Well, it finally happened. On his 15th and final try Jim Rice, who hasn’t played an inning since 1989, miraculously became worthy of the Hall of Fame in the eyes of the voters. With one of the most ridiculous selections in history, the voters’ negligence in their analytical process has once again compromised an institution that is supposed to honor the greatest men to ever play the game of baseball. Instead, the standards and legitimacy of this hallowed body have now been compromised to the point where it might serve itself well – for purposes of accuracy – to change its name to the “Hall of Very Good.”
The case against Rice is clear cut and definitive. His statistics are extraordinarily average, especially for an outfielder who was supposedly known for his “dangerous” slugging ability. He did not hit .300 for his career (only topping the mark six times in 16 years), did not reach even 400 homeruns (only hitting 40 or more in a season once), and carried a measly .352 career OBP (never topping .385 in a season).
Rice, lauded for his power production, in reality was only average in this department. His meager .502 slugging percentage, .854 OPS, and 128 OPS+ testify to this assessment much more accurately than the remembrance of those who saw him in action. Sure, his 1,451 career RBI total is very good total – 56th all time – but even that number leaves him well short of deservedly snubbed Hall candidates Andre Dawson (1591) and Harold Baines (1628) and 15 short of non-Hall of Famer Rusy Staub, who also had a higher OBP than Rice in a dominate pitchers era.
His supporters claim Jim Rice was a “feared” hitter, so "feared" that this state of terror of which his bat apparently evoked in the pitchers he faced, was valuable enough to his team that it warrants a Hall of Fame selection. In truth, about the only place one might have “feared” Rice was at home, in the ridiculously hitter-friendly Fenway Park, where he spent his entire career. While he did post an outstanding .920 OPS in Boston, his .789 road figure gives far more insight into the true value of Rice as a player. In fact, Rice was so “feared” that he was never intentionally walked even 10 times in a season and is tied for 179th on the all time list with “feared” hitters such Jerry Grote, Ken Henderson, Claudell Washington, and Fred Lynn among others. That’s less than Boston outfielder Mike Greenwell, Lou Whitaker, and even B.J. Surhoff. Rice’s one attribute that got him elected is the supposed “fear” he induced, and yet the statistics say he wasn’t even as "feared" by pitchers as B.J. Surhoff?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matthew T. Sussman
Just a note on the intentional walks. I always thought that was strange for it to be so low and yet be so feared, since IBBs are indeed a fear number. So I looked at the batting orders. Were Hall of Famers on deck? Most of the time, yes, it was Carl Yastrzemski. And when it wasn't him it was either Carlton Fisk or Tony Perez. Three HOFers, even if one is questionable, is a pretty good case as to why he never got more than a handful per season.
But toward the mid '80s he was "protected" by the likes of Bill Buckner, Tony Armas, and Don Baylor, so I can't vouch for the lack of free passes in those years, but certainly in the late '70s I wouldn't walk Rice and pitch to Yaz.
2 - Tony
I agree that you would definitely have to think twice about walking Rice to pitch to Yaz, but consider some of the players that are well ahead of Rice on the IBB list. Some notable:
10. Tony Gwynn - 203
22. Wade Boggs - 180
29. Pete Rose - 167
All contact hitters ranked substantially higher than Rice.
A couple other notes:
- teammates McCovey (3) and Mays (14) weren't hampered by this "Yaz" effect.
- Tim Raines, a leadoff hitter, is 44th with 146
- Don Mattingly, a player always well protected, is 55 with 136. His longtime teammate Dave Winfield is 23rd with 172, which is 16 less than Chili Davis a player who has surprisingly comparable stats to Rice.
I really do see your point, and to an extent you're right, but it doesn't explain such an obscenely low total.
3 - Todd Hebert
Anthony, you're a Yankee fan I assume?
4 - Tony
I am a Yankees fan -- also a Tigers fan -- but I don't live in New York, nor do I have the inherent hatred for the Red Sox most Yankee fans harbor.
I can see how that conclusion would be drawn, given that Rice was a Red Sox, but when it comes to the sanctity of the game itself, those biases don't come into play.
For example, I think the election of Joe Gordon --a Yankee -- is also ridiculous.
A .268 batting average, .357 OPS, and a 120 OPS+ are not Hall of Fame statistics.
Further more, I think Catfish Hunter is another mistake the Hall made. 224 wins, only 2,000 strikeouts (compare that to Blyleven's total), and a career e.r.a. of 3.26 are not enough to warrant a selection, even with his very good 1.134 whip, regardless of his status as a Yankee World Series champion.
The Hall of Fame is the most legitimate body in all of sports, in recognizing elite athletes. I have a real problem with Jim Rice and (another Bosox) Ted Williams being placed in the same sentence. If you're not elite it doesn't mean you weren't very good, it just means you're not a Hall of Famer, and that should be ok.
The numbers on Rice speak for themselves and I haven't heard a solid counter-argument stating otherwise (although I would love to - which was the point of writing this). It doesn't take one to be a Yankee fan to measure Rice's statistics against players who actually are Hall-worthy.
I could write something on Don Mattingly -- who has about as much claim to the Hall as Rice -- but I didn't because, although he was a very, very good player -- and actually my favorite growing up -- I know, emotions aside, that he is not a Hall of Famer.
5 - Douglas Mays
He was good on Letterman last night. Him and Mr. Henderson had one of the funnier punch lines on the 'Top Ten List' I've seen in a while...
Uh, the #2 and #1 choices on the list...
best,
DM
6 - Tony
Rickey is hilarious, but Rice just rubs me the wrong way. He feels like he's entitled to Hall of Fame status which is a joke. When he was at Fenway lecturing the writers I wanted to vomit. The guy would never have gotten in without all the support he got from the media and fans. He's lucky they didn't judge him solely on his numbers.
7 - Richard W.
Jim Rice, Hall of Famer:
**American League MVP, 1978
**Finished in top-5 in MVP voting four other times
**8-time All-Star
**Led the AL in homers three times
**Led league in RBIS twice
**Led league in slugging percentage twice
**batted over .300 seven times
**39 or more homers four times
**eight 100 RBI seasons
**four 200 hit seasons
**Only player in major league history to record over 200 hits and 39 or more homers for three consecutive years
**tied AL record for leading league in total bases three straight years
**one of only three AL players ever to hit 39-plus HR and bat .315 or more for three successive seasons
**In 1978, Rice became the first major leaguer in 19 years to amass 400 total bases
**During a 12-season stretch from 1975-86, Rice led the league in 12 categories: games, at bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIS, slugging percentage, total bases, extra base hits, multi-hit games, gane-winning RBIs and outfield assists.
8 - Tony
All good points. Let's take a look at them one by one.
- Yes Jim Rice won the MVP in 1978 but lets look at his stats from that year. While he did hit 46 home runs -- the only time in his career he even topped 40 -- his OBP was still only .370, hurt badly by his 126 strikeouts - the highest single season total for his career. This is also the only season he ever topped .600 for slugging, which he hit right on the nose. While this is a good season, its not much of a "best season" of his career nor does it compare to the MVP seasons of other Hall of Famers, elected because of their hitting/slugging abilities.
- Finishing in the top 5 in MVP voting is a product of the same faulty analysis that got him the label off being "feared" and also got him elected to the Hall, which I addressed in my article. In the 70's writers did not have tools like OBP, OPS, OPS+, Win Shares, and Runs Created to understand the true value of a player to his club. When electing players to the Hall of fame you take those 5 best season and compare them to the five best seasons of other Hall of Famers. In this context those seasons are virtually meaningless.
- The All Star game is a popularity contest and eight times isn't really all that high. Let's compare to some non-Hall of Famers.
- Fred Lynn - 9 All Star Games
- Dale Murphy - 7 All Star Games
- Gil Hodges - 8 All Star Games
Nothing spectacular about 8, and I could make a stronger or as strong an arguement for all three of those guys. Start comparing him to the elite players in the Hall, Mays (24), Frank Robinson (14), and Reggie Jackson (14) it's obvious Rice is not elite. Very good, but not elite.
- That's great that he led he AL in home runs three times but three season makes not a Hall of Fame career.
- Leading the league is RBI's twice is fine but it didn't make his career total high enough to overshadow his other glaring short comings. I touched on the RBI topic in the piece and gave him his due credit for being 56th best all time, but again, he's behind some guys like Harold Baines who aren't even really considered for the Hall of Fame.
- Leading the league in slugging is -- once again -- nice but his career .502 slugging percentage is a joke. That's 89th all time behind Ellis Burks, Charlie Keller, and Mo Vaughn to name a few non-Hall of Famers.
- His career average is .298. It doesn't matter how many times he hit .300. If he was a great fielder, stole bases, or did anything but hit maybe this wouldn't be an issue but Mattingly has a career average over .300 and he was similarly dominate for a short stretch, yet he's also not considered for the Hall of Fame.
- If you want to attach a value to Rice hitting 39 home runs a few times see Dave Kingman's career stats. Lots of Home Runs, but not a Hall of Famer.
- The 200 hit seasons were badly inflated by Fenway as shown in his home/rode splits. Also, he didn't even reach 2500 hits for his career. The mark is 3000 and everyone knows it. He's 100th all time behind non-Hall of Famers Bill Dahlen, Steve Garvey, Tim Raines, and Andre Dawson, just to name a few. Now a couple of those guys should arguably be in but that's irrelevant because Rice got in before them, showing the flawed voting process.
- You site his total bases stats and yet he is 67th all time behind non hall of famers Andre Dawson, Dave Parker and 705 less than contemporary outfielder Reggie Jackson.
I get that Rice was very good for a short stretch but his career numbers just aren't there. It doesn't matter what he did for a couple years nor does it matter what he did relative to the guys who were in the league with him (although his career OPS+ of 128 has him only 28 points above league average for his career). All that matters is how he compares to the greatest that have ever played the game and the fact is, that he doesn't
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Ah, the fabled 39-home run plateau.
But Rice is very, very borderline guy. His numbers are really controversial, because it just depends what side of the fence you're on that makes one say, "yes, this man is a Haller." or "No, it's just not spectacular enough."
Jim Rice had three amazing years in a row, while the rest of his years ranged from very good to great. Now I'm going to take those three great years and pare them up against another person's numbers in his three-year span:
Batter 1: .309 avg, 132 HR, 411 RBI, 1057 TBs, 157 BBs, 30 GIDP
Batter 2: .320 avg, 124 HR, 383 RBI, 1157 TBs, 168 BBs, 52 GIDP
I picked the other guy because he, too, is a very good hitter with lots of RBI opportunities, and made the All-Star team five times. He was also extremely feared during this three-year stretch, but he goes on the ballot next year but I don't anticipate him making the HOF.
Batter 2 is Jim Rice. Batter 1 is Andres Galarraga. (1996-98) Rice's numbers look slighty better, and I agree they are. But not by much.
The Big Cat isn't going to go into the HOF, but 2010's class should have some interesting borderline guys: Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff and Roberto Alomar, to name a few. But the fun one to debate will be Edgar Martinez. He's going to be the first pure DH to be up for debate. The DH is an official position as outlined by Major League Baseball. Will he get the nod? Probably not on the first year.
10 - Tony
Its funny that Rice was elected totally based on his hitting while Edgar will get penalized because he can only be judge on his hitting.
You look at Edgar's career numbers and they are seller.
- .312 career average, a .418 OBP,.933 OPS, 147 OPS+.
Compare that to Rice's numbers
- .298. .352,.854, 128. Not even close
The one detraction is that he never reached any of the big plateaus (3,000 hits, 500 hr., ect.) but apparently those things didn't count against Rice.
The big issue with the Rice debate is not Jim Rice specifically; it is the claim to how players and statistics should and will be analyzed.
To the voters who use the old school analytical processes Rice might be a Hall of Famer, but the new tools have shown that those old techniques are not the best way to determine the value and skill of a player. This Rice debate is truly about the evolution of baseball analysis.and how it affects the Hall of Fame.
11 - Tony
I'd say McGriff is in with his 493 hr, 441 doubles, and 134 OPS+. He and Willie McCovery are very similar statistically as shown on baseball-reference.com
Larkin just doesn't have the stats but I think he'll get elected because people like him.
Alomar is very borderline. I personally feel like he falls just short. The .300 ba is great but I think he needed 3,000 hits. It's sad too, because for a period he such a great all around player.
12 - kenH
As a youngster growing up and watching Jim Rice play day in and day out and not someone who is looking at statistics, I will tell you that Jim Rice is a Hall of Famer. A Hall of Famer qualifications is subject to the discretion of the individual whether it be a writer or someone writing a Blog. To use the word a travesty, goes a little far. Jim Rice did not have the career numbers that make someone a lock for the Hall of Fame or we would not be debating this subject. Anthony, you never saw him play or listened to players speak in awe of him. I did, but you are right about many of the things that you point out, he was slow of foot, but his tremendous strength led to sharply hit gdp's as well as his slow feet. He hit in Fenway Park, Jim Rice was a line drive hitter who probably had a 100 hr lost due to their becomeing doubles or wall ball singles instead of a home run in another park.
I myself have always considered someone a HOF when they have put up dominant numbers for a 10yr period and Jim Rice did this, From a previous post; During a 12-season stretch from 1975-86, Rice led the league in 12 categories: games, at bats, runs, hits, homers, RBIS, slugging percentage, total bases, extra base hits, multi-hit games, gane-winning RBIs and outfield assists.
During that time he also hit well over.300. These numbers do not just say dominance over a three yr period, they are dominant over a 12yr period(almost half the yrs you have been alive Anthony)
Jim Rice was not a great outfielder because he was slow afoot and did not cover a lot of ground, but like Manny Ramirez he learned to play a difficult left field very well and Jim Rice worked at it and in the words of Dave Righetti "in todays baseball he would be an above average outfielder"
It is very difficult to judge ball players that we did not see play. I don't argue with your right to say he doesn't belong but again your a little to strong with the word travesty, death of an infant is a travesty not someone getting in the HOF unworthily(in your opinion). He is not the first one to have questionable qualifications and nor will he be the last. We should not use the statistics that we judge current ball players with, i.e. OBP no one previous to Bill James had even heard of OBP, the important thing in his day was for Jim Ed Rice to drive in runs and he did that. If we ask his contemporaries they will tell us that he belongs and its their opinion that is the most important. What does Goose Gossage say about him? He was the closest hitter that Goose came to fearing. It is in comparing him to his contemporaries and listening to their comments that we need to judge him and when that is done, he qualifies in my book and in theirs
13 - Tony
In my humble defense I did qualify travesty with "Hall of Fame" so it really was meant only in that context.
The only time Hall of Fame voting is subjective is when you ignore the statistics like you propose and go on "instinct." Jim Rice played on a big stage, in a good market, and on a team that was frequently in the playoffs and televised on national t.v. because of it. Guys with the Yankees, Red Sox, and a few other team are always exalted out of proportion. The guard against that is statistical analysis. One of the greatest things about baseball is the wealth of statistics that allow you to compare players from every era and truly understand their quality relative to the entirety of baseball, which is the expanse that the Hall of Fame covers.
Seeing a player does not help you better understand his qualifications, and depending on when in your life you saw him, it may inflate your perceptions. For example, I remember going to Tiger games and watching Fielder try to become the first guy since George Foster to hit 50 home runs in a season. If you saw Fielder play that year, you would have swore he was a dominate hitter. But producing big in 51 at bats and failing regularly in others is more exciting but far less conducive to winning, than players who get on base regularly and give their team a chance to score runs but don't post the big totals in attractive categories.
The Hall of Fame is for the greatest statistical players ever. Being elected to the Hall of Fame is supposed to signify that you were one of the greatest ball players of any era, and abandoning that ideal is not justified by citing past mistakes. Obviously there are things in life far more important than sports but for those you'll have to go to the politics section. Here, thankfully, my cares exists in a totally inconsequential reality of sports, and in that reality, the Hall of Fame is the one institution in all of sports that really means anything. I hate to see that compromised.
14 - REMF(MCH)
In 1978, Jim Rice amassed 406 total bases, which ties him for 22nd on the all-time season list. Those whose best TB seasons fall below Rice's 406 include:
Todd Helton...405
Hank Aaron...400 (HOF)
Albert Belle...399
George Sisler...399 (HOF)
Hank Greenburg...397 (HOF)
Lefty O'Doul...397
Albert Pujols...394
Ken Griffey, Jr...393
Derek Lee...393
Alex Rodriguez...393
George Foster...388
Don Mattingly...388
Matt Holliday...386
Ryan Howard...383
Mark McGwire...383
Juan Gonzales...382
Willie Mays...382 (HOF)
Frank Robinson...380 (HOF)
Ernie Banks...379 (HOF)
Duke Snyder...378 (HOF)
Andres Galarraga...376
Mickey Mantle...376 (HOF)
15 - REMF(MCH)
"Finishing in the top 5 in MVP voting is a product of the same faulty analysis that got him the label off being "feared"..."
- Tony, 24 year old baseball expert (never saw Rice play)
"I thought Jim Rice deserved to go in way before this, but better late than never," Gossage told The AP on Wednesday. "I’m really very happy for him. From a pitcher’s standpoint, no one scared me " but he was one of the guys that came the closest."
- Goose Gossage, MLB Hall of Fame pitcher
16 - Tony
You can reference my age condescendingly or other players' perceptions all you want but it really does nothing to solidify the argument that Rice belongs in the Hall. In reality saying "you didn't SEE him play," and "you're too young" are about the only defense to the wealth of statistics available that prove he's not a a Hall of Famer.
And by the way, turn on ESPN classic every once in a while. Or the new MLB network. It really doesn't matter how old you are; you can watch players from any era. I've not only seen Rice play, I've seen Christy Mathewson play. The 21 Century is marvelous, and wondrous time, with all our techno-mo-logical dudadas. And as I've stated before, the great thing about baseball is that you don't have to watch a player play to evaluate him. We can compare Jim Rice to other Hall of Fame outfielders to see if he belongs there or not using statistics, not our eyes. You make fun of my baseball analysis and yet yours is completely based on what you "saw," while mine is based in what actually happened. Now I'm sure you attended nearly every Red Sox game at Fenway for Rice's career but what about the road games?
- to the total base stat in post 14; that's one season. One season doesn't mean you're a Hall of Famer, even if its a Hall of Fame caliber season. To get into the Hall of Fame you must have a Hall of Fame worthy career. Rice didn't.
*Rice fans are kind of prickly. Remind me a Bush supporters; a mountain of evidence says one thing but they just stick to their guns no matter what the facts say.
17 - Tony
By the way, you can find a Gossage quote on ANYTHING. As Matt and I talked about before, he also said Dick Allen was the best teammate he ever had. I love Goose but he just likes to make sure he stays in the press.
Oh and Rice, fans, if you want to see the statistics of a real Hall of Fame outfielder look up Dick Allen's stats (or just take a look at my Dick Allen piece).
18 - Matthew T. Sussman
"In 1978, Jim Rice amassed 406 total bases, which ties him for 22nd on the all-time season list. Those whose best TB seasons fall below Rice's 406 include:"
I for one am happy that Jim Rice is in the HOF, he's had a great career. But his plaque pales in comparison to many other HOF players, and guys like him and Bruce Sutter and Joe Gordon and Tony Perez should have their own wing in the hall to honor those who are borderline. Maybe the Broom Closet of Fame. They're in, but just barely.Luis Gonzalez had more total bases in a year than Jim Rice. I guess he goes in too, right?
Rice's on-base percentage was .351, which doesn't put him in the top 500 all time. He got on base 35 percent of the time. The whole point of baseball is to reach base.
So a big part of his stats are RBIs. RBIs aren't entirely done by him. Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus:
19 - Tony
Excellent points Matt.
I know your suggestion of a separate wing was in jest and yet it may be a great idea. Build a second wing for the players who deserve to be remembered but are not elite.
Also, I don't think they are voting for Boggs twice; I just think they're still a little sore about Boggs riding around Yankee stadium on horseback after his World Series win, and need this vote to feel better about themselves.
I kind of wish they would have picked a more likeable guy to prop up though. How about Freddy Lynn or Dwight Evans. Similar statistics, both less a of a jerk.
Look at these numbers:
Evans: 385 home runs, .370 OBP, 127 OPS+
Lynn: 306 home runs, .360 OBP, 129 OPS+
Rice: 382 home runs, .352 OBP, 128 OPS +
While Rice's basic statistics are slightly better, his OBP and OPS level that out. I think Evans actually has a slightly stronger case than Rice for the Hall.
And you're right Matt, the point of baseball is to get on base.....and to win. Rice did neither. Zero World Championships; lets not forget that. And apparently with an all Hall of Fame caliber outfield.
20 - REMF(MCH)
"Jim Rice was such a model of reliability. I watched him play many games in pain, with chipped bones in his hands and wrist. The only two guys who had better overall numbers in the 12 years from '75 to '86 were (Hall of Famers) Mike Schmidt and George Brett. It's too bad his career ended early, he was hurt and frustrated. I liken him to a Sandy Koufax or a Pedro Martinez. The window is smaller, but the greatness is there."
- Peter Gammons...Boston Globe, Sports Illustrated, ESPN the Magazine; 3-time National Sports Writer of the Year; 2005 Baseball Hall of Fame honoree (covered the Red Sox during Rice's entire career)
"I'm so proud for Jim Rice, because he definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame."
- Joe Morgan, MLB Hall of Famer
"With one of the most ridiculous selections in history, the voters' negligence in their analytical process has once again compromised an institution that is supposed to honor the greatest men to ever play the game of baseball."
- Tony, 24, self-proclaimed baseball expert
21 - Tony
That's funny that you would cite Joe Morgan as he proudly advertises the fact that he never pays attention to stats.
Also, I'm pretty sure I never proclaimed myself a baseball expert. I just have the minimum required intelligence to look at stats and draw conclusions, which is what the sports writers who vote for the Hall of Fame are supposed to do.
You Rice supporters can throw out as many quotes of players as you want -- I know it's necessary with no statistics to back up your arguments -- but it won't change Jim's average numbers.
And to compare him to Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez is, in the nicest possible terms, humorous. Koufax and Pedro actually have the stats to back up their dominance. And you're right, the window was smaller for Rice, which is the difference between a Hall of Famer and one who is not.
I don't care how hurt he played; lots of players play hurt. Again, an admirable attribute but not something that gets you elected to the Hall of Fame. Have ever seen the picture of Mantle with his legs taped from the ankles to his thighs? And he still managed a OBP over .400.
If you'd like to dispute any of Rice's statistics feel free but I think you Rice supporters can do a little better than "you were too young to see him play" or "Joe Morgan says he's a Hall of Famer so he must be."
You don't need to be a baseball expert to know Mantle is great because of his .421 OBP or his 172 OPS +. You also don't need to have seen him play to realize that those numbers put him in an elite class. Finally, you don't need to have seen Jim Rice play to realize his .352 OBP and 128 OPS aren't even close to comparable. .
That's the point of statistical analysis. A player's production doesn't lie.
22 - Tony
From the L.A. Times:
But Jim Rice? No way. Don't get me wrong, Jim Rice was a very good player, but not a Hall of Famer, and Rice's numbers were inflated greatly by playing half of his games in Fenway Park. Take look at his home and away numbers:
Category Home Away
Games 1,048 1,041
Homers 208 174
Avg. .320 .277
OB% .374 .330
SLG% .546 .459
Take him out of Fenway, and Rice suddenly becomes an average hitter. And a guy who was an average hitter half the time is not a Hall of Famer.
23 - Tony
From the AP:
First, let's look at the players that the writers (as opposed to the Veterans Committee) have elected to see how Jim Rice stacks up. Jim Rice was a left fielder for the majority of his career. The BBWAA has chosen nine players who were left fielders to the Hall of Fame. In alphabetical order, they are: Lou Brock, Ralph Kiner, Joe Medwick, Stan Musial, Al Simmons, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski. How does Jim Rice compare to these nine players?
In this group, Jim Rice is below average.
Lou Brock
Runs: 1610
Hits: 3023
HR: 149
RBI: 900
AVG: .293
OBP: .343
SLG: .410
Ralph Kiner
Runs: 971
Hits: 1451
HR: 369
RBI: 1015
AVG: .279
OBP: .398
SLG: .548
Joe Medwick
Runs: 1198
Hits: 2471
HR: 205
RBI: 1383
AVG: .324
OBP: .362
SLG: .505
Ted Musial
Runs: 1949
Hits: 3630
HR: 475
RBI: 1951
AVG: .331
OBP: .417
SLG: .559
Al Simmons
Runs: 1507
Hits: 2927
HR: 307
RBI: 1827
AVG: .334
OBP: .380
SLG: .535
Willie Stargell
Runs: 1195
Hits: 2232
HR: 475
RBI: 1540
AVG: .282
OBP: .360
SLG: .529
Billy Williams
Runs: 1410
Hits: 2711
HR: 426
RBI: 1475
AVG: .290
OBP: .361
SLG: .492
Ted Williams
Runs: 1798
Hits: 2654
HR: 521
RBI: 1839
AVG: .344
OBP: .482
SLG: .634
Jim Rice
Runs: 1249
Hits: 2452
HR: 382
RBI: 1451
AVG: .298
OBP: .352
SLG: .502
If Jim Rice was in the Hall of Fame, among left fielders, he would have the seventh-best batting average, the eight-best hit total, the sixth-most home runs, the seventh-best RBI total, the fifth-highest average, the ninth-best on-base percentage and the seventh-highest slugging percentage. Since this would be a group of 10 players, Jim Rice would be in the bottom of the group in these seven important categories.
There's not one thing Jim Rice did in his career which would place him in the top half of left fielders in the Hall of Fame.
1978, Jim Rice led the American League with a 158 OPS+. Here are the top 10 seasons of OPS+ for Jim Rice:
158, 154, 148, 141, 137, 131, 128, 123, 123, 121.
That's very impressive. In Jim Rice's 10th-best season, he was still 21% better than a league-average player. How does that compare to our group of Hall of Fame left fielders?
Brock
146, 128, 124, 123, 119, 115, 114, 112, 111, 109
Kiner
184, 184, 173, 156, 146, 140, 132, 121, 117, 116
Medwick
180, 156, 151, 142, 140, 132, 131, 128, 123, 119
Musial
200, 183, 182, 180, 176, 175, 172, 169, 167, 166
Simmons
176, 176, 171, 159, 149, 145, 142, 136, 130, 129
Stargell
187, 187, 168, 164, 164, 163, 158, 147, 144, 139
B.Williams
170, 157, 147, 147, 139, 136, 130, 130, 127, 122
T. Williams
235, 233, 217, 215, 205, 201, 192, 189, 189, 178
Yaz
195, 178, 171, 156, 148, 141, 139, 137, 126, 124
Eight of the nine Hall of Fame left fielders had better seasons than the one posted by Jim Rice in his big 1978 season. Even if we take out Stan Musial and Ted Williams, the other six players posted 18 seasons better than Jim Rice and his 1978 campaign.
Jim Rice was one of the best players in the game from 1975-79. But he did not remain an elite player for a long enough time to reach the milestones that normally merit induction into the Hall of Fame. Also, the peak that Jim Rice enjoyed was not as impressive as other left fielders already enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And finally, Jim Rice was a one-dimensional slugger who enjoyed an extreme home field advantage. Fenway Park turned Jim Rice into a lifetime .546 slugger. In neutral road parks, Jim Rice posted just a .459 slugging mark. And that's not good enough for the Hall of Fame
Those were only the highlights of a great article. Now you don't have to rely on only my "expertise."
24 - Mark Saleski
i know that baseball can be a stats game, but honestly, if you want to take it to extremes...just get rid of the hall of fame voting. just come up with a set of hall of fame numbers and then stick to it. no nuances, no intangibles...just pure numbers.
why, we should tear down the actual building too. and forget that stupid induction ceremony..the only thing necessary is a little asterisk next to the player's name.
sheesh.
25 - Tony
That's a ridiculous statement. The point of statistical analysis is to separate perception for reality. A player like Tim Raines -- with better numbers than Rice -- is overlooked because he played in Montreal while Rice, and his average numbers, gets elected because his career was more recognizable playing Boston.
Stats are the great equalizer. No perceptions, no bias, just the pure production of the player.
Having a set plateau of statistics doesn't work because there are different standard for different players. If you're a slugger than you are compared to other sluggers. Base stealing specialists are compared by their own set of stats, as are contact hitters.
The point with Rice is that he is a slugger who just doesn't measure up. If he would have had those numbers but also stole a bunch of bases, won a gold glove, or got on base more, he would most likely be pushed over the edge but the fact is, as the article above says, he was one-dimensional and that one dimension doesn't hold up.
How can you even begin to understand the history of the game without statistical analysis? You never saw Ty Cobb play, so how do you know he was great? How about Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner, or Cap Anson? How can we know anything about these guys since statistics are apparently irrelevant? '
We know they are great because they posted incredible numbers. Perceptions are limited to the scope of the perceiver. Statistics are a non-distortable, eternal testament, to what a player has accomplished.