Jump to content

Jim Rice a HOFer?


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest FishFanInPA

Here's what i don't get....if you don't make it in on your first ballot, you shouldnt be in ever...what changes from year to year? Your stats dont obviously.....If there's a year where no one belongs then oh well....I wouldnt force people in just because there werent enough candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that I feel you've been using faulty logic. This is a solid example. I'm merely posting the facts and evaluating him based on his actual performance. I feel like I have successfully exposed several holes in his game that could warrant his exclusion from the HOF.

 

It is nonsensical to reduce this discussion by comparing him to players already in the Hall (as this discussion is about "should?" not "will?") and making baseless conjecture on what his career would have been like out of Boston. That gets us nowhere.

 

It is what it is.

 

You also ignore a lot of facts offered and seem to stick to certain lesser facts of your own. Also, comparing him to players currently in the Hall has its place in whether a guy "should" get in or not and not just "will" he get in or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something Firejoemorgan wrote regarding Don Mattingly. You can pretty much just exchange "Don Mattingly" for "Jim Rice" here, and it is basically the same thing.

 

Don Mattingly had some excellent baseballing years. But to me, a few excellent baseballing years does not get you into the Hall of Fame. It just doesn't. You have to be one of the very very best players in the game for a very long time. You have to be extraordinary. You have to get lucky and avoid injuries, yes, but once you avoid them, you have to excel, and you have to excel for a very long time. Mattingly just didn't play well enough, long enough. He just didn't. Neither, I think, did Jim Rice. Or Albert Belle. Jesus -- go look at Albert Belle's numbers from 1992 to 1998. The guy had a 193 OPS+ one year. He had 100 XBH in a season. He was a monster. He was to Mattingly what Mattingly was to Luis Polonia. But here's the thing: he was out of baseball at 33 because of injuries. So...he doesn't quite make it.

 

And yes, there's Kirby Puckett. (Shows you what some high-profile postseason moments do for you.) And yes, there's also like Phil Rizzuto and people like that whose numbers stink. But in my mind, you don't judge someone's candidacy based on "Who is the worst player currently in the HOF, and is Player X better than he?" If you judge any candidate for anything based on the lowest standards necessary for inclusion, you can keep finding reasons to include more and more people who might have one or two statistical categories that get their heads above those categorical waterlines, even if their overall package does not, and then you just keep re-centering the mean criteria lower and lower, and soon you have what Colin Cowherd would probably call a "Hall of Very Good." (And nobody wants Colin Cowherd to be right.)

 

In my opinion, you just base it on: do Player X's numbers show that he was one of the very best players in the game for a long time? Because there are a lot of guys who excel for 1-3 years and then kind of fade away. And the Hall should be reserved for the ones who don't fade away. Or, alternately, the guys whose careers were cut short for some tragic reason, but who were so insanely amazing at baseball -- so utterly and completely dominant -- that you cannot deny their outrageous shining brilliance. This is not Don Mattingly.

 

I would also point out that the criteria for inclusion should focus on the player's position, as well. It is a far tougher thing to be a dominant starting pitcher or great SS for ten years than it is to be a great first baseman. (If Pedro Martinez never threw another pitch after the 2002 season, it would have been hard to deny him entry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Yeah, Rice has an 83 WARP3.

 

Like I said, if he gets in, that's cool. If not, I would agree with that. The only thing I have a problem with is the "most feared hitter" thing and the people who say he is a "slam dunk garauntee should be in". He is the definition of borderline, and when I see people say he is a slam dunk, I feel it my civic duty to point out that he is anything but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that I feel you've been using faulty logic. This is a solid example. I'm merely posting the facts and evaluating him based on his actual performance. I feel like I have successfully exposed several holes in his game that could warrant his exclusion from the HOF.

 

It is nonsensical to reduce this discussion by comparing him to players already in the Hall (as this discussion is about "should?" not "will?") and making baseless conjecture on what his career would have been like out of Boston. That gets us nowhere.

 

It is what it is.

 

You also ignore a lot of facts offered and seem to stick to certain lesser facts of your own. Also, comparing him to players currently in the Hall has its place in whether a guy "should" get in or not and not just "will" he get in or not.

Oh, and Fox isn't doing the same thing? The statistics indeed can be spun, but I don't see any glaring omissions. And as I have already indicated, I find your second point to be rather fallacious.

 

I couldn't agree more with statistics can be spun but I still dont see how my second point is fallacious. I can see where you're coming from, but current HOFers are in for a reason (deserved it/those who decide who deserves it believed they deserved it) so if another player matches up favorably with guys who are Hall of Famers and people perceive to deserve to be Hall of Famers..... well.... then I can see a case to be made for those players to be in the Hall as well.

 

I do agree with this though from the previous page

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for using previous inductees as the primary standard for admission...assume that we do use players like Puckett (short, less than outstanding careers), just think of all of the mediocre talent that will be placed alongside of names like Cobb, Ruth, and Mays. Just because a mistake was made doesn't mean that borderline players should benefit. The voters should take the necessary measures to ensure that the same thing does not happen again.

 

I didnt say it should be the primary standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something Firejoemorgan wrote regarding Don Mattingly. You can pretty much just exchange "Don Mattingly" for "Jim Rice" here, and it is basically the same thing.

 

Don Mattingly had some excellent baseballing years. But to me, a few excellent baseballing years does not get you into the Hall of Fame. It just doesn't. You have to be one of the very very best players in the game for a very long time. You have to be extraordinary. You have to get lucky and avoid injuries, yes, but once you avoid them, you have to excel, and you have to excel for a very long time.

This is a junk article about a dude's opinion. Frankly, it's garbage. If this argument held any merit, Sandy Koufax [a man that ABSOLUTELY belongs in the HOF] would be on the outside looking in.

 

On the flip side, Paul Molitor was a very good player. He really was. If he had only played 12 seasons, his HOF candidacy wouldn't have gotten him past the first ballot. He was a very good player for 21 seasons, though. 21 seasons of very good was, evidentally, enough to allow him to pad his stats and get him into the HOF. Frankly, IMHO, he is outclassed. So there is a perfect example of why Firejomorgan's logic actually HURTS the HOF.

 

Molitor = Hall of Very Good.

 

Does his election open the door for Robbie Alomar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel it will be no horrible mistake to admit Rice, only that the Hall is not sorely missing him.

Pretty much my opinion on the subject. It looked like he needed some defending, though, because some of the stuff posted earlier made it sound like he had no business being on the ballot. I wanted to make it clear that he certainly has the resume for induction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something Firejoemorgan wrote regarding Don Mattingly. You can pretty much just exchange "Don Mattingly" for "Jim Rice" here, and it is basically the same thing.

 

Don Mattingly had some excellent baseballing years. But to me, a few excellent baseballing years does not get you into the Hall of Fame. It just doesn't. You have to be one of the very very best players in the game for a very long time. You have to be extraordinary. You have to get lucky and avoid injuries, yes, but once you avoid them, you have to excel, and you have to excel for a very long time.

This is a junk article about a dude's opinion. Frankly, it's garbage. If this argument held any merit, Sandy Koufax [a man that ABSOLUTELY belongs in the HOF] would be on the outside looking in.

 

On the flip side, Paul Molitor was a very good player. He really was. If he had only played 12 seasons, his HOF candidacy wouldn't have gotten him past the first ballot. He was a very good player for 21 seasons, though. 21 seasons of very good was, evidentally, enough to allow him to pad his stats and get him into the HOF. Frankly, IMHO, he is outclassed. So there is a perfect example of why Firejomorgan's logic actually HURTS the HOF.

 

Molitor = Hall of Very Good.

 

Does his election open the door for Robbie Alomar?

I would say Robbie Alomar is a HOFer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

 

I already proved the fallacy in your "Jim Rice = Arod" argument by comparing his career SLG to the league SLG. He was a very good power hitter who doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Arod, regardless of whether you saw him play or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RichWaltzLoveChild

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.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

Pitchers have higher ERAs today not because they are inferior to pitchers in the 70s and 80s but because they are facing better hitters and the enviroment for pitching in the game is nowhere near pitcher-friendly as it was during that period.

 

Jim Rice is nowhere near the talent of Alex Rodriguez. Alex Rodriguez is in the same class with Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mantle, etc. He is ALL-TIME talent. A player who can seriously be considered one of the top 10 players of all-time. While Jim Rice was a generational run-of-the-mill top talent. A player who has a good chance of being on a list of top 10 players from the '70s and '80s.

 

Look at it this way. It's a simple explanation but it gets the job done. Lets say ARod retires after his 16th season like Rice did. If ARod continues to do what he is doing he will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 home runs. Are you telling me that the pitchers and the factors at play in his time period took away roughly 200 home runs from Jim Rice's career total? That's almost 14 home runs a year. Hell no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

Pitchers have higher ERAs today not because they are inferior to pitchers in the 70s and 80s but because they are facing better hitters and the enviroment for pitching in the game is nowhere near pitcher-friendly as it was during that period.

 

Jim Rice is nowhere near the talent of Alex Rodriguez. Alex Rodriguez is in the same class with Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mantle, etc. He is ALL-TIME talent. A player who can seriously be considered one of the top 10 players of all-time. While Jim Rice was a generational run-of-the-mill top talent. A player who has a good chance of being on a list of top 10 players from the '70s and '80s.

 

Look at it this way. It's a simple explanation but it gets the job done. Lets say ARod retires after his 16th season like Rice did. If ARod continues to do what he is doing he will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 home runs. Are you telling me that the pitchers and the factors at play in his time period took away roughly 200 home runs from Jim Rice's career total? That's almost 14 home runs a year. Hell no.

Uhh Yes that is exactly what I am saying if Alex played in the days of Seaver, Palmer and Carlton he would lose between 10-15 homers perr season. Unfortunately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My point exactly! In this case numbrs do lie Bob. I am saying that ARod would not be putting up these type of numbers in the 70's and 80's when you had entire pitching staffs with ERA under 3.00. Were those pitchers much better then? To a degree yes and to a degree no, the factors are many. Arod is the premier power hitter of this era, Rice was of his and to make analysis based on raw numbers is a significant error. I am just saying if Jim Rice played today he could hit 50 homers every year. That is subjective reasoning, but those of us who have had the blessing to see Rice play really saw pure greatness. Much more than that displayed of quite a few who have been inducted recently.

 

Pitchers have higher ERAs today not because they are inferior to pitchers in the 70s and 80s but because they are facing better hitters and the enviroment for pitching in the game is nowhere near pitcher-friendly as it was during that period.

 

Jim Rice is nowhere near the talent of Alex Rodriguez. Alex Rodriguez is in the same class with Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Mantle, etc. He is ALL-TIME talent. A player who can seriously be considered one of the top 10 players of all-time. While Jim Rice was a generational run-of-the-mill top talent. A player who has a good chance of being on a list of top 10 players from the '70s and '80s.

 

Look at it this way. It's a simple explanation but it gets the job done. Lets say ARod retires after his 16th season like Rice did. If ARod continues to do what he is doing he will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 home runs. Are you telling me that the pitchers and the factors at play in his time period took away roughly 200 home runs from Jim Rice's career total? That's almost 14 home runs a year. Hell no.

Uhh Yes that is exactly what I am saying if Alex played in the days of Seaver, Palmer and Carlton he would lose between 10-15 homers perr season. Unfortunately

 

Arod played in the days of Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Glavine, Pedro, and Schmoltz, all of whom are Hall of Fame and all time great pitchers. I would say top 3 of those match up exceedingly well with Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...