The Hall of Fame once again embarrasses itself with the election of Jim Rice
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.”…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - REMF(MCH)
I will always value the opinions of Goose Gossage, Peter Gammons and Joe Morgan over someone like Tony Tobis.
Any day.
27 - Tony
And that is your right but here's the thing; Rice's OBP isn't an opinion, its a fact. So is his slugging percentage, his OPS+, the number of times he grounded into double plays, his zero gold gloves, and all of the other statistics that prove he's not a Hall of Famer.
So, like I said, value which ever opinion you would like. Even better, look at his statistics and formulate your own opinions. While I do have an opinion that Rice is not a Hall of Famer the point of this piece, and this discussion, is not the conclusion; it is the process by which that conclusion was reached.
I, and many baseball experts (see the two articles Matt and I listed) objectively analyzed the statistics and came to the conclusion that he is not a Hall of Famer. Rice supporters, because of their emotional attachment to the player, formulate their opinions based on what? Their own perceptions? The opinion of someone else?
I guess it's a matter of where you like to draw your information from. I, personally, prefer conclusions drawn from statistical analysis that are objective and non bias. Some of you apparently prefer the latter options and that's your right.
I feel like those of us who have argued against his induction have the intellectual upper hand as our conclusions stem from fact, rather than emotion, but then, that too is a matter of opinion.
28 - REMF(MCH)
"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..."
- Tony
Actually it was Peter Gammons whom I quoted regarding the comparison to Sandy Koufax and Pedro Martinez, along with the smaller window.
Let me know when you win THREE National Sports Writer of the Year awards, Tobis. Then perhaps I'll take you seriously.
29 - Tony
Again, you don't have to take me seriously. Just look at the stats -- its hard not to take facts seriously. I'm really not worried about whether someone who -- instead of formulating thoughts of his own -- merely parrots the opinions of other people, thinks I'm a credible source on baseball.
I respect Peter Gammons very much but on this particular issue I happen to believe he is wrong. It's not hard to find a number of writers with similar credentials who are like minded.
Nice to see I struck a chord with some Boston fans. You people always take your baseball so personally. All those years of losing really jaded you all. Your team has won two World Series Championships in the past few years, lighten up all ready. Baseball is supposed to be fun.
30 - Mark Saleski
How can you even begin to understand the history of the game without statistical analysis?
i never suggested this. my point surrounded the idea of only using statistics, which i think would be wrong.
31 - Tony
One final note on the Gammons quote:
Koufax is much different from Rice. First of all arthritis ended his career, not his inability to play anymore. Secondly, Koufax retired when he was still dominate, not a shadow of what he once was. Finally, Koufax, in his big stretch, was dominate on a historical level. Rice was not. His numbers were very good for the 1970's but not much compared to the greatest of all time.
When a player's career is cut short you must defer to stats like OBP, OPS, OPS+, RC, and Win Shares to understand their true value, as you won't have longevity stats.
Koufax posted a 2.76 ERA, a 1.106 WHIP, a 131 ERA+, and struck out 2396 in 2324.3 innings for his career.
These are not longevity stats, yet they are career stats that testify to Koufax's dominance.
Rice falls flat on his face in this frame of reference.
Pedro is similar. A 2.91 ERA (in a massive offensive period), a 1.051 WHIP, a 154 ERA +, and 3117 strikeout in 2782.7 innings.
Their dominate spans aside, these players, with short careers, posted Hall of Fame caliber stats for their careers. Rice did not. How much more clear can that be?. Love Gammons, but he was speaking with his heart.
32 - REMF(MCH)
"I don't care how hurt he played; lots of players play hurt."
Just for the sake of credibility Tobis, what are your personal experiences of playing in pain?
33 - Tony
Well I was only a high school athlete but I pitched a heavy load of innings on a lot of pain killers with a trashed shoulder that I can barely lift now, had osgood slaughteras as kid that ruined my knees and left massive calcium deposits on them. I shattered two bones in my left writ and three bones in my right hand on separate occasions playing football. At one point I cut my cast off and wore a pad so I wouldn't lose my position.
All that is pretty meaningless and embarrassing to talk about because lots of people were good at high school sports. The point is, that while playing in pain is extremely admirable its not a Hall of Fame worthy attribute. You know he played in pain because he was popular but how many guys just trying to hang on play with terrible pain so they don't lose their positions or their roster spots. Most ball players play with pain.
34 - Mark Saleski
stats only: does mcquire get in?
35 - Mark Saleski
by the way, here's an interesting article in support of subjectivity with regard to the hall of fame.
i'd never read the voting guidelines before, but this was interesting:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which he played."
36 - Tony
Stats only he gets in. Obviously he's known as a slugger. Well, over his career, you've got the 583 home runs and 1414 RBIs which are very good. His .588 slugging percentage is 9th all time so that obviously would elude to election.
Beyond these stats, he has a surprising .393 OBP, due in large part to his high walk totals (the mark of a truly feared hitter). His OPS is .982 which is 11th all time, one ahead of Mantle, and his OPS+ of 162 is good enough for 12th all time, 165 spots ahead of Rice, and also higher than Mays, Speaker, Mize, and Musial.
Based on these numbers I don't see how he wouldn't be elected had he not destroyed his reputation in front of Congress.
37 - Tony
A certain level of subjectivity will always be present but this year 28 voters didn't vote for Henderson. If that is not proof enough of the ineptitude of this voting body I don't know what is. People can argue about Rice all they want but try to make any argument that Henderson doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame and you're credibility goes to 0.
The point is that the voting should be subjected to the whims of the press and popular trends. There should be a constant strive to recognize only the greatest that have played the game. Ignoring a mountain of stats with no counter argument isn't being subjective, its being lazy.
Players look better when you see them in person. There is no way you can quantify, with your eyes, run production, and statistical contributions to wining, by seeing a few games.
I grew up watching Trammel and Whitaker and, based on what I saw, those guys definitely looked like Hall of Famers. I would take Tram over Larkin or Ozzie Smith any day, based on my emotioal attachement to the player, or my perceptions of him when he played. I could say the same thing about Jack Morris. I mean, I actually took a piss between him and Mark Fydrich at the last game at Tiger Stadium. I love those guys. But when you analyze the stats their (Morris, Whitake, Trammel) arguments get foggy.
While those guys were definitely great players, and the '83 Tigers was one of the most dominate teams in history, that still doesn't make those men Hall of Famers.
If they continue to let borderline players into the Hall, it will become so diluted it will lose its meaning. Unless you've visited the place and actually seen the plaques of all of baseballs legends, I don't think you can get a true sense of how historically important this is to the game.
38 - REMF(MCH)
"One final note on the Gammons quote:....Love Gammons, but he was speaking with his heart."
How dare Peter Gammons disagree with the great Tony Tobins.
I think the real "travesty" is that Tobins keeps getting overlooked as National Sports Writer of the Year....
39 - Tony
I'm sorry. You must be a member of the Church of Gammons. I didn't mean to insult your faith. I know that your bible is essentially everything Gammons says, and you guys repeat it in unison to organ music, right?
If there is honestly a single commentator is any forum that you agree with %100 of the time you need to learn to formulate some original thoughts.
You're right buddy, I'm just a nobody who likes to write about baseball. But that's one of the greatest things about the game; a nobody like me can analyze and understand a players statistics and always strive to learn more about the game.
40 - El Bicho
Considering players play with different players against different players and in different ball parks, the idea that there's no bias in the numbers isn't completely accurate.
41 - Tony
There are always going to be some variables in statistics but they are far more accurate then the "I saw him play" analysis.
If you research OPS+, ERA+, Runs Created, RC/G, and OWP (offensive winning percentage) and you will see there are far less variables in statistics than there use to be.
These stats are specifically adjusted to quantify individual contributions by the player.
That's why Rice's OPS+ is so low; its park adjusted for Fenway and adjusted for the league he played in.
42 - Tony
"Ironically during Rice's press conference at Fenway Park on Monday he took the writers to task, lecturing, "When you're talking about a Hall of Famer, let's base his numbers on what he accomplished during that time.""
You guys are arguing with Jim Rice himself. Let the numbers speak for themselves.
43 - Tony
El Bicho, if you're at all interested in those statistics I go more in depth into them in my "Year of the Leadoff Hitter" article. Not to self promote but, because Raines and Henderson rank extremely high in many of these categories the info is there.
The article is linked on this page.
44 - REMF(MCH)
"I'm really not worried about whether someone who -- instead of formulating thoughts of his own -- merely parrots the opinions of other people, thinks I'm a credible source on baseball."
- Tony Tobins, AFTER posting two national articles, from the LA Times and AP (#22 & 23), to support his claim.
Hypocrite.
45 - Christopher Rose
MCH, reading through your dialogue with Tony I notice you are displaying a familiar pattern of attacking the man, not the argument. We all know where that leads so knock it off now before it gets ugly.
Christopher Rose
Comments Editor
46 - kenH
Tony,
Again I read your study of Jim Rice and you base a lot of it in using statistics that were not important to the game of baseball in the 70's and 80's OPS Runs Created and all the others. Statistics are not the end all to judge someones body of work, it is one of the sticks used. There is no all encompasing stats that can be used. If you were to breakdown Carl Yaz vs Jim in just 2 catagories quickly for example Jim Ed hit .298 to Yaz's .285 and avg 24 hrs to Yaz's 20. I am not going to break down every stat but this is just to show did Yaz get in because he was a great player or because he played a long time and put up avg yearly numbers longer than most?
I don't hope to change your mind or anyone elses on Jim Ed its obvious that the criteria you use is different than others. I don't mean to put down your criteria or the numbers that you and many others put up and because of our age difference I hope that you don't find that I was condescending. I wasn't trying to do that, but there are a number of different views that go into the choices that one makes. That doesnt make you wrong or me right or the voters right. Your decision to vilify those who believe that Jim Ed belongs in the HOF and question their decision is what I question? I agree with you that the Hall Of Fame is sacred. I have visited it and took my family, I have daughters your age. Again that isn't to put down your views.
There is not an emotional attachment to Jim Ed, Dwight Evans was my favorite player growing up not Jim Ed and while I realize Dwight was an outstanding player he is not HOF caliber. Life is not cut and dry and not all the voters used your criteria to vote or not vote someone in again Tony that doesnt make them wrong, unfortunately that is what I and many others gather from your argument. I have followed baseball all my life yet I don't follow it as I used to and I fail to follow all of the new statistics that you sight. My view of the game is different than yours, but our love of the game is no different. Its a game, a game to be revered, but the HOF is a place to remember the greats of the game and as long as humans are voting there will be questions? Why wasn't Rickey Henderson unanimous, I didn't care for him as a person but I admired his abilities and he should have been unanimous. I don't want to pick on others and point out those I question but to me that is what makes the HOF great, we should debate it and with passion, and in the end agree to disagree and slap each other on the back. I don't get that feeling from you Anthony unless I use ur statistics to prove my point I and all the other Jim Rice voters are wrong.
I have never written on a blog before this is my first time so you can at least know I felt strong enough about my beliefs to write. I could come up with stats to show this belief as well as you and others can to show yours.
You can watch on ESPN classic and the other stations you want but that doesn't mean that you get the feel of the game for that time and what that player meant to the game at that time.
Whenever someone would use the words of a contemporary you would shoot them down? I would hope the words of people who played with someone and against them mean something.
Louis Tiant has numbers comparable to Jim Catfish Hunter. Jim Hunter got in fairly quickly while Louis never got a sniff, but Jim was a big game pitcher and so was Louis see his 75WS performance. I find it good that we can debate it but don't put down the system because you don't agree with one result, though I agree with your statement what changes over the 15yrs that made Jim Rice a HOF that didnt make him one earlier.
The baseball HOF is the best of the bunch but is it perfect, no? Can we make it perfect, no. To be truthfull I don't want it perfect because the game itself isn't perfect. Good luck to you Anthony
47 - Tony
Thanks for the well wishes. I found even the more personal attacks on this blog to be fun because essentially its all about baseball, which means its all in good fun.
Again though, you come to this you have to have lived through it to know it argument but I'm very sure you, as a baseball fan, are well aware of the greatness that players before your time possessed. You're aware of this greatness, mostly through the stats they produced.
We'll never see eye to eye on the debate because the debate is not really about Rice, its more about what qualifies a Hall of Famer and which is the best technique to analyze players. Rice is just so controversial that he embodies this debate. This being said, I respect the esoteric way you look at the game.
I just really don't understand why Rice can't simply be recognized as a really good player who just wasn't quite Hall of Fame caliber. There are many players throughout history like that.
You spoke about Dwight Evans, well look at his stats:
Evans: 385 home runs, .370 OBP, 127 OPS+
Lynn: 306 home runs, .360 OBP, 129 OPS+
Rice: 382 home runs, .352 OBP, 128 OPS +
Evans was arguably the best of the three.
You also cited Yaz. Yes he is rewarded because he was able to stay very good for a long time, unlike Rice. That is part of being a Hall of Famer. Prolonged greatest, with a few exceptios.
Yaz has 3,419 hits, 452 home runs, a 129 OPS+, and a .379 OBP. Much better than Rice. He also played a part of his career in an era with a massive pitchers advantage. Yaz also never struck out 100 times in a season, and had 2145 Runs Created vs. Rice with 1384. That's 6.0 RC/g vs. yaz with 6.3.
Yaz is a Hall of Famer, Rice is not.
Don't think for a second I don't respect your arguement though; I just love to debate baseball.
As for whats his name who said I'm a hypocrite, you've mistaken giving supporting evidence with constructing your entire argument around the words of others. Easy mistake, no problem
48 - Tony
I would also ask you to reconsider whether those stats were important to the game or not back then and earlier. Go back to the John Mcgraw, Willie Keeler, Joe Kelley Baltimore teams of the 1890s. The skills they displayed and the game they played translated into high OBP and high OPS, whether they knew it or not. Whether or not the emphasis in the 70s was on home runs and RBIs is meaningless. By that standard Dave Kingman would be a Hall of Famer.
Take a look at Cobb's stats, or even Mantles. While these guys obviously weren't thinking in these terms, they understood that getting on base frequently and playing sound fundamental baseball translates to wins. It also happens to translate to high marks in the stats I've cited.
49 - REMF(MCH)
Yeah, you're right Chris.
It's not worth it - the most important thing is that Jim Rice is going into the Hall of Fame.
Pointing out hypocrisy has never stopped little people from trying to tear down big people in the past, and my personal attacks are not going to stop it now...
50 - Tony
Hey, nothing you said bothered me, although I can't say it added much subsstance to the discussion, but then, I guess that's the point isn't it.
51 - Tony
I think a little REMF shared a tear with Jim Rice in his 1978 MVP year, when they both watched Bucky's shot sore over the wall in that classic tiebreaker game. Since that day he has vowed to attack any and all who dare speak critically of any member of the "red sox nation."
Kind of funny what a disaster Rice's MVP season was for the Red Sox. Big time collapse, big time heartbreak, no playoffs.
52 - Jet
At the risk of looking stupid, I once had a boss who referred to himself as a REMF, then changed it to HNIC, since I have only a vague idea of what he said they stand for, are the two interchangeable?
53 - Brandon Valentine
Tony,
Great article and discussion. As a Red Sox fan and collector of HOF autographs, I was happy to see Jim Rice enter the Hall--especially considering I already have his autograph. However, after reading your comments, Rice entering the Hall presents compelling arguments for Raines, Mattingly, Trammel, Larkin, and Alomar--all of which I'd say won't make the cut. McGriff and Martinez will eventually enter (not first ballot but eventually). How does Rice compare to Dave Kingman (another non-Hall of Famer)?
54 - Tony
Kingman's only redeeming quality is his home run total. 442 is a pretty solid number, but the rest of his stats fall very short. He is maybe the best example of how invaluable a home run really is over the course of a 600 at bat season.
There are though, many non-Hall of Famers Rice falls short of, some of whom are listed in the article or discussion above. I would say the best person to look at -- aside from the fact that I wrote about him -- is Dick Allen, a player who was literally last on the veterans ballot and yet has elite statistics. In that same piece I also showed the comparisons to Santo, which are very close.
Ironically, as stated above, Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn also compare favorably to Rice with Evans having perhaps, better stats.
Bill James, in his Historical Abstract, cited Jim Rice as being one ranking ahead of Roy White in all around ability, factoring in his variety of sabermetric statistics. Charlie Keller is a similar player who was good for about the same time period Rice was, and yet posted better stats in many categories.
Baseball-reference.com is perhaps the most useful tool on the web to learn about players, different statistics, and different factors that affect both.
Thank you very much for the compliment on the article and I too have enjoyed the discussion.
55 - Tony
Also, you shouldn't lump Raines in with that group of borderline players. I wrote a lot about this in a previous article but look at his stats:
.385 OBP, .810 OPS, 123 OPS+ 808 steals with the best success percentage of all time. He is also stellar in the sabermetric stats with 1626 Runs Created, 6.6 RC/G, and a OWP (offensive winning percentage) of .665. Finally, other than Henderson, he has far more home runs than any other play in the top 10 all time for steals. Rock was a rare combination of speed, intelligence, and power and his statistics support that.
Compare that to Rice: .352 OBP, .854 OPS, 128 OPS+ (remember park and league adjusted), 1384 Runs Created, 6.0 RC/G, and an OWP of .627.
It pure value to his team, Rice falls way short of Raines. He was also far more one dimensional.
56 - REMF(MCH)
Jet;
Was your old boss a soul bruvva?
HMFWIC is another of my favorites.
57 - alessandro
Ok, let's pretend I'm Tony Reali.
Tony, for mentioning Raines you're getting the point.
"Feared" is one of those perception-based terms we see so often in sports like "chemistry in the locker room," "clutch" and "look in their eyes."
For what it's worth, didn't he ground into a lot of double plays?
#52: Hockey Night In Canada?
Great thread guys.
58 - Tony
"and grounded into 315 double plays, poor enough for 6th on the all-time list."
59 - alessandro
REMF,
"Pointing out hypocrisy has never stopped little people from trying to tear down big people in the past, and my personal attacks are not going to stop it now..."
Aside from auditioning for the Hall of Justice (or Justice League. Go Aquaman!) what planet are you from? What hypocrisy did you point out? Save this stuff for the politics section where it often degrades itself into gibberish like this.
Please, Tony took you to lunch.
You made it personal and got clocked. It was a great discussion - one of the better ones in terms of sticking to the topic.
It's like the politics section here at BC, a person writes a thoughtful article, people present facts and then all hell breaks loose because one clown goes personal. They go nuts like Jack Torrance.
Advice: ignore those who go personal.
60 - Christopher Rose
This has already been dealt with by those whose responsibility it is, Alessandro, so please just go about your own business without worrying about it...
61 - Tony
Alessandro,
I appreciate the comments. While his attack did get a little overly personal, I think it, at the very least, served to illustrate the passion with which some fans will fight for a player they love, regardless of the stats.
It did begin to feel a bit like the politics section for a minute there but when you look up and see the "Sports" moniker you just have to laugh.
62 - alessandro
And Suss, you get the mute button for bringing in The Cat.
True story: I was sitting behind near the on deck circle with my girlfriend at an Expos game one year. Out comes "The Cat' who was more like "The Slug" by then to stand on deck. As he looked around for chicks, you know because there were only a few thousand fans in the crowd, he spotted her and winked.
We looked at each other and laughed it was so obvious. The guy kept eying her as if I wasn't there.
Why the noive.
If I had a vote he wasn't getting it.
I jest, but thats why subjectiveness can be a dangerous thing.
63 - alessandro
Chris,
You're something else you know that?
64 - Tony
He actually brought up "The Cat's" stats to illustrate how similar they were to Rice. Very few will make an argument for Andres to get in and yet his stats are nearly the same as Jim's and he too played in a park with a big offensive advantage.
65 - alessandro
Tony,
You're right about fans but he was arguing passion while you (and Suss) were presenting facts.
I was waiting for REMF to tell me otherwise but he presented quotes from Morgan and Gammons of all people!
But he's entitled to it. Jim Rice is an interesting specimen and I can see why fans loved him.
However, as you showed, man, those numbers are truly frustrating. They don't match the reputation.
66 - Christopher Rose
I do indeed, Alessandro, thanks for noticing!
Seriously, as you can see, Tony didn't allow himself to get sucked in by the inappropriate remarks and the whole incident was closed - until you re-opened it. Thanks for displaying some maturity, Tony.
67 - alessandro
Chris, again. I'm left speechless. Nice little jab. Impressive.
Tony, with apologies.
68 - Tony
I thought of a great example of the importance of sabermetric statistics that should appease Red Sox fans. Take a player like Kevin Youkilis. One of the most valuable players on any team, without these new forms of statistical analysis this would be an over looked player. Examine his stat line from last season.
.312/29/115
On the surface a very good season but nothing spectacularly noteworthy.
But his.....
.390 OBP, .857 OPS, and 142 OPS+ show this was actually a much better season that his base numbers or perceptions may indicate.
Add on his 120 Run Created, his huge 8.1 RC/G, his .712 OWP and his 306 total bases and the extreme value this player possesses is evident. Not as "feared" as Ortiz but arguably more valuable.
Again, without in depth examination of Kevin's productivity he would be viewed as an average ball player but he is an expert at the variables that most affect a team's win loss record. Regardless of what your eyes might tell you.
69 - steve
rice ripken gwynn u cant compare them to allen thats a joke allen was a mega superstar aaron mays great now when ur talking ricky h. thats a superstar guys like santo grote donny baseball not even close to allen get serious there is a difference btween a and b players allen A PLUS just remember from 64 to 74 the highest paid and greatest in the world thats along time to b king most feared 1 day allen will get in and if he dont well he is still top 5 dead or alive greatest player in the history of baseball
70 - Logey
When Jim Rice retired there were 8 players with more HR and a higher BA. Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth , Willie Mays, Jimmie Foxx, Ted Williams, Mel Ott, Lou Gehrig, and Stan Musial. I know his OBP and OPS+ but they aren't even close to the lowest in the HOF. His OPS+ is higher than HOFers like Puckett, Ripken, Banks, Perez, and Yount. I also read someone saying a .502 SLG was bad that is 32nd in the HOF above guys like George Brett, Ernie Banks, Eddie Murray, Reggie Jackson, and Dave Winfield.
71 - Tony
The thing is with Rice, you have to judge him totally as a slugger because that is all he did and that is all he was known for.
OPS+ is more of a sluggers statistic and the guys you named essentially weren't sluggers or put up career numbers that make up for the lower OPS+, which Rice does not.
Lets look at them one by one:
Puckett: Kirby is definitely a borderline guy but there are differences between him and Rice. First you've got the .318 career batting average. His .360 OBP is also higher. While his OPS+ is four points lower than Rice's, Kirby was not a power guy. He has a 124 OPS+ with 175 less home runs. Kirby also never struck out 100 times in a season, grounded into far less double plays, and was a much better fielder, shown by his 6 gold gloves to Rice's 0.
Ripken: Cal basically has two things going for him; the streak and over 3,000 hits. If you get 3,000 hits you're in, like it or not. Cal also won two gold gloves. Does he really belong in without the 3,000 hits? Probably not. But there is no one with 3,000 hits not inducted.
Banks: Ernie is another one who gets in for reaching certain milestones. There is a big difference between having over 500 home runs and not reaching 400, especially if you're a power hitter. He also only struck out 100 times in a season once, won two MVPs, one gold glove, and played in a notorious pitchers era.
Perez: Shouldn't be in, but one mistake doesn't justify another.
Yount: He's got over 3100 hits, so again, he hit the milestone and gets elected.
The thing with Yount, and most of the other players you named, is that they are compared against others that played their position, not the entire Hall of Fame.
I'm not sure if this is how it should be but that's the perspective many voters take on their ballots. When you look at Rice against other left-fielders, or outfielders in general, he doesn't stack up.
Out of the players you named with lower OPS+ stats, only one -- Puckett -- was an outfielder and he was, at no time, known a big time slugger.
Concerning the slugging percentage citation, again, the players you named have other attributes that made them Hall of Famers. All Rice has are his power numbers, and looking at them from the perspective of his entire career, they really aren't that good.
72 - Logey
I never understood the longevity arguement. If Rice hung on 3 or 4 more years and was awful he would have gotten to 3000 hits and 400 HR. He would have probably been a first ballot guy then.
73 - Tony
Its not a monolithic argument. You either need to longevity stats or you need to have been exceptionally excellent for a period of time. Rice was neither as you can see from the statistics laid out in the piece and the ensuing discussion.
74 - BW
"The point of statistical analysis is to separate perception for reality"
Ok - here's some reality:
These no.s are for the leading hitters in (both) major leagues from 1975-86 - (just for fun I included A. Dawson and E. Murray 77-88 - fair since they like Rice had to play the partial 1981 season) and Chili Davis 1986-1997 - best 12 years - since he was mentioned. This list is sorted by OPS:
Actual Totals
Name, G, AB, R, H, DB, TR, HR, RBI, BB, TB, AVG, OB, SLG, OPS
M Schmidt, 1800, 6323, 1194, 1715, 313, 50, 440, 1221, 1181, 3448, .271, .386, .545, .931
G Brett, 1595, 6178, 1021, 1961, 405, 107, 207, 1103, 674, 3201, .317, .384, .518, .902
J Rice, 1766, 7060, 1098, 2145, 329, 73, 350, 1276, 560, 3666, .304, .355, .519, .874
E Murray, 1820, 6845, 1048, 2021, 351, 25, 333, 1190, 857, 3421, .295, .372, .500, .872
D Winfield, 1763, 6648, 1069, 1912, 331, 66, 282, 1147, 739, 3221, .288, .358, .485, .843
R Jackson, 1631, 5771, 886, 1506, 268, 25, 330, 1030, 809, 2814, .261, .353, .488, .841
K Hernandez, 1707, 6056, 966, 1830, 371, 56, 128, 898, 910, 2697, .302, .392, .445, .837
G Foster, 1637, 6066, 881, 1690, 258, 41, 321, 1114, 596, 2993, .279, .343, .493, .836
D Parker, 1652, 6368, 934, 1922, 378, 65, 239, 1050, 483, 3147, .302, .351, .494, .835
(C Davis), 1682, 5972, 889, 1653, 298, 13, 264, 1013, 902, 2769, .277, .369, .464, .833
C Cooper, 1656, 6525, 911, 1975, 371, 45, 224, 1030, 385, 3108, .303, .342, .476, .818
A Dawson, 1729, 6755, 987, 1912, 346, 76, 298, 1047, 418, 3304, .283, .328, .489, .817
B Madlock, 1549, 5681 , 778 , 1737, 30 , 26, 136, 744, 525, 2501, .306, .363, .440, .803
S Garvey, 1821, 7153, 935, 2121, 358, 34, 225, 1076, 390, 3222, .297, .332, .450, .782
P Rose, 1702, 6494, 948, 1919, 352, 44, 43, 613, 784, 2486, .296, .374, .383, .757
Now simply rank them according to totals and add up the rankings. Lowest number wins:
Notes:
1. Chili Davis is not included in the rankings since he's not a contemporary - his score (not very high as you can see) indicates where he would be if he were.
2. Triples aren't counted because they're such a rare event; if they were Rice and Brett would go up a notch or two since they both had a lot of them.
3. OB and BB's are included here - they're being factored in. Note that Rice is not last here despite all the talk about his "failure to get on base", he's 8th out of 14. and 2nd in runs scored.
Rankings
Name, G, AB, R, H, DB, TR, HR, RBI, BB, TB, AVG, OB, SLG, OPS, TOT
J Rice, 4, 2, 2, 1, 10, 0, 2, 1, 9, 1, 3, 8, 2, 3, 48
E Murray, 2, 3, 4, 3, 7, 0, 3, 3, 3, 3, 9, 5, 4, 4, 53
D Winfield, 5, 5, 3, 8, 9, 0, 7, 4, 6, 6, 10, 7, 9, 6, 55
M Schmidt, 3, 9, 1, 12, 11, 0, 1, 2, 1, 2, 13, 2, 1, 1, 59
G Brett, 13, 10, 5, 5, 1, 0, 11, 11, 7, 7, 1, 3, 2, 3, 79
S Garvey, 1, 1, 9, 2, 5, 0, 9, 6, 13, 5, 7, 13, 11, 13, 95
D Parker, 9, 8, 10, 6, 2, 0, 8, 7, 11, 8, 6, 10, 5, 9, 99
K Hrnndz, 10, 12, 7, 10, 3, 0, 13, 12, 2, 12, 5, 1, 12, 7, 106
A Dawson, 6, 4, 6, 9, 8, 0, 6, 8, 12, 4, 11, 14, 7, 11, 106
C Cooper, 8, 6, 11, 4, 4, 0, 10, 10, 14, 9, 4, 12, 10, 10, 112
P Rose, 7, 7, 8, 7, 6, 0, 14, 14, 5, 14, 8, 4, 14, 14, 122
G Foster, 11, 11, 13, 13, 14, 0, 5, 5, 8, 10, 12, 11, 6, 8, 127
R Jackson, 12, 13, 12, 14, 13, 0, 4, 9, 4, 11, 14, 9, 8, 5, 128
B Madlock, 14, 14, 14, 11, 12, 0, 12, 13, 10, 13, 2, 6, 13, 12, 146
(C Davis), 8, 12, 11, 14, 13, 0, 8, 11, 3, 11, 13, 6, 10, 10, 130
The conclusion is evident - Rice was indeed an elite hitter who, when compared to other Hall of Famers (Schmidt, E Murray, Brett and Winfield, not to mention Jackson) in an objective fashion is right there with them. The ONLY issue with him (and it's a legitimate one IMO), and why it took so long to be elected is longevity - this is basically his whole career, whereas the others named had good years before and after.
75 - Ethan
"Statistics are a non-distortable, eternal testament, to what a player has accomplished."
Well, not really. A player's statistics can suffer from simply playing the game correctly. Rice didn't go up to the plate looking to pad his numbers; he went up there trying to do the proper thing, situationally. Moving the runner over, hitting a ground ball, "sacrifices" that don't show up in the stats. And despite all that he had borderline HOF numbers. Jim Rice was feared, but he wasn't feared because of his numbers (no one at the time knew what his numbers were going to end up being), but because he would be up there doing what was needed to win. Rice won ball games, and losing ball games is what pitchers fear most.
"The point of statistical analysis is to separate perception [from] reality."
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's successful. Modern baseball statistical analysis, by "correcting" and "adjusting" for everything that (they say) skews stats, tells us how a player "would" do in a completely average ballpark (which doesn't exist) under completely average conditions
(which never existed) against no particular pitcher or set of pitchers. But, I submit to you, this is not "information" worth knowing.
But, let's play the numbers game, just for fun. We should compile a list of players who led their leagues over a period of 12 consecutive years in more than 10 significant offensive categories, just to see how many there are. I'll start the list: Jim Rice. Any more to add?