Rock and Rice
I really didn’t mean for the following to come out like this. Really. Some of you people already think I hate Jim Rice, and I really don’t. Rice was one of the overpowering presences of my childhood. Of course, this alone does not mean all that much in historic terms – other overpowering presences of my childhood include Mark Fidrych, John Montefusco, John Mayberry, Bucky Dent, Charlie Spikes and Joe Rudi.
But the problem whenever you talk about something like the Hall of Fame is that emotions fray, and people lose all perspective. When someone says, “I don’t think Jim Rice is quite a Hall of Famer,” well, to a Jim Rice fan that sounds like, “I think Jim Rice sucks.” Then they bring up statistics to prove that you are an idiot, and you bring up counter statistics to show that, no, actually, they are the idiotic ones. This escalates until we find that everybody hates everybody, and we’re in a quagmire in Iraq, and Michael Vick kills dogs (allegedly) and Brad breaks up with Jen, all because I think Jim Rice is not a Hall of Fame player. It’s too much pressure for one man.
Sigh. Anyway, I was going to move on from this Rice craziness, but somewhere in all the comments I found an interesting one that compared Rice to Rocky Colavito. I’m a huge Rocky Colavito fan, of course, because he was nice to me at a ballgame once (he was an Indians coach then), and also because that same day I saw him stand at home plate and throw a baseball over the center field wall, which is still one of the coolest things I’ve ever seen.
I realized then that I had never really delved into the career of Rocky Colavito. I mean, I knew the basics. Good player. Power hitter. Great arm. Traded for Harvey Kuehn. Came to Kansas City for a year (that was the year A’s owner Charley Finley decided that in order to win his team had to lead the league in homers). Returned to Cleveland. Was pretty well finished at 33.
But I had never looked harder. Now I did. And I came up with two things. One, I must admit, is directly related to a different comment I saw, a comment that suggested that because Jim Rice led the American League in some 12 categories over a 12-year period (1975-86), he should automatically be a Hall of Famer. These statistics would include: Games played, at-bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIs, slugging percentage, total bases, extra base hits, go-ahead RBIs, multi-hit games and outfield assists.
OK, so how about this? From 1957-1966 – I realize this is the more conventional 10-year period, but still – Rocky Colavito led the American League in: Games played, times reached base, home runs, RBIs, total bases, extra base hits, outfield assists and outfield double plays. I don’t know how to look up multi-hit games or go-ahead RBIs or whatever else. But here’s the thing: There were, I believe, better players in the American League at that time than in Rice’s time. For instance, Colavito was second in runs and in runs created to Mickey Mantle. There was no Mickey Mantle from 1975-86. Colavito was second in outfield putouts to Al Kaline. He was second in plate appearances to Luis Aparicio.
This is not to downplay what Rice accomplished. This is to upplay (a new word!) what Colavito did. And he did it without Fenway Park. Look: Both men had careers that tailed off shockingly, and because of that their counting stats do not blow you away (especially Colavito’s). But now Jim Rice seems to be on the brink of the Hall of Fame because of 12 years … maybe we should take another look at the Rock for his 10.
Then there’s the second thing, and if you are a huge Jim Rice fan and angry at me already, you might want to stop reading right now. Really. Just stop. I didn’t mean for it to come out this way, but I wanted to see if Rocky Colavito’s best year (1961) was better than Jim Rice’s best year (1978).
Here are the basic numbers:
Colavito (1961): .290/.402/.580, 45 homers, 140 RBIs, 129 runs, 30 doubles, 2 triples, 157 OPS+.
(Note: This is probably not Colavito’s best year – in 1958 he went .303/.405/.620 and had an OPS+ of 181. But it was a shorter season and he missed some games, so 1961 has better counting numbers and is probably a more comparable year).
Rice: (1978) .315/.370/.600, 46 homers, 139 RBIs, 121 runs, 25 doubles, 15 triples(!), 158 OPS+.
The seasons are very similar. And each had their advantages. Colavito’s year was an expansion season and so there were many huge offensive years – that was, of course, Maris’ 61 homer year, Norm Cash’s monster year, Jim Gentile’s monster year, etc. Rice’s year came in a pretty low-scoring run environment.
On the other hand, Colavito played in a home Detroit ballpark that did nothing for him. Look at his rather staggering home/road splits in 1961:
Home: .257/.373/.500, 18 homers, 62 RBIs.
Road: .320/.429/.653 27 homers, 78 RBIs.
And of course, Rice’s home/road splits from his great season are quite famous:
Home: .361/.416/.690, 28 homers, 78 RBIs.
Road: .269/.325/.512, 18 homers, 64 RBIs.
So, now what? Well, here’s what I tried to do: I came up with a formula. I took several of the more advanced statistics available. I took runs created above average, sprinkled in some wins above replacement player, added a touch of equivalent average, secondary average, OPS+ and on-base percentage and finally incorporated in your basic fantasy stats (average, home runs, RBIs, stolen bases). And then I came up with a super score to determine how good the season was.
I found my answer. And then I thought: Hey, this is kind of fun, why don’t I try to come up with the top 100 seasons since, say, 1960.
Here are the two rather surprising results (at least according to the formula I used):
1. Colavito’s season scores better. Not a lot better, but maybe 5 percent better.
2. Neither season ranked in the Top 100 since 1960.
I found this second one hard to believe. I mean, yes, it’s true, I don’t see Rice as quite a Hall of Famer. But I’ve always thought him a fearsome hitter, and I always thought of 1978 as a truly great season, even taking into account the Fenway Factor. I’m not saying I’m right – I’m sure my formula is absurdly flawed. Still, it wasn’t close. Colavito’s season ranked 148th; Rice’s season ranked 182nd. Strange.
Tell you what: Next blog, I’ll list the Top 100 seasons, with a few comments.
Editor's note: To respond to one more Jim Rice comment: My personal opinion is that I don’t think Jim Rice’s fire or lack thereof has much, if anything, to do with the way Hall of Fame voters deal with him. I do know that one friend (not a voter) often talks about how once he was reading a profile of Rice in a game program. The interviewer asked Rice to name his favorite day in baseball. He responded: “Every other Monday,” or something like that, referring to payday. I think that little story reflects the impression Rice left on a lot of people – including teammates. But again, I don’t think that’s what is keeping him out of the Hall so far. If he had 450 homers, I bet he’d be in. Plus, I think he will get in quite soon, maybe as soon as this year.
16 comments:
Well Joe I have no problem reading that post all the way through. After all, I learned that you do think that Rice is headed to the Hall, and that's a good thing to hear coming from someone who won't ever give him his vote.
Personally I think the writers would be well served to put Goose and Rice in on the same ballot. One fearsome hitter and one fearsome reliever from the same era.
The point still stands. Jim Rice was not a great player. He may get voted into the Hall, even though he is marginal as a player, due mainly to the "Fame" part of the equation.
Thanks Joe, love the blog on many levels. Your friends comment about Rice sums up my feelings about him. I'm the kid who looked like a fool in little league emulating Rose's sprint to first on a walk. Rice just seemed like he was waiting for pay day and the fact he adnitted it to a reporter wel... That's it exactly. Still, like I said up top, if he gets in I will tip a couple cold ones for him. If he doesn't, no worries. I'd love to, someday, hear your opinion of Dwight Evans as a fielder and overall player. I know he's not Hall materal but there's a guy I liked to watch on those old sox teams. Gonna get me a book.
Evans should get in before Rice although neither really deserve it.
I bet Ellis Burks is on that top 100.
I've made as many points as I care to about Rice as a player, so I won't re-state any of that here. I would, however, like to add a counterpoint to Joe's anecdote about Rice's personality, or "fire", as he puts it, if only for the sake of equal time.
I think, like with most people, Jim Rice struck different people in different ways. I have no doubt there were teammates, rivals, reporters, fans and strangers who met and took an instant dislike to Rice. That could be for any number of reasons, and I don't doubt that they're valid ones to the people who had that reaction.
At the same time, forming an opinion of Rice's personality from a three-word comment in a game program, as Joe's friend did, is grossly unfair. Would anyone out there want a complete stranger to base their entire opinion about you on three words, with no context as to how they were said. I know I wouldn't.
Rice rubbed many people the wrong way. That's well documented. But Rice has also been lauded by a slew of highly respected people in the game.
For instance, from Howard Bryant's "Shut Out: A Story of Race and Baseball in Boston":
"Ellis Burks...credits Rice with being one of the greatest influences on his baseball playing, and he would only speak with reverence of the secret side of Jim Rice, the man who counseled young black players about their more difficult road in Boston..."
"Roger Clemens...called Rice a 'hero, someone who taught me how to be a big-leaguer'".
"Don Zimmer...would call Rice his 'favorite ballplayer,' one he 'loves like a son'...In Zimmer's eyes, Rice was the ultimate ballplayer who did everything an old-school baseball man wanted. Zimmer played with Jackie Robinson for the Dodgers in the 1950s, and the thought of the tough professionalism of those Brooklyn teams reminded him of Rice's work ethic...He was, in Zimmer's estimation, the rarest of creatures: a modern ballplayer with old-fashioned values...Jim Rice worked."
Or, from a variety of other sources:
Dwight Evans - "(Rice) was a great player, a hard worker, a gamer. Jim played in all the games."
Carl Yastrzemski - "I've played with the man for a lot of years and he goes to the post."
Ralph Houk - "He's a tough guy. He's one guy who will play as long as he can...there are a lot of guys who wouldn't be able to play with the pain he takes into every game."
Rick Burleson - "He's a hell of a man."
Johnny Pesky - "He's the hardest working ballplayer I've ever known."
I guess not everyone thought he was just playing for a paycheck.
Hey Paul--
I thought that way about him. And a quote is a quote and so at some point Rice was admitting he was playing for a paycheck . HOWEVER - If Pesky said that well hell... Maybe I was blinded by my devotion to Yaz. Still, I'd like to know the context of these quotes. But I must admit your research, numbers, quotes, opinions are freakin impressive, man. You found those quotes in no time. I'm intimidated. I hope you get paid for it or at least LOVE it like you seem to. Peace.
I don't doubt he said it, I just don't know if he said it in complete seriousness, or if he said it as nothing but a funny throwaway line for a blurb in a program. Hard to judge with no other information provided.
As far as the quotes I gave, the quote from Evans was from an article by Ian Thomsen in the September 26, 1989 edition of The Boston Globe called "Mates Offes Praise; Problems Put Aside in Favor of Fond Farewell". It's in regard to Rice's release from the Red Sox.
The Yaz and Houk remarks came from a brief article in The Sporting News by Joe Giuliotti, September 20, 1982, called "Gritty Rice Plays Despite Injuries", which is pretty much about what the title says.
The Burleson quote is from an article in the July, 1978 issue of Sport magazine called "It's Like He's Got 10,000 Volts in His Bat" by Mark Ribowski. It's one of the more complete portraits of Rice you'll find, very even-handed in portraying him, both the good and the bad.
Johnny Pesky has called Rice the hardest working ballplayer he's been associated with a couple of times, the handiest one being in an article on Redsox.com on January 29, 2001 that discussed Rice's Hall of Fame qualifications.
I highly recommend Howard Bryant's book, not just for the stuff on Rice, which is among the most complete you'll find, but for a general history of the race issues that have plagued the Red Sox. There are ample shots at Rice in the book, and rightfully so it seems, but there are also the quotes I provided, among others, that give the other side of the story. Plus, Bryant provides an excellent description of how the white, Irish press treated Rice, how the Red Sox themselves treated black players, how the fans treated Rice, and a good depiction of the corner Rice found himself in as a prominent black athlete in Boston. Very good reading.
Right on, I'll check it out. No doubt Boston has a disgraceful history as far as that is concerned and no doubt the media had an impact on anyone growing up during that time, especially the early 70's with the massive bussing scandal etc.. Maybe that explains Rice's public persona quite nicely. Further - to your point - what Jim Ed was dealing with at the time and how that manifest in his outward demeanor - could have also informed his style. Perhaps he didn't want to seem a certain way for social reasons. But I can't list all the black ball players that I love, that have exactly the kind of "shine" I'm talking about that Rice lacked. Even well before his time. But again, your library is very impressive. Thanks for the angle.
As soon as the words "and he did all this without Fenway Park" when it comes to Jim Rice, you lose any argument right there and then. Jim lost volumes of extra base hits to the Wall, FAR more than he gained, and you being from KC should remember the monstrous shots he deposited against the Royals into the fountains there on a fairly decent basis. Rice was THE dominant slugger of HIS era, who cares about other eras? When you are the dominant player of your era, unless your category is saves, you belong in the Hall, any other comparisons are pure nonsense. Oh--and Rice was neither surly or mean spirited, he is and was a fairly shy family orited man who just didn't want to be the straw that stirs the drink---big difference, too bad that Yankees/pinstriped wearing glasses a-hole Bill Madden could never discern the difference.
>>>and you being from KC should remember the monstrous shots he deposited against the Royals into the fountains there on a fairly decent basis.<<<
Wrong example there buddy, Rice only hit 6 home runs in KC and had a .220/.272/.354 line. That slg pct is almost 200 points lower than his pct at Fenway. KC pitchers pretty much owned Rice.
Jim lost volumes of extra base hits to the Wall, FAR more than he gained...
There are these things out there called facts. You ought to check them out someday.
Rice doubles at home/away:
207/166
Rice triples at home/away:
44/35
Rice homers at home/away:
208/174
Rice slugging at home/away:
.546/.459
Rice OBP at home/away:
.374/.330
Rice BA at home/away:
.320/.277
Most players bat better at home than away, but Rice's home differential blows most everyone away. Now maybe you're someone who thinks that doesn't matter, but there's just no denying the fact that Fenway boosted Rice's numbers significantly.
Say it once.
Say it twice
4th place tastes better with chicken soup and rice.
Kansas City 55 67 .451
Chicago Sox 54 68 .443
Hey Joe, love the blog. If you're discussing possible HOFers, maybe you could get around to Tim "Rock" Raines. People seem to be discounting next year's first-timers, but Raines' stats seem to actually be borderline to me. And like Rice, he's mostly remembered (perhaps unfairly) for off-field stuff: the cocaine, asking to be called "Rock" midway through his career, etc. Anyway, love to read your thoughts on the guy.
While we're on the topic of "borderline" Hall of Famers, might as well bring up Alan Trammell and Bert Blyleven as well. XP
rice was THE power hitter in the AL of the 70s.
he was as scary as any hitter boston has ever had, in my opinion. he was hard as nails and i think the only reason he's not in the hall is that he played too long.
he was soooo bad at the end...all those double plays - i think that hurts him more than his surly personality.
Post a Comment