base that well (certainly not horribly), and he seemed to hit a lot better at home than on the road and he doesn't have that great a defensive reputation (which as Paul shows, may not accurately reflect reality).
Again, I'm not really trying to argue against Rice being in the HOF. He falls outside my line, but I can see why people support him. I just think there's some arguments that do a better job of supporting Rice than others.
His career fell of a cliff after 1986 and he was out of the game at a relatively young age. Had this not happened, Rice would have likely finished with somewhere between 430 and 450 homers, and he would already be in the Hall.
Well then how many other players would be in the Hall if we just extrapolate their good seasons into the future and forget the fact that they stopped playing well years before they retired.
You could say the exact same thing about:
Dale Murphy
Bernie Williams
Dave Parker
Fred Lynn
Dwight Gooden, etc...
"Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if the Hall would simply say, "Look, writers, start voting in accordance with the overall standards that have been set. We, the Hall of Fame, are the ones that set them, and we find it kind of insulting that you continue to ignore half of our members as being unworthy of your personal vote. "
If we're going to do that, why not just eliminate voters altogether? Set up benchmarks based on the guys already in the Hall and then induct everyone that meets them.
The thing is, I don't think the people who run the HoF feel as you do. You'll notice that, when the induction processes were altered a few years back, they didn't change the rules for election by the BBWAA, they changed the rules for the veteran's commitee and made them much, much tougher, to the point that the Veteran's commitee hasn't elected any new members in quite a while (Mazeroski in 2001 was the last one). That seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that they want to move the Hall's standards closer to the BBWAA standards and away from the standards of the old VC.
Shifting gears...
My position is pretty much the same as Joe's, I don't think Jim Rice belongs in the HoF, but if he gets in, he'll be far from the worst guy there.
Still, during the course of this debate I've spent a decent amount of time looking at Rice's stats and his home/road splits shocked me. Away from Fenway Rice's career line was .277/.330/.459, which... makes him Casey Blake, with worse defense and baserunning. Yeah, I know, different eras, translated stats, etc, etc, etc... but, still, .277/.330/.459? If Rice had played somewhere other than Boston would we even be talking about him?
Those numbers suggest not.
bc
It's a joke that a pretty good left fielder (and 2B, and 3B, and 1B, and RF) is not in the Hall. Please Joe, start a campaign to get Pete Rose elected pronto. Whether he bet or not, (he did), the man was a hall of fame player.
Anonymous -
Do you just not get the math, or are you simply being unfair? If you're truly going to hold Fenway against Rice, then it's only fair to do your homework on everyone else in the Hall to see if they had some kind of advantage that skewed their numbers, too.
Of course, you don't have to do it from scratch. All you have to do is look up any number of stats that do that for you already. For instance, here's the definition of EQA from Baseball Prospectus:
"A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning..."
Rice's EQA was .296. This already takes Fenway into account. Here are a few other HOF left fielders:
Yaz - .295
Zack Wheat - .288
Goose Goslin - .292
Heinie Manush - .284
Lou Brock - .281
Joe Kelley - .296
Al Simmons - .294
Fred Clarke - .295
Jim O'Rourke - .294
That's half of the existing group in the Hall. Face facts. As an offensive player, on a day-to-day basis, he fits the Hall standard at his position. You can downgrade him career longevity if you like, or you can downgrade him for generally middle-of-the-road defense, and if that makes him fall below a Hall of Fame level in your estimation, then fair enough.
But statistical analysis has come a long way since the days when Henry Chadwick invented batting average. We can tell pretty clearly that Rice's offense fits very neatly with the group of left fielders who have been elected. Continuing to claim that the Fenway factor skews everything is just plain wrong.
I'm a Red Sox fan. And I loved Rice growing up. But I wouldn't for him. There are other guys out there more deserving (Raines, Dawson, Blyleven, Gossage, Santo, Minoso). Not necessarily left fielders but players I think belong in the Hall.
If Rice does get in I'm happy for him. I'm happy for me, too. I still love the guy. But I love the game more. I'm not letting my personal feelings for a player cloud my judgement.
Also, I think a lot of people have made really good arguments for and against. The one argument I just can't get behind is the idea that the wall is to blame for Rice not having better numbers (i.e, more home runs). You can play the "what if" game with anybody...
What if Koufax didn't pitch in Dodger Stadium? What if Mel Ott didn't play in the polo grounds? What if Eddie Gaedal never got banned from the game?
It gets pointless and silly after awhile.
Paul, with respect, I don't appreciate remarks like "you're missing my point" and "do you just not get the math or are you simply being unfair".
My reading comprehension is fine. I got my first Bill James book in 1981 and I've been a Baseball Prospectus reader since years before it became a pay site. I get the math.
There are some issues with your list of LFers.
>All but three (Yaz, Brock and Simmons) are VC selections.
>Brock isn't in the HoF because of his EQA, he's in because he was the all-time stolen base leader and had 3000 hits.
> Fred Clarke may have borderline hitting stats, but he was also the manager of his team every year he played and won 4 NL pennants and one World Series (career winning pct. .576) and he stole 500 bases.
> Jim O'Rourke played from 1872 to 1904. I don't think he's really relevant to the discussion.
> Joe Kelley, 1891-1908
> Yaz had 3400+ hits and won a Triple Crown.
> Al Simmons had a career AVG of .331. Whatever may now be known about the limits of AVG., I can't think of an era where the voters weren't impressed by a .331 AVG.
Also, Simmons was a big part of one of baseballs great teams, the '29-'31 'As. For better or worse, being part of a great team can get you in the HoF, as Catfish Hunter, Tony Perez, Phil Rizzuto and others can attest.
So your argument is down to Heinie Manush, Goose Goslin and Zack Wheat. I guess every man has to pick his own battles, but that's sure not where I want to draw my line.
bc
"Rice's EQA was .296. This already takes Fenway into account. Here are a few other HOF left fielders:
Yaz - .295"
I cannot verify Jim Rice's career EQA, I found 2 other career EQA citations, each with different EQAs: .287 (Fire Joe Morgan 1/07), and .298 (Paul White post Baseball Analysts 12/05). I do believe that publicly available baseball statistical analysis has come a long way (although not necessarily Baseball Prospectus), but if your measure considers Jim Rice better than Yaz, who had a much better peak and career and defense) then it is the wrong tool for measuring Hall of Fame qualities. Is there a career EQA list available?
bc -
I am not trying to insult you're intelligence in any way, so my apologies if I have. When I say "you're missing my point", I consider that as much my fault as yours, probably more.
On that score, I think I've failed again, because you're noting that some guys were VC selections and some guys were BBWAA selections as if that matters to me. Since I obviously haven't made that clear, let me do so now - I don't care how they were elected. Period, the end.
The reason I don't care is simple - the Hall of Fame doesn't care either. They don't have one wing for BBWAA selections and a different wing with dimmer lighting and fewer bathrooms for VC selections. They include everyone, equally, and that's all I'm trying to do. That's also all I'm arguing the BBWAA should do when they consider the Hall's standards instead of their own personal ones.
As far as the issues you list, I think they represent cherry picking on your part, which is precisely my problem with the BBWAA's practices as described by Joe. Why exclude the guys who played a long time ago? Why cite something as empty as a lofty Al Simmons batting average when we can do so much better? Why cite extra factors for Fred Clarke and ignore them (racist home environment, etc.) for Jim Rice?
We can include everyone, we can measure them far more accurately than ever before, the Hall says their all equal in their membership, so why not be as thorough as possible? Why not do the job right?
skeptisys -
I got all EQA numbers from Baseball Prospectus' player cards. Again, to clarify, I didn't say Rice was a better overall player than Yaz. I said, as a day-to-day hitter, they were comparably productive. Obviously Yaz has other factors in his favor that should be considered, longevity being the most obvious.
Stop, grab a fork and listen. Rice and gravey (Garvey?) go good with chicken.
Rice, rice baby. Yeah.
Also, remember that Rice a Roni is the San Francisco treat
I thought Paul White used to be the editor of Baseball Weekly.
Found it, thanks Paul.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/riceji01.php
It has 3 numbers for career EQA, adjusted for season and for career and 'translated'. It appears you used 'translated', in the others Yaz is ahead of Rice. Let's look at some other career non-HOF translated EQA, for fun:
Albert Belle: .323
Dick Allen: .325
Tim Raines: .309
Frank Howard: .307
Jose Cruz: .290
Roy White: .291
Greg Luzinski: .297
Rico Carty: .303
Jimmy Wynn: .302
Ken Singleton: .306
Tony Oliva: .293
Roger Maris: .291
Pedro Guererro: .310
Ok, that's enough. Except maybe Maris and Luzinski, I would vote for all of these players before Rice. Personally I am convinced that Jim Rice has too many people ahead of him in the HOF line to merit serious consideration at this point.
Thank you for mentioning Roy White, because it give me an opportunity to say that Bill James' evaluation of Rice a few years back is extremely questionable. He famously called Rice the most overrated player of the last 30 years and then rated Roy White ahead of him as a player.
Note:
Jim Rice has more Win Shares than Roy White.
Jim Rice has a higher EQA than Roy White.
Jim Rice has a higher OPS+ than Roy White.
Jim Rice has a higher WARP3 score than Roy White.
Jim Rice has a higher TPR score than Roy White.
James himself rated Rice (C+) as a better defender than Roy White (C).
Can we please all agree that Bill James briefly lost his mind in that book when he said Roy White was the better player?
Domination?
I looked at Rice's Peak as 75-86 which is a nice long peak, but lets look at the top 10 players who put up similiar #s during that same peak period (min 5000 plate appearances)
Schmidt 154 OPS+
Brett 147 OPS+
Murray 143 OPS+
Winfield 136 OPS+
Ken Singleton 136 OPS+
Rod Carew 135 OPS+
Jack Clark 134 OPS+
Fred Lynn 134 OPS+
Jim Rice 134 OPS+
Keith Hernandez 133 OPS+
So, we have 5 HOFers and 5 Hall of the Very Good players. I don't think that is domination especially considering Rice's career outside those #s doesn't really amount to anything.
"Can we please all agree that Bill James briefly lost his mind in that book when he said Roy White was the better player?"
I don't agree with your assessment. As for Win Shares, Bill James has Roy White ahead in top 5 seasons (140-127) and per 162 games (22.65-21.86).
And if you want to go with Baseball Prospectus’ translated stats – which are OUT there by the way; they translate Stan Musial to get 730 career homers
They're not "OUT there"; those translations assume a late-'90s environment, in which scoring is high and the home run makes up a greater proportion of offensive value than at any time in history. A player's (adjusted for all-time) EqA and by extension value is held constant, with the shape of his batting line changing based on the difference between his environment and the "neutral" environment. So Musial will see a decrease in walks, an increase in strikeouts, more home runs, etc. It's a logical way to compare across eras, unlike...
And if you just want to neutralize their stats on Baseball Reference
... the "Neutralize Stats" function, which holds player's ratio of singles, doubles, triples and homers constant, giving it no utility when making such comparisons.
"Look, Jim Rice was a very good player, and no, I don't think he'd be one of the all-time worst HOF choices (although he would probably be one of the worst by the writers)."
...cough...Kirby Puckett...cough....
"...I don't agree with your assessment. As for Win Shares, Bill James has Roy White ahead in top 5 seasons (140-127) and per 162 games (22.65-21.86)."
Not quite. James said that White's top-5 consecutive years were better. Well, it just so happens that five of the best six years of White's career happened to be consecutive. Rice's weren't. If we take just their top five years, regardless of whether or not they were consecutive, we get this:
Rice - 142
White - 144
Not nearly the gap James portrays. In addition, it conveniently ignores the fact that each man played at least 10 additional years, in which the Win Shares looked like this:
Rice - 140
White - 119
Hmmm. Look at five years where the gap is 2 or look at ten years where the gap is 21? I wonder which is is more telling?
Besides, who says Win Shares is the be-all end-all? Lots of very smart people don't buy it hook line and sinker. There's WARP3 and EQA and TPR and a variety of other tools that claim to do the same thing as Win Shares - boil a player's contributations down to one number. Every single one of them rates Rice higher than White.
James' contributions to baseball in general and baseball analysis specifically are unparalleled. I believe he should be in the Hall of Fame as a contributor. But that doesn't mean he's infallible. His own measurement systems for both offense and defense rate Jim Rice higher than Roy White, but then he ignores them by adding some unknown subjective weight that makes White rank higher in his opinion. Sorry, I just don't see why I should buy that.
Nice mention of James for the Hall (as a contributor). I brought that up to some friends a couple of years ago and most rolled their eyes.
Anyone know how the Hall elects contributors? It would be nice to see Buck get in, too.
I guess I should just be thankful that no one is arguing that if Rice gets in, it will be among the worse inductees of all-time.
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.
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.
I'll give it a try.
First, that's not entirely true. Larry Walker is at 383 homers and .313 but I think there's a major question about whether he'll make the HOF.
Second, why 382 and .298? Yes, it's because that's where Rice ended. But it's yet another game of cherry-picking endpoints. What if we drop the homers to 381 and average to .295? Well then there's Albert Belle. Granted, he gets a fair amount of support from some areas. But it also brings in Juan Gonzalez (434 HR and .295), who should get into Cooperstown the same way as you or I.
This is an example of what Bill James calls the "We-can-make-a-group argument" in the Politics of Glory. He says "Because the group is defined only by minimum standards, no maximums, it places Herman [the example from the book] in a group with players who are vastly superior to him, while eliminating those who are only a little bit behind him." (Page 124 in my copy)
Based purely on HRs and average (your choice of comparison), who is Jim Rice more like: Mel Ott (511 HRs and a .304 average) or Ellis Burks (352 and a .291 average)?
Also, your list leaves out a bunch of players who are clearly greater than Rice - Frank Robinson (.294 BA), Ken Griffey Jr, (.291 BA), Gary Sheffield and Jeff Bagwell (.297 BA), etc.
"As far as the issues you list, I think they represent cherry picking on your part, which is precisely my problem with the BBWAA's practices as described by Joe. Why exclude the guys who played a long time ago? Why cite something as empty as a lofty Al Simmons batting average when we can do so much better? Why cite extra factors for Fred Clarke and ignore them (racist home environment, etc.) for Jim Rice?"
Cherry-picking on my part!? You're the one who went through the list of HoF LFers and came up with a list of the ones you thought were favorable comps for Rice. I just responded to it.
What you did is make the following argument: These people are LFers in the HoF. Jim Rice is comparable (based on .EQA) to these people. Therefore Jim Rice should be in the HoF.
What I did is respond that most of the people on that list were not, in fact comparable to Rice and that, therefore, your argument boiled down to Goslin, Manush and Wheat.
"Why exclude the guys who played a long time ago?"
Why? Because they weren't playing the same game. O'Rourke and Kelley are from the days when the pitchers mound was 50 feet from home, a walk took 9 balls, a ball that hit fair and went foul was considered a fair ball and pitchers weren't allowed to throw overhand. They simply were not playing the same game. They are just not a valid basis for comparison to modern players.
"Why cite something as empty as a lofty Al Simmons batting average when we can do so much better?"
My point in citing Simmons AVG (which was .334, not .331 as I posted before) is that while certain of these players may appear similar to Rice based on EQA, they had other markers that Rice didn't have that led to their elections. In the case of Brock and Yaz, 3000 hits, in the case of Simmons, a lifetime AVG of .334 and a key spot on one of the all-time great teams.
If Jim Rice had 3000 hits he'd already be in the HoF. If Jim Rice had a career AVG of .334, he'd already be in the HoF. If Jim Rice had had the exact same career except as a member of the Big Red Machine, he'd probably already be in the HoF.
Also, it really seems like you're trying to have it both ways here. On the one hand you say, these are the standards that are set and Jim Rice deserves to be in based on these standards. Then, when I point out one of the actual standards which led Al Simmons to be inducted, you retort that we can do better.
"Why cite extra factors for Fred Clarke and ignore them (racist home environment, etc.) for Jim Rice?"
Extra factors!? Fred Clarke is 15th all-time in wins by a manager, ahead of Tommy Lasorda, Dick Williams, Earl Weaver and Whitey Herzog, among others. Fred Clarke is 12th all time in winning % by a manager, ahead of Bobby Cox, Walter Alson and Sparky Anderson, among others. He won 4 pennants and a World Series as a manager. That's not an "extra factor", that's a pretty good case for the HoF all by itself.
That's in addition to posting virtually the same EQA (.295 to Rice's .296) as Rice over a longer career.
I repeat, after a closer look, your list is down to Goslin, Manush and Wheat. You may feel that's a good case. I don't.
Also, you may feel that VC selections should carry just as much weight as BBWAA selections, but I notice you just sort of glided past the point I raised about the change in Hall procedures that have pretty much ended VC selections (none since 2001).
It seems fairly obvious to me that, when the Hall changed the rules in way that left the writers voting alone and altered the VC voting to the point of ending VC selections, it was a clear indication that the Hall thought the writers were doing a fine job and the VC were letting too many people in. I mean, how else can you interpret that?
bc
Got to say, I'm not impressed with Baseball Prospectus's adjusted stats. Giving Rice an EqA that's only slightly below his BA, even though he played in Fenway, seems off the mark to me.
My guess is that they applied some generic park factor, and not one that recognizes how much righthanded power sluggers are helped by the monster.
IMO, Dewey Evans was simply a better player than Rice, and I'd consider him for the Hall first.
Just to add one more "uber" stat, Rice ranks much lower than Evans in career WPA (or Win Expectancy, or what have you). There are no adjustments in WPA.
I agree about the "We-can-make-a-group argument" but lets look at the .298 / 352 benchmark.
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
You will notice that not only is Rice last, but he also has an OPS+ 12 points lower than the guy ahead of him (Larry Walker, who probably isn't a HOFer either).
rmlumley,
So, I am guessing that you have a cut off in mind - OPS+ somewhere around 140 and higher, only (so that Piazza makes it, but Walker is iffy).
[roll eyes]
The whole point about Rice's domination of his league over a 12 year period is simple:
Show me the equivalent performance, over the same period of time, and show me those players who don't make it into the Hall. I am guessing that there is no one in the history of the game who has dominated his league over a twelve year period in the same manner who is not in the Hall.
Its a really simple concept:
He dominated his league for a very significant period of time. No one is close in the AL, and only a no-doubt about it player named Schmidt keeps him from having dominated both leagues.
How can you be the best in your league for such a period of time and not deserve the nod?
Again, I challenge the anti-Rice crowd:
Find the players who dominated so many offensive categories for 12 years. I'll guarantee right now they are all in the Hall of Fame.
Again, I challenge the anti-Rice crowd:
Find the players who dominated so many offensive categories for 12 years. I'll guarantee right now they are all in the Hall of Fame.
It's an interesting question, but I don't know any way to conduct such an analysis. Since you're guaranteeing the outcome, you must know. What's the answer?
anonymous,
rmlumley,
So, I am guessing that you have a cut off in mind - OPS+ somewhere around 140 and higher, only (so that Piazza makes it, but Walker is iffy).
[roll eyes]
No, not at all. I just took your benchmarks and showed that they are silly to use because
a) a guy who won't make the HOF is above him
b) Among the players who qualified, Rice is last by quite a bit.
Show me the equivalent performance, over the same period of time, and show me those players who don't make it into the Hall.
About half way up I post a list of guys who had a higher OPS+ over that same period of Rice's "dominance". 5 are in the HOF, 5 aren't.
I was curious, so I figured it out. From 1975 to 1986, Rice was third in AL WPA (behind Brett and Murray -- Brett gets points for his fielding and Murray gets points because he was a better clutch hitter than Rice) and he's tied with Murray for second in Win Shares.
I'll look at other time periods to see what I can find.
Joe might like this one. In the time period from 1970 to 1982, Amos Otis was third in the AL in home runs. I didn't know that.
From 1975 to 1986, Rice was third in AL WPA (behind Brett and Murray -- Brett gets points for his fielding and Murray gets points because he was a better clutch hitter than Rice)
What stat are you looking at here?
I'm confused because I was assuming Win Probability Added, but that doesn't include fielding.
Sorry, Dan. I threw a Win Shares comment and a WPA comment together, trying to explain why Brett ranks higher in Win Shares and Murray ranks higher in WPA. Of course, Brett ranks first in WPA, too.
Either way, it's tough to say that Rice "dominated" this period.
"Cherry-picking on my part!? You're the one who went through the list of HoF LFers and came up with a list of the ones you thought were favorable comps for Rice. I just responded to it.
What you did is make the following argument: These people are LFers in the HoF. Jim Rice is comparable (based on .EQA) to these people. Therefore Jim Rice should be in the HoF."
Well, so much for your self-lauded reading comprehension skills. I've put about a dozen lengthy posts on here for the better part of a week about the median left field Hall of Famer. I used translated stats from BP, I used translated stats from Baseball-Reference, I used EQA. At every turn, I said Rice's offense was at the midpoint of the current group of left fielders in the Hall. Not better than just the two or three weakest cases, but the midpoint. I didn't pick and choose which guys I looked at, I looked at every single guy. I admitted he wasn't comparable to just the BBWAA selections. I admitted, in my very first comment, that I wasn't delusional enough to think he was comparable to the Williams' and Musials of the world. Then, on one post, I list half of the guys in the group we're comparing him to - not one or two, HALF - who he happens to meet or exceed on one stat, and suddenly I'm cherry picking?
Let's just say we define that term differently.
And then, in the next breath after ignoring all of that and accusing me of picking and choosing my comps, you claim that it's perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily disregard a few of the guys Rice could be compared to on the flimsy excuse that "they weren't playing the same game". Guess what BC, none of these guys played the same game. Al Simmons, to use your example, posted that lofty average at a time when entire leagues were batting over .300. He did it at a time when people of Rice's color weren't allowed to play. He did it without having to face relief specialists. He did it without having his numbers dragged down by future analysts because just about every double play he hit into during his career disappeared without a trace, untracked by the statisticians of the day. He did it against tired-armed 3- and 4-man pitching rotations. He did it against guys he got to see far more frequently because there were only 8 teams in the league.
If you're going to arbitrarily wipe out the older guys from the discussion while ignoring the differences of every other era, then cite Simmons' wildly misleading batting average, then rule out the Yaz's and Brock's of the world because they passed arbitrary milestones, and then claim not to be selectively picking and choosing your facts, I guess all I can say is Wow.
Or maybe Good Grief.
(FYI - You may want to check your facts on the whole Hall-thinks-the-writers-are-doing-a-fine-job thing. They just changed the VC rules again to make it easier for them to elect people. Sorry you didn't get that memo.)
Non Hall of Famers I found in the Wins Shares database:
- Bobby Grich was first in the AL from 1973-1984
- Keith Hernandez was second in the NL from 1977-1988. Dale Murphy was second from 1978-1990.
- Norm Cash was third from 1961-1972. Campy Campaneris (another KC favorite!) was third from 1965-1976.
Personally, I'd vote Grich into the Hall, but not the other guys listed.
I know this doesn't include a bunch of categories or whatever, but my point is that other players have ranked about the same as Rice in an arbitrary time period (and in a reasonably legitimate stat) and also haven't made the Hall.
Sorry, Dan. I threw a Win Shares comment and a WPA comment together, trying to explain why Brett ranks higher in Win Shares and Murray ranks higher in WPA. Of course, Brett ranks first in WPA, too.
Either way, it's tough to say that Rice "dominated" this period.
Quite all right. I actually have Rice lower in WPA - 6th of those who played in the AL, but 19th overall. The WPA differences probably come from park factors and different win expectancy charts.
Right (it's me, studes). I'm using Sagarin's WPA stats, which aren't adjusted for ballpark. The most favorable to Rice, IOW. I would trust yours more, given the ballpark adjustment.
But Dave, its not a single stat - its across twelve traditional offensive stats, the kind that got a whole boatload of people elected to the Hall in that lengthy period of time before math nerds took over.
To answer a previous question, I don't "know" the answer, I am just 100% certain that no player who led his league in all of those categories over such a length of time has been denied the Hall of Fame.
"No, not at all. I just took your benchmarks and showed that they are silly to use because
a) a guy who won't make the HOF is above him
b) Among the players who qualified, Rice is last by quite a bit."
Last, but he is still the only guy to reach those standards not in the Hall. And if Walker is not making the Hall, then someone needs to tell Baseball-Reference to reconfigure their "Hall Monitor" calculation. With a score higher than 100 denoting a "likely HoFer" Rice is at 146.5 and Walker is at 147.
Maybe they should just make a likely HoFer 150 and above and be done with it.
A few points, Anon:
- I don't know how you can guarantee that without doing the homework. I sure wouldn't. There are many surprising findings in baseball history.
- The point of my Win Shares argument was to show the arbitrary nature of picking any old timeframe.
- The categories are also arbitrary. Both XBH and TB? SLG too? Multi-hit games? Why?
- If he was so dominant, why didn't he lead the league in batting WPA? Dan's WPA stats, which are park-adjusted, rank him sixth during your time period. The reason is because he was helped by his ballpark, and he also hit into a lot of DPs and didn't perform as well in high leverage situations. These detract from his batting stats.
- Rice was a mediocre left fielder at best, and a slow baserunner. Both of these have to also offset his batting stats.
Like a lot of people here, I'm not against Rice making the Hall, but there are a number of outfielders I would vote in before him.
Look, you wrote:
"Rice's EQA was .296. This already takes Fenway into account. Here are a few other HOF left fielders:
Yaz - .295
Zack Wheat - .288
Goose Goslin - .292
Heinie Manush - .284
Lou Brock - .281
Joe Kelley - .296
Al Simmons - .294
Fred Clarke - .295
Jim O'Rourke - .294
That's half of the existing group in the Hall. Face facts. As an offensive player, on a day-to-day basis, he fits the Hall standard at his position. "
You specifically chose a group of HoF leftfielders and explicity argued that their inclusion supported the argument that Rice belongs. That's what you did, it's right there as clear as can be.
And that's a perfectly valid argument, if you concede the premises. I have no problem with the form of that argument. You're the one that introduced the term cherry-picking to the conversation.
However, I do not concede the premises. I challenge the premise that Rice is comparable to all the listed players. In order to do so, I addressed every player on your list, either conceding him as a comparable or listing the reason I felt he wasn't comparable. You made the list. I addressed every player on it. How that makes me a cherry-picker, I don't know.
Now, the subject here is Hall of Fame standards as they relate to Jim Rice. In that particular post you use EQA to support your case. That's fine and all, but you and I both know that not one single person who voted for any of the players you listed was thinking about EQA when he voted.
They were thinking about things like 3000 hits and high lifetime averages. You may argue that Al Simmons lifetime AVG isn't as impressive as it seems, but you can't argue that it didn't impress the voters of his time (and almost every other time). (And seriously, Al Simmons appears to have been a pretty great player. His peak is amazing, even for the time.)
You can't argue on the one hand that Jim Rice belongs in because of the standards set by HoF voters and then turn around and argue against the actual standards that were used. Well, you can and, I guess, have, but it's not very effective.
bc
Regarding the re-changing of the VC rules, I hadn't heard that, but I can't say it surprises me. The VC hadn't inducted anyone since 2001 and the HoF is not in the business of not inducting people.
Ok, I just went and looked up the changes to the VC rules and (assuming wikipedia is correct) I'm not sure I see where the rules are making it easier to elect people. The vote threshold hasn't been lowered. The elections are still every other year. I see where players from before 1944 are now only considered every five years, which doesn't seem designed to get more of them elected (which is fine, they are plenty well represented and hardly anyone who saw them play is around to vote).
In this case, I will admit, I'm missing your point. What is it about the rules changes that is supposed to make it easier to elect people?
bc
BC -
Sorry, but it appears that you've mischaracterized nearly every point I've made here.
You've conveniently truncated my post to make it look like I was trying to build a case on EQA alone, when in fact all I was doing was providing an example of one of many statistics that level the playing field across eras, ballparks, etc. Perhaps this will refresh your memory:
"...If you're truly going to hold Fenway against Rice, then it's only fair to do your homework on everyone else in the Hall to see if they had some kind of advantage that skewed their numbers, too.
Of course, you don't have to do it from scratch. All you have to do is look up any number of stats that do that for you already. For instance, here's the definition of EQA from Baseball Prospectus:
"A measure of total offensive value per out, with corrections for league offensive level, home park, and team pitching. EQA considers batting as well as baserunning..."
In fact, I don't think anyone should build any case for the Hall on one stat. I also don't think the openly-mocked Build Your Own Group method makes any sense. And as I've said repeatedly (really, feel free to re-read if necessary), I don't think it makes any sense to look at unadjusted, raw numbers without leveling them first.
Contrary to your claim, I have at no point argued against the standards that have been used. I did the opposite, in fact, by arguing that they should always be used, completely, by everyone, BBWAA included, with the one caveat being that the numbers that make up those standards should be leveled first to account for as many differences in era, ballparks, etc. that we possibly can.
When you do that, you get this irrevocable fact:
Median 162-game Season
(BP Translated Stats)
Runs: HOF - 99; Rice - 99
Hits: HOF - 174; Rice - 181
2B: HOF - 35; Rice - 33
3B: HOF - 4; Rice - 5
HR: HOF - 35; Rice - 37
XBH: HOF - 74; Rice - 75
RBI: HOF - 99; Rice - 115
BB: HOF - 64; Rice - 52
SO: HOF - 73; Rice - 126
SB: HOF - 8; Rice - 4
TB:: HOF - 322; Rice - 335
AVG: HOF - .291; Rice - .293
OBP: HOF - .367; Rice - .354
SLG: HOF - .529; Rice - .540
OPS: HOF - .896; Rice - .894
RC: HOF - 112; Rice - 118
Those numbers include everyone, from Ted Williams to Chick Hafey. Nary a cherry picker to be seen.
Now, I think all of that means that from the perspective of offense, Rice bears a striking similarity, on a game by game basis, to the average left fielder in the Hall of Fame. But, to address the obvious points, this doesn't include longevity (the Hall group played about a season and a half more than Rice on average), and it doesn't include defense (with Rice rated as C+ by James and with a 100 Rate by BP, I think it's fair to say he was middle of the road overall, maybe a bit less so when compared to Hall of Famers). If that's enough to downgrade him in your view, rock on.
OK, time for a little thought exercise for the anti-Rice brigade:
Let's pretend that Rice's career didn't fall apart quite so quickly. He a couple of more seasons and finished with 425 homers and a hair over 1700 RBIs. His BA declined a bit more and he ended at .295.
Is he a Hall of Famer?
And if so, why is that? Because he reached milestone numbers by hanging around a little longer?
The point of this thought exercise is for people to realize that his Hall of Fame candidacy is in reality based on those 12 seasons of domination. Hanging on for a couple of years to pad his stats, or the lack thereof, should have no impact.
"In this case, I will admit, I'm missing your point. What is it about the rules changes that is supposed to make it easier to elect people?"
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2007-08-03-586088517_x.htm
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob&entryDate=20070730 (2nd entry)
"Contrary to your claim, I have at no point argued against the standards that have been used. I did the opposite, in fact, by arguing that they should always be used, completely, by everyone, BBWAA included, with the one caveat being that the numbers that make up those standards should be leveled first to account for as many differences in era, ballparks, etc. that we possibly can. "
You say you've never argued against the standards that have been use and in the very next sentence, you argue against the standards that have been used.
I'm sorry, but your "one cavaet" completely changes the standards. The fact is that until very recently none of the voters was doing any leveling for conditions and even now I bet it's no more than half of them, if that. Maybe Joe can tell us. Standards that are arrived at by a totally different method are not the same standards. They just aren't.
bc
Thanks for the link about the VC thing.
As I said, I'm not surprised they've nudged the rules a bit.
Still, I think you would concede that the HoF was unhappy with the number of people the VC was inducting before 2001. That USA today article states pretty clearly that the changes of 2001 were made because some people felt too many marginal players were getting in.
They made changes to reduce the number. It turned out to work too well, so they are dialing it back a little.
Nothing in that article suggests that they changed their minds completely and decided to return to pre-2001 standards. They're just looking for a number that's lower than pre-2001, but more than zero.
bc
"You say you've never argued against the standards that have been use and in the very next sentence, you argue against the standards that have been used.
If that's how you choose to read that, rock on.
"Nothing in that article suggests that they changed their minds completely and decided to return to pre-2001 standards."
Never said they were.
"They're just looking for a number that's lower than pre-2001, but more than zero."
Which means they still think the BBWAA is excluding people they shouldn't. Ergo sum. I made this point some time ago.
Let's pretend that Rice's career didn't fall apart quite so quickly. He a couple of more seasons and finished with 425 homers and a hair over 1700 RBIs. His BA declined a bit more and he ended at .295.
Is he a Hall of Famer?
Nope. No matter how long he played, he still would have played most of his years at Fenway, and his basic stats would not be a good indication of his true offensive worth.
So I went and did some more research on the LFers in the HoF and on the greatest LFers ever.
One thing that struck me was how many of the greatest LFers in history are, for now, NOT in the Hall of Fame.
Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Minnie Minoso and Shoeless Joe Jackson are clearly among the greatest LFers ever, but none of them are in the HoF.
Bonds and Henderson almost certainly will be. Jackson is barred. Minoso's time seems past. Raines hasn't had his shot yet, but looks iffy.
That doesn't really and isn't meant to prove anything. It was just an interesting thing I noticed. Nonetheless, all five of those guys are better than Rice and, if/when they were/are in the HoF, would make it tougher to make the argument that Rice is comparable to the median HoF LFer.
bc
"... if/when they were/are in the HoF, would make it tougher to make the argument that Rice is comparable to the median HoF LFer.
And if/when my 11-year old is drafted by the Royals and goes on to become the greatest center fielder in history, people with your mindset will look back at the election of someone who is now considered a middle of the road HOFer, say Earl Averill or Billy Hamilton, and say "What the hell were those people thinking back in the day?"
Or how about these "IFs":
- IF Joe Jackson hadn't been a cheater, he'd already be in the Hall.
- IF Barry Bonds had been hit by a bus in 1999, long before he was ever suspected of taking steroids, he'd already be in Hall too.
- IF Minnie Minoso hadn't serially lied about his age, we might be able to say with certainty that prejudice robbed him of X number of years of playing time. But since he did, who knows how much extra credit we should give him?
- IF Tim Raines hadn't been a crack addict, maybe his Hall chances wouldn't be so "iffy".
- IF Jim Rice had drawn one extra walk every 50 plate appearances - and I mean utterly meaningless walks, that didn't change any game outcomes at all - his career rate line would be .305/.371/.513/.884, and he'd already be in the Hall too.
We could play the "if" game for a long, long time.
That is interesting, bc. I wonder if LF has more examples of that phenomenon than most positions?
I do want to make one comment about BPro's totally adjusted EqA. It's not only adjusted for ballpark and league, it includes their all-time playing adjustment, which gives current players more credit than players from the past.
I personally find BPro's logic with this questionable, and I'm not a big fan. But, more to the point, I don't think it's consistent with how the Hall votes. The Hall tends to "even out" over the decades, inducting about the same number of players from each time period. (I know that's not literally true, but I think that's mostly due to some of the weirder picks by the VC).
But BPro's totally adjusted EqA values current players over past players, meaning that Rice will naturally compare well to other left fielders already in the Hall. I believe the EqA "adjusted for season" is the more relevant stat. I have no idea how Rice ranks in that.
In fact, it would be impractical for the "totally adjusted" EqA to be relevant for Hall voting, because players keep getting better. It would only work if you could "deduct" past players because they've been passed by so many current players. You'd never really know the cut-off for greatness, because it would ultimately depend on how long baseball will be played in the future.
By the way, this article gives an excellent synopsis of why I think BPro's approach to all-time adjustment is deeply flawed.
One last point: I've seen references in this thread to BPro's translated stats. I believe they share the same flaw (lack of regression to the mean) and don't think they provide reliable comparisons.
Interesting article, Dave. Thanks for the link.
Something I noticed:
Batting Average has fallen out of favor with a lot of baseball fans in the post-Bill James era. This is proper. BA isn't really that great an indicator of offensive value.
However, for most of the history of MLB, BA has been regarded as very important. Hall of Fame voters, historically, LOVE BA. 51 of the top 70 in career AVG are in the HoF.
Of the 19 that aren't in 5 are active (Ichiro, Helton, Pujols, Vlad Guerrero and Jeter), 1 is Joe Jackson, 4 aren't eligible because they didn't play 10 seasons (Dave Orr, Jake Stenzel, Bill Lange and Bill Everitt).
So that's 51 if the top 60 eligible.
The other nine, (Lefty O'Doul, Pete Browning, Riggs Stephenson, Mike Donlin, Tip O'Neil, Bob Fothergill, Babe Herman, Ken Williams and Joe Harris) all had relatively short careers, by HoF standards.
Everyone that played at least 15 years and batted over .316 is in the HoF. Todd Helton may end up changing that.
bc
One last point: I've seen references in this thread to BPro's translated stats. I believe they share the same flaw (lack of regression to the mean) and don't think they provide reliable comparisons.
For what it's worth (probably not a whole lot), I've calculated normalized stats for every batter in the Lahman database based on their park and the league-average rate for an event.
Basically what it shows is how a batter would compare to an average batter who got the same number of plate appearances.
Rice hit 167 more homers than the average player, which is 77th all-time. He had 436 more RBI, 55th all-time.
I know this method is full of all sorts of issues (especially with runs and RBIs) but again, it's another approach that doesn't really show "domination" of a league.
If you want to see domination, Babe Ruth had 621 homers more than the average batter.
Post a Comment