Passion

Yeah, Sonic Youth doesn't age well.

When the crap is this damn movie getting a wide release?

Great football/playoff/Green Bay/Lambeau weather.

A couple good friends of mine from a few years back, and some other people:

Bombadil

Very different sounding...check em out. (If anyone lives in NC, or somewhere they're going on tour, their live show is awesome.)

I see they are playing at Hideaway BBQ on the 18th. Hideaway BBQ is awesome.

Really liked that sample song on their site too.

May have to go see them next Friday. I've been looking for a good place to take this other couple out with my wife and I and this could be a good match.

Thanks for the heads up.

Unlike many of his supporters (most of whom are Sox fans) who think it is the ultimate travesty if he doesn't get in.

Why do you keep bringing this crap up when having a discussion directed at me?

I've never insinuated that nor have I even brought up any conjecture or anything else to my stance that would make someone think that.

Don't you get on people all the time for making general, sarcastic statements based on the comments of a few?

This is why the board has dissolved a lot the past year to two years is because of pointless bickering about crap like that. I'm guilty of it too but man does it come to a head sometimes.

This discussion has gone in far too many circles now and is becoming repetitive.

Jumping into this thing a little late, but I've got a question for Fox. The 12 year stats that you cited from SoSH, doesn't it inherently favor someone who basically started at exactly the same time Rice did? Here are the stats:

1st in runs (1,098)

1st in hits (2,145)

1st in home runs (350)

1st in runs batted in (1,276)

1st in slugging percentage (.520)

1st in total bases (3,670)

1st in extra-base hits (752)

1st in go-ahead RBIs (325)

1st in multi-hit games (640)

4th in triples (73)

4th in batting average (.304)

1st in outfield assists (125)

In order for you to rank high on alot of these stats don't you have to have played in exactly these 12 seasons? Someone who played during only 10 seasons of that stretch or 8 seasons would be at a serious disadvantage, even if they were better. Or they perhaps had great seasons just outside of this time frame that are excluded from that list. So, alot of the stats on this list that arn't rate statistics (which is basically everything but SLG and BA) are really to Rice's advantage. I'd be curious to see how many other AL batters played during all 12 of these seasons.

I haven't put much thought into Rice's candidacy myself so I don't have a bias one way or the other, but I find myself questioning how convincing these stats are without knowing how many other people he's legitimately competing against (people that played all 12 seasons).

Of course, I'm not trying to mask that either.

For a 12 year period, and a decent chunk of two decades, he led in all those stats.

They are what they are.

The fact that only Schmidt was beating him in a lot of those is telling to me.

Chances the REAL ID/National ID/whatever make us any safer: 0.

I don't see what the big deal is.

This will be a Godsend for me at work this year.

Thanks Cape.

Cumulative statistics is a drastically inferior approach because it does not emphasize consistency or the certainty that he could repeat the performance. The author took what I consider to be a flawed approach.

As for the HOF monitor, I know it exists but I don't believe in complicated metrics so I have never given it serious consideration or even have knowledge of all of the components taken into consideration.

So basically, anything I don't agree with is nonsense and has no place in the argument.

I placed a link that explains it. They aren't complicated and I'm sure someone as scholarly as yourself can take it in rather easily. Don't plead ignorance to sidestep a strong point in your opposing view's favor.

No.

It just shows how silly the ballpark argument is for or against someone.

Why is comparing him to Hall of Famers nonsensical? What is the standard then? What magical thing do we compare him to?

Of course there is no single answer to that. Why are you only evaluating Rice in comparison to the weaker players in the Hall for the criteria? Why not the better ones? Where do you set the line?

Some personal imput is certainly required but the Sons of Sam Horn are just as likely to skew the numbers as I am (so it is unfair to pretend that I am the only one who has a bias). Just by looking at the numbers I see about 6 or so seasons that I would consider to be stellar. Given the discrepancy between his home and away stats and his short career, I feel like his impact on the game during his era is drastically overstated.

I don't need to look at Kirby Puckett to tell me that, who isn't even a real contemporary to Rice. The OPS+ point has never been a part of my argument.

Black Ink: 33 (Likely HOFer ~27)

Gray Ink: 176 (~144)

HOF Monitor: 146.5 (>100)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/le...shtml#black_ink

Those were devised by Bill James, FWIW.

So use that.

Also, the stats I posted originally were not spun.

If anything SOSH is more likely to prove why he shouldn't get in as opposed to why he should. I see no spin in those 12 year cumulative numbers and his ranks in the AL.

Black Ink: 33 (Likely HOFer ~27)

Gray Ink: 176 (~144)

HOF Monitor: 146.5 (>100)

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/le...shtml#black_ink

Those were devised by Bill James, FWIW.

Murray: 127.9

Yount: 118.9

Winfield: 112.0

Schmidt: 155.3

Jackson: 112.8

Molitor: 102.9

Brett: 116.9

Puckett (in just 12 years): 91.5

Sandberg (only 14 full seasons): 113.1

Rice = 128.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but I can't imagine Molitor's OPS+ being only 102 after his first 16 seasons, unless his final 5 seasons of 138, 101, 116, 104, 86 raised his OPS+ 20 points, unless, of course, you are counting his 38 in 46 AB as a full seaosn in your calculations.

Puckett's OPS+ is 124 for his career. I'm not sure where you are getting these numbers at all.

I f***ed up.

Thats a WARP-3 list and doesn't help Rice's cause.

My mistake. :lol

No.

It just shows how silly the ballpark argument is for or against someone.

Why is comparing him to Hall of Famers nonsensical? What is the standard then? What magical thing do we compare him to?

I don't think a handful of those players should be in the HOF either. Especially Puckett. However, it is highly fallacious to reduce the HOF standards of admission to the fact that Kirby Puckett slipped in.

Rice doesn't just beat Puckett on that list.

Again say what you want about the intangibles but he did not hit nearly as well out of Boston, this is fact:

Home: .320/.374/.546

Away: .277/.330/.459

While I don't think the IBB/fear argument is the definitive way of discrediting how he was perceived around the league, I give much more credence to its statistical basis than I would to a quote delivered by another borderline HOF player who is highly unlikely to throw another player under the bus. Given the drastic difference in home and away figures of his BA, OBP, and SLG (and IBB) one can still extrapolate some understanding of how he was perceived outside of Boston. I will always give such analysis more credit than overly sentimental quotes issued by retired ballplayers.

Well, if you don't "get" the longevity thing, I don't get your assertion that he was the best hitter in the AL for 12 years. He was only in the top 10 of the AL for OPS six times. BA, six times. OBP, twice. Home runs, seven.

Most of those seasons overlap in terms of performance. As I said earlier, he had several years of dominant performance (albeit he only dominated in Boston), so he didn't have a long, meaningful career. Check out his home/away splits for his 1978 MVP season:

Home: .361/.416/.690/1.106

Away: .269/.325/.512/.837

Staggering, no?

He's just one of those guys that was outstanding and at the top of his game for a brief period (if you ignore the home/away discrepancy), but really wasn't good enough for long enough to be immortalized in the Hall of Fame. Any number of capital letters is not going to convince me otherwise. The numbers don't lie.

Murray: 127.9

Yount: 118.9

Winfield: 112.0

Schmidt: 155.3

Jackson: 112.8

Molitor: 102.9

Brett: 116.9

Puckett (in just 12 years): 91.5

Sandberg (only 14 full seasons): 113.1

Rice = 128.

Thoughts?

Also, nothing has ever convinced you ever on this board penguino, so why would it now?

You thought the Marlins could get Salty for Willis straight up no matter how silly it was.

I've never been a fan of condemning a guy for playing in a hitter friendly park. You could easily argue that Rice had a lot of HRs robbed by playing in Fenway. I could also argue that if Rice played for the Twins for his career we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd be able to see his plaque this summer.

OPS+ is not adjusted for era. It is adjusted against that player's league for that year.

Which is, of course, what I meant. If he has a 128 OPS+ for his career, he was 14% better, as a hitter, than the league he played in. That is, sort of, era adjusted.

If you don't like OPS+, you can use WARP3, which takes into account park, era, league, defense, speed, etc.

That has Rice at a 83.0

Dewey has a 120, and that only takes into account an extra 20 wins or so for his defense over Rice's.

It isn't.

You wanted to compare a player who played in the 70s OPS+ to those in the 90s and 00s when power and offensive numbers went through the roof. You can't do it.

The whole league's OSP went through the roof, didn't it? So a player in the 90's with a 128 OPS+ was as good, relative to his league, as Rice in 1970, right?

Its still inflated and doesn't change that the 90s and 00s were far easier offensive times then when Rice played.

But if he was the best hitter of his era, wouldn't that show itself in his OPS+, which compares him only to his own peers?

I was only talking about OPS+'s usage in comparing him to modern day hitters.

I could go on a diatribe about how OPS+ is flawed if you really want me to. :mischief

Other HOF hitters of Rice's era in their first 16 years (Rice's career span)

Murray: 127.9

Yount: 118.9

Winfield: 112.0

Schmidt: 155.3

Jackson: 112.8

Molitor: 102.9

Brett: 116.9

Puckett (in just 12 years): 91.5

Sandberg (only 14 full seasons): 113.1

Well, that isn't a fair comparison. Barry Bonds was the best player in any era, no matter who was playing concurrently.

Look, I'm willing to concede that he is a hall of famer if the rest of the world never subjects me to the "most feared hitter" thing. I hate that phrase.

"When Rice stepped to the plate, mothers had to cover their children's eyes for fear they would be scarred. The bullpen pitchers literally wet themselves when the phone rang and he was due up. Defenders threw down their gloves and cowered at their positions when he swung his mighty, 87 ounce bat."

:stare at the Bonds comment but anyways pretty unfair to even bring that "most feared hitter" thing up considering I never did.

I think I earn a bit of respect in the context of this message board that I don't have to be grouped in with that nonsense.

OPS+ is not adjusted for era. It is adjusted against that player's league for that year.

Which is, of course, what I meant. If he has a 128 OPS+ for his career, he was 14% better, as a hitter, than the league he played in. That is, sort of, era adjusted.

If you don't like OPS+, you can use WARP3, which takes into account park, era, league, defense, speed, etc.

That has Rice at a 83.0

Dewey has a 120, and that only takes into account an extra 20 wins or so for his defense over Rice's.

It isn't.

You wanted to compare a player who played in the 70s OPS+ to those in the 90s and 00s when power and offensive numbers went through the roof. You can't do it.

The whole league's OSP went through the roof, didn't it? So a player in the 90's with a 128 OPS+ was as good, relative to his league, as Rice in 1970, right?

Its still inflated and doesn't change that the 90s and 00s were far easier offensive times then when Rice played.

I'm not so sure I agree with the best hitter in the league for 12 years.

He lead his league in OPS+ once in his career. He was the best over a 12 year period, mostly because better players than him weren't around for those 12 years.

:lol

...so over that 12 year period he was still the best in the AL.

"Barry Bonds was the best player of the 90s"

"Well, only because Alex Rodriguez wasn't there for all of it"

C'mon.

OPS+ is not adjusted for era. It is adjusted against that player's league for that year.

Which is, of course, what I meant. If he has a 128 OPS+ for his career, he was 14% better, as a hitter, than the league he played in. That is, sort of, era adjusted.

If you don't like OPS+, you can use WARP3, which takes into account park, era, league, defense, speed, etc.

That has Rice at a 83.0

Dewey has a 120, and that only takes into account an extra 20 wins or so for his defense over Rice's.

It isn't.

You wanted to compare a player who played in the 70s OPS+ to those in the 90s and 00s when power and offensive numbers went through the roof. You can't do it.

Just merely pointing out how he was perceived outside of Boston by his opponents as some are indicating that he was one of the most dominant players of the era. Say what you want about the IBB argument, but that does not alter the fact that his OPS was 131 points lower on the road than at Fenway, which I consider to be pretty substantial.

Also given his short career, it seems like he only had about 5 or 6 truly excellent seasons while the rest were far less impactful. I place great emphasis on long, meaningful careers. Rice might have been an excellent power hitter for a time in an era where power was more subdued, but that isn't enough for me to consider him more than a borderline HOFer.

I can throw quotes like this out:

"I think Jim Rice does belong in the Hall of Fame," Gossage said. "No hitter scared me, but Jim Rice came the closest."

But its meaningless to me and proves nothing. It does eliminate you saying he was only perceived a certain way in Boston.

I again don't get the longevity thing. HE WAS THE BEST HITTER IN THE AL FOR 12 YEARS.

You're one of the best players in your era you deserve to be in the Hall especially when you compare him to player's of today that may be by and large roiding up. Makes his power numbers look even better.

Yes.

When he was 3rd in MVP voting his rookie year, he also was playing around Fred Lynn who had a really good season and won the MVP.

Rice's road numbers are very underwhelming.

Don't get me wrong...a case can certainly be made for his induction but at the same time I don't think it is absurd that he has been repeatedly denied admission.

For what it's worth, this was posted by Baseball Prospectus:

[...]Addressing the notion that Hall of Fame candidate Jim Rice was "feared" and tying it into the great disparities in his home and away production, we find that managers of the day understood that such fears?-if they did, in fact, exist--should be limited primarily to Boston. As Vegas Watch points out, he was not among the leaders in intentional walks received during the course of his career. In fact, he had about half of those received by Mike Schmidt, George Brett, and Ted Simmons, and less than Leon Durham in spite of 4,000 more PA. More telling, though, is the dichotomy between his home and road IBB: 50 to 27, respectively. The managers of Rice's day might not have come right out and said it, and they might not have even consciously thought it, but instinctively they understood that outside of Boston they were not facing one of the great offensive bogeymen of the day. This intentional walk split certainly suggests that explanation, anyway, given that Schmidt and Brett's home/road ratios were much more even.

Since Rice's numbers do not come up to Hall of Fame standards, voters predisposed to give him the nod are left looking for intangibles such as this so-called fear factor. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that even this is a concoction of memory.

Who even brought up the 'fear factor'? I brought up a mountain of numbers which have been countered with very little.

IBB are a dumb way to quantify 'fear' anyways. You'd have to factor in the fact that you can pitch around a guy, who is playing around the player, the situation during the game, etc.