Will Jim Rice make the hall this year? (1 Viewer)

[Thorn]

Link

Another pitch for Jim Rice

by TOM CARON

January 6, 2009

NOTABLE NUMBERS

AVERAGE: .298; Rice would rank 11th of 16 left fielders in the Hall

HOME RUNS: 382; Rice would rank 16th out of 60 outfielders in the Hall

RBI: 1,451; Rice would rank 33rd of the 147 players in the Hall

Over the course of his 16-year career, Jim Rice caused a lot of sleepless nights for pitchers in the American League. This week, Rice will once again be facing a few sleepless nights as he awaits word on whether or not he has made it into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

He came within 16 votes of making it last year, and no player has come that close without eventually being inducted. This year's class will be announced Monday.

Rice was a hulking, stoic presence as a player, and he has remained silent through his near misses as a potential Hall of Famer. That's the reason so many people have lobbied for him.

We did it a year ago in this column and we're doing it again, even if the voters have sent in their ballots.

Obviously, I am biased, having worked alongside him in the NESN studio for the last five years. But this is not about my friendship with Rice. This is about justice being served and one of the most feared hitters of the 1980s getting his rightful place among the game's greats.

This is Rice's final year on the ballot. It's also the smallest ballot in history. Other than Rickey Henderson, there isn't a surefire Hall of Famer among the newcomers.

Rice, an eight-time All-Star, won the American League MVP award in 1978 and finished in the top five in voting five other times.

Red Sox historian **** Bresciani and baseball writer Bill Chuck have made the most compelling cases for Rice's Hall of Fame credentials. In their statistical arguments, they point out that Rice's career batting average of .298 would rank 11th among the 16 left fielders in the Hall; his home run total (382) would rank 16th out of 60 outfielders, and his RBI total (1,451) would put him 33rd of the 147 players in the Hall.

And numbers don't do justice to the man who wore number 14. For a solid 10 years, there was no more potent right-handed hitter in the game. He was the clean-up hitter pitchers feared, a man who fundamentally changed the opposing team's strategy.

Had he been healthy in October of 1975, the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds might have had a different outcome.

One of the arguments against Rice over the years has been he did not reach the milestone of 400 home runs. That's ridiculous. He came up 18 homers short. Two more seasons at nine home runs a year does not make the difference in a career.

The other problem for Rice and other power hitters of the 1980s (Andre Dawson is also on the ballot and has come up short) is they have seen their offensive totals overshadowed by the inflated numbers of the past 15 years. Now we understand it wasn't just the totals that were inflated. The modern ballplayers also were puffed up like steroid-stuffed balloons.

Rice came by his numbers the old-fashioned way. He worked tirelessly at his craft in a time when players didn't use video or spend the entire offseason in the weight room.

Rice continues to take the high road and refuses to campaign for his seat among the game's greatest players. It's time for the Hall's voters to take the right road and put him there.

I never thought of him as a 'high road' guy - instead, a very arrogant, impressed with himself guy. Will he get in this year? Should he?

 

[MrPhoenix]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

 

[David Yudkin]

Black Ink Score: (score based on leading the league in various categories)

Rice has a score of 33, the 49th highest score for a position player with an average HOFer score of 27.

Gray Ink Score: (uses number of times ranked in the Top 10 in key categories):

Rice has a score of 176 (57th all time for position players) with an average position player HOFer scoring 144.

HOF Monitor Score: (uses a complex formula awarding points for individual and team performance and hitting career milestones:

Rice has a score of 144.5, 89th all-time (with a score of 100 a likely HOFer and 130 a "virtual cinch") .

Rice has the second highest position player score of anyone eligible but not inducted after McGwire.

IMO, under the current incarnation of the HOF he deserves to be in. In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount and keep Rice out, but given that there are so many people already in and the goal is to induct a fair amount of players he should be in.

 

[Eephus]

He'll probably get in this year. It's his final year of eligibility and a not a loaded ballot.

If he gets voted in, he won't be the worst player in the Hall. But I'd vote for Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Dawson and maybe Parker before Rice.

 

[guru_007]

He'll probably get in this year. It's his final year of eligibility and a not a loaded ballot.If he gets voted in, he won't be the worst player in the Hall. But I'd vote for Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Dawson and maybe Parker before Rice.

Interesting. I can't see voting McGwire in under any conditions. I can't see anyone making a compelling case that Parker is more deserving than Rice considering Rice had better lifetime stats (Rice played in nearly 400 fewer games and still had about 50 more homers).Dawson and Raines and Blyleven are all on par with Rice's borderline-ness, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the 4 being voted in.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

He'll probably get in this year. It's his final year of eligibility and a not a loaded ballot.If he gets voted in, he won't be the worst player in the Hall. But I'd vote for Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Dawson and maybe Parker before Rice.

Interesting. I can't see voting McGwire in under any conditions. I can't see anyone making a compelling case that Parker is more deserving than Rice considering Rice had better lifetime stats (Rice played in nearly 400 fewer games and still had about 50 more homers).Dawson and Raines and Blyleven are all on par with Rice's borderline-ness, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the 4 being voted in.

Bert Blyleven is not a HOFer. McGwire will have to wait a long time. Rickey is certain and I'd vote for Raines too.

 

[Capella]

Somebody (Neyer?) made a good point the other day that if Rice was a Seattle Mariner you would never hear about this nonsense.

But, the Boston media is beating the drum loudly. He will get in.

 

[guru_007]

He'll probably get in this year. It's his final year of eligibility and a not a loaded ballot.

If he gets voted in, he won't be the worst player in the Hall. But I'd vote for Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Dawson and maybe Parker before Rice.

Interesting. I can't see voting McGwire in under any conditions. I can't see anyone making a compelling case that Parker is more deserving than Rice considering Rice had better lifetime stats (Rice played in nearly 400 fewer games and still had about 50 more homers).

Dawson and Raines and Blyleven are all on par with Rice's borderline-ness, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the 4 being voted in.

Bert Blyleven is not a HOFer. McGwire will have to wait a long time. Rickey is certain and I'd vote for Raines too.

I used to be on board with this.....but now, I wouldn't have a problem with him going in. Take a look at those career numbers. There are lesser pitchers in the hof.

 

[David Yudkin]

Somebody (Neyer?) made a good point the other day that if Rice was a Seattle Mariner you would never hear about this nonsense.But, the Boston media is beating the drum loudly. He will get in.

I have read a lot of media folks and their take on Rice and some of them don't get it. Rice's big argument in favor is that he had a phenomenal 12 year stretch where most would feel he was a dominate player and one of the most feared hitters in the AL. Granted, he did not do much beyond that.But the members of the media have chosen to compare other players full careers and their lifetime numbers to then say he shouldn't make it. Some of the other players in these comparisons played for many more years, had thousands more at bats, and most of their best years did not stack up to Rice's.My pet peeve will all HOF balloting in any sport is that players will play an extra 3-5 years at BELOW AVERGAE PRODUCTION for their position to pad their stats and increas their career numbers. In most cases, none of those extra seasons would come CLOSE to being HOF worthy. I mean, would hitting .245 with 15 HR and 58 RBI as a part time player be worth discussing as a great year? Rice chose to hang him up rather than move on to another team, move to a full time DH only, etc. He didn't hang around to add on another 50 HR and 200-300 RBIs playing for a KC or a MIL.As for the Mariners, if they had won 90+ games 5 times, had 14 winning seasons, and were 210 games over .500 with Rice on their team, yeah, I'm guessing we'd be talking about Rice like we are now.

 

[Thunderlips]

Somebody (Neyer?) made a good point the other day that if Rice was a Seattle Mariner you would never hear about this nonsense.But, the Boston media is beating the drum loudly. He will get in.

I have read a lot of media folks and their take on Rice and some of them don't get it. Rice's big argument in favor is that he had a phenomenal 12 year stretch where most would feel he was a dominate player and one of the most feared hitters in the AL. Granted, he did not do much beyond that.But the members of the media have chosen to compare other players full careers and their lifetime numbers to then say he shouldn't make it. Some of the other players in these comparisons played for many more years, had thousands more at bats, and most of their best years did not stack up to Rice's.My pet peeve will all HOF balloting in any sport is that players will play an extra 3-5 years at BELOW AVERGAE PRODUCTION for their position to pad their stats and increas their career numbers. In most cases, none of those extra seasons would come CLOSE to being HOF worthy. I mean, would hitting .245 with 15 HR and 58 RBI as a part time player be worth discussing as a great year? Rice chose to hang him up rather than move on to another team, move to a full time DH only, etc. He didn't hang around to add on another 50 HR and 200-300 RBIs playing for a KC or a MIL.As for the Mariners, if they had won 90+ games 5 times, had 14 winning seasons, and were 210 games over .500 with Rice on their team, yeah, I'm guessing we'd be talking about Rice like we are now.

Do you think Don Mattingly should be in the HOF?

 

[MrPhoenix]

He'll probably get in this year. It's his final year of eligibility and a not a loaded ballot.If he gets voted in, he won't be the worst player in the Hall. But I'd vote for Henderson, Blyleven, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, Dawson and maybe Parker before Rice.

Interesting. I can't see voting McGwire in under any conditions. I can't see anyone making a compelling case that Parker is more deserving than Rice considering Rice had better lifetime stats (Rice played in nearly 400 fewer games and still had about 50 more homers).Dawson and Raines and Blyleven are all on par with Rice's borderline-ness, I wouldn't have a problem with any of the 4 being voted in.

Bert Blyleven is not a HOFer. McGwire will have to wait a long time. Rickey is certain and I'd vote for Raines too.

I don't think Dawson is either.Raines has a solid case, though.

 

[David Yudkin]

Do you think Don Mattingly should be in the HOF?

The problem I have for Mattingly is two fold. He only really had a 6 year span of being a truly top player and he played at a very profilic position. Look at the numbers for firstbasemen already in the HOF and who were active at the time and other than those 6 seasons he was probably below average production wise for his position.There's no point in even debating those years because he was clearly a great player. But in his other 8 seasons (some of them part time or missing some time) he only had 62 home runs with 415 RBI. His average over those 8 seasons was .285. So the question becomes is 6 years of greatness enough to overcome 8 years of a .285 average with little power, not a lot of RBI, and very few walks on a team that never won a World Series for a guy that played at what is a prime production spot?It's ashame he hurt his back or else he could have been a first ballot guy. As for whether he should be in or not, if I had to pick between him and Rice I would take Rice in that 12 years trumps 6. I realize that Mattingly was a Gold Glove fielder and Rice was likely an average fielder, but I'm not sure fielding is the end all of HOF criteria unless you were one of the best ever and the other guy literally couldn't catch the ball.The other factor for me at least is that IMO they have too many guys in the baseball HOF. So if I were making my own HOF, I'd probably drop half the guys that are in and keep both Mattingly and Rice out.Since I am a believer in the Bill James HOF scoring metrics, I'd have to vote maybe on Mattingly. He doesn't make it on Black Ink, Gray Ink, or HOF Standards Scores but makes it on HOF Monitor Score. I wouldn't say he wasn't deserving if he got in, but I'd probably vote in some other guys in before him. I'm not sure how many players that would be, but at some point I'd probably get to Mattingly.Long story short, I'd vote for Rice right away but would wait on Mattingly but he's probably deserving.

 

[The Ref]

Somebody (Neyer?) made a good point the other day that if Rice was a Seattle Mariner you would never hear about this nonsense.But, the Boston media is beating the drum loudly. He will get in.

I have read a lot of media folks and their take on Rice and some of them don't get it. Rice's big argument in favor is that he had a phenomenal 12 year stretch where most would feel he was a dominate player and one of the most feared hitters in the AL. Granted, he did not do much beyond that.But the members of the media have chosen to compare other players full careers and their lifetime numbers to then say he shouldn't make it. Some of the other players in these comparisons played for many more years, had thousands more at bats, and most of their best years did not stack up to Rice's.My pet peeve will all HOF balloting in any sport is that players will play an extra 3-5 years at BELOW AVERGAE PRODUCTION for their position to pad their stats and increas their career numbers. In most cases, none of those extra seasons would come CLOSE to being HOF worthy. I mean, would hitting .245 with 15 HR and 58 RBI as a part time player be worth discussing as a great year? Rice chose to hang him up rather than move on to another team, move to a full time DH only, etc. He didn't hang around to add on another 50 HR and 200-300 RBIs playing for a KC or a MIL.As for the Mariners, if they had won 90+ games 5 times, had 14 winning seasons, and were 210 games over .500 with Rice on their team, yeah, I'm guessing we'd be talking about Rice like we are now.

Do you think Don Mattingly should be in the HOF?

No.

 

[Thunderlips]

Do you think Don Mattingly should be in the HOF?

The problem I have for Mattingly is two fold. He only really had a 6 year span of being a truly top player and he played at a very profilic position. Look at the numbers for firstbasemen already in the HOF and who were active at the time and other than those 6 seasons he was probably below average production wise for his position.There's no point in even debating those years because he was clearly a great player. But in his other 8 seasons (some of them part time or missing some time) he only had 62 home runs with 415 RBI. His average over those 8 seasons was .285. So the question becomes is 6 years of greatness enough to overcome 8 years of a .285 average with little power, not a lot of RBI, and very few walks on a team that never won a World Series for a guy that played at what is a prime production spot?It's ashame he hurt his back or else he could have been a first ballot guy. As for whether he should be in or not, if I had to pick between him and Rice I would take Rice in that 12 years trumps 6. I realize that Mattingly was a Gold Glove fielder and Rice was likely an average fielder, but I'm not sure fielding is the end all of HOF criteria unless you were one of the best ever and the other guy literally couldn't catch the ball.The other factor for me at least is that IMO they have too many guys in the baseball HOF. So if I were making my own HOF, I'd probably drop half the guys that are in and keep both Mattingly and Rice out.Since I am a believer in the Bill James HOF scoring metrics, I'd have to vote maybe on Mattingly. He doesn't make it on Black Ink, Gray Ink, or HOF Standards Scores but makes it on HOF Monitor Score. I wouldn't say he wasn't deserving if he got in, but I'd probably vote in some other guys in before him. I'm not sure how many players that would be, but at some point I'd probably get to Mattingly.Long story short, I'd vote for Rice right away but would wait on Mattingly but he's probably deserving.

I don't think Rice is a fair comparison for Mattingly as Rice's longevity at a higher level is much better than Don's. A more appropriate comparison to Mattingly would be Puckett. As far as Rice goes.... I think he should be in.

 

[David Yudkin]

Do you think Don Mattingly should be in the HOF?

The problem I have for Mattingly is two fold. He only really had a 6 year span of being a truly top player and he played at a very profilic position. Look at the numbers for firstbasemen already in the HOF and who were active at the time and other than those 6 seasons he was probably below average production wise for his position.There's no point in even debating those years because he was clearly a great player. But in his other 8 seasons (some of them part time or missing some time) he only had 62 home runs with 415 RBI. His average over those 8 seasons was .285. So the question becomes is 6 years of greatness enough to overcome 8 years of a .285 average with little power, not a lot of RBI, and very few walks on a team that never won a World Series for a guy that played at what is a prime production spot?It's ashame he hurt his back or else he could have been a first ballot guy. As for whether he should be in or not, if I had to pick between him and Rice I would take Rice in that 12 years trumps 6. I realize that Mattingly was a Gold Glove fielder and Rice was likely an average fielder, but I'm not sure fielding is the end all of HOF criteria unless you were one of the best ever and the other guy literally couldn't catch the ball.The other factor for me at least is that IMO they have too many guys in the baseball HOF. So if I were making my own HOF, I'd probably drop half the guys that are in and keep both Mattingly and Rice out.Since I am a believer in the Bill James HOF scoring metrics, I'd have to vote maybe on Mattingly. He doesn't make it on Black Ink, Gray Ink, or HOF Standards Scores but makes it on HOF Monitor Score. I wouldn't say he wasn't deserving if he got in, but I'd probably vote in some other guys in before him. I'm not sure how many players that would be, but at some point I'd probably get to Mattingly.Long story short, I'd vote for Rice right away but would wait on Mattingly but he's probably deserving.

I don't think Rice is a fair comparison for Mattingly as Rice's longevity at a higher level is much better than Don's. A more appropriate comparison to Mattingly would be Puckett. As far as Rice goes.... I think he should be in.

This is the classic case of what I mentioned before. I probably wouldn't have Puckett in, but he's already in so we can't kick him out. But comparing him to Mattingly, he had probably 3 great years and several good ones. Unlikely Donnie baseball, his stats were pretty constant before he got hurt and retired. Also, CF not quite in the same production bracket as 1B.

 

[Tom Servo]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?). IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

 

[David Yudkin]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?). IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

In some of the other HOF threads we calculated that at any point there are typically 25-30 future HOFers playing at a time. If you figure each team has 8 starting position players, a closer, and 4 starting pitchers, that's basically 10 guys per team. So that's roughly 400 players or close to 10% of the regular starters making the HOF. IMO, that's too much.

 

[Eephus]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?). IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

Some of the early Veterans Committee selections (e.g. Schalk, Haines, Lloyd Waner) were inferior to the guys we're debating in this thread, but you can't very well throw their plaques out of Cooperstown. The system is designed to be inconsistent with the writers votes and ever changing committee process.Other than possibly Sutter, I don't have a problem with any recent inductees. I don't know enough about the 2006 Negro League honorees to criticize any of them in particular.If you can't boot any previous members, the decision is whether to use them as the measuring stick or to set a higher arbitrary standard. The direction appears to be towards the latter, even though the number of MLB players now than it was 30-50 years ago.

 

[whoknew]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

That's pretty clearly not true.

 

[MrPhoenix]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

That's pretty clearly not true.

Thanks for the highly detailed analysis.

 

[whoknew]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

That's pretty clearly not true.

Thanks for the highly detailed analysis.

It's pretty much the exact same level of analysis you gave.Having said that, do we really need to debate this again? Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.And just to give you two more deserving - Blyleven and Trammell.

 

[whoknew]

This is a year old, but still relevant and a very good article.

The case against Jim Rice

Nothing personal -- the man's just not a Hall of Famer

Posted: Wednesday January 9, 2008 2:41PM; Updated: Wednesday January 9, 2008 5:23PM

Rice's vote totals suggest he can look forward to making the Hall next year, even if his numbers suggest he shouldn't.

AP

By Joe Sheehan, BaseballProspectus.com

To no one's surprise, it was announced yesterday that Rich Gossage had been elected to baseball's Hall of Fame. One of the five best relief pitchers in history by any standard, Gossage picked up 85.8 percent of the vote (with "only" 75 percent required for election) in his ninth year on the ballot.

Of course, the most interesting stories generally involve the players below the cut line, and that remains the case this year. Eyes moving down the results list landed quickly on Jim Rice's name. Rice finished second with 392 votes, named on 72.2 percent of the ballots cast, only 16 tallies shy of induction. With significant forward momentum, a small gap to close and some evidence of a "15th year" effect, Rice is a virtual certainty to be elected a year from now.

This will please many and frustrate a few, for Rice's candidacy has become something of a battleground between analysts and the voting pool. For weeks now, the idea that Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball for 12 years" has been pounded into our heads. The performance record shows that Rice would be a lower-echelon Hall of Famer and one of the weakest BBWAA electees ever, and in fact that he was, at best, the third-best outfielder on the ballot. However, that one phrase, and the single word feared, have become the club by which Rice's supporters are beating their hero's way into Cooperstown.

The thing is, they're half right.

I will stipulate that at the end of the 1980 season, Jim Rice was on track for a Hall of Fame career. Even conceding that the right-handed slugger took advantage of a friendly home park and excellent teammates to post high home-run, extra-base-hit and RBI totals, he was clearly among the very best hitters in baseball, and arguably the best in the American League. Through his age-27 season, Rice had four top-five finishes in MVP voting in his six years and a career line of .308/.357/.548 with 195 home runs. He wasn't the best player in the game -- as a slow left fielder, there's just too much ground to make up -- but he was among its best hitters. To project a player like that into the Hall of Fame wouldn't require much effort.

The next six years, however -- half of Rice's effective career -- he wasn't the same player. It is entirely possible that he was "feared." That fear, however, was based on performance that warranted it through 1980; it was based on nothing thereafter. Rice hit .299/.355/.490 from 1981 through '86. That's a completely unadjusted total, giving him full credit for the work he did at Fenway Park in that time. In the first six seasons of his career Rice out-hit his positional comps (left fielders except for 1977, when he DH'd 116 times) by 126 points of slugging and 17 points of OBP. In the next six those figures dropped to 72 and 16 points, respectively. Again, this is without adjusting for Fenway Park's effect on offense or making any note of Rice's exceptional home/road splits in this period.

Let's look at it a different way. Rice was, categorically, a high-average, high-SLG hitter. His calling card was power, which is how the whole "feared" thing came into play. After the age of 27, despite playing home games in Fenway Park, Rice appeared in the top 10 in the AL in slugging exactly twice the rest of his career:

Year SLG Rank

1981 .441 15th*

1982 .494 14th

1983 .550 2nd

1984 .467 21st

1985 .487 11th

1986 .490 10th

1987 .408 DNQ

1988 .406 39th

1999 .344 DNQ

*350 PA min.

Understand, this is supposed to be Rice's sweet spot: raw slugging. Other than 1983, however, he was little more than ordinary even without looking any deeper into the park effect. This is not the record of a dominant, Hall of Fame-caliber hitter from 28 through 33. It's the record of a slightly-above-average corner outfielder who is getting a huge boost from his home park.

Rice's reputation comes from six good years, and then the inflated RBI counts that he still managed to post with these unimpressive slugging numbers. On Tuesday on ESPNews I made the point to Tim Kurkjian -- who I don't mean to single out by any means; he's one of the good guys -- that while Rice advocates will talk about the "feared" angle, that he "feels" like a Hall of Famer and that this is a "gut" decision, the truth is that they're using numbers, too: just the wrong ones. Rice's age-28 through -33 seasons, collectively, weren't up to the standard he set prior to that. His Hall of Fame case is about RBIs.

Rice didn't have a dominant 12-year stretch in which he was one of the best hitters in the game. He had a dominant six-year stretch, then dropped off noticeably while at the same time playing with a slugger's reputation and racking up huge RBI counts thanks to his teammates. Here's a parallel chart to the one above, listing the number of men on base (ROB) that Rice saw when he came to the plate in those six seasons (I've truncated 1987-89, years that are irrelevant to his case):

Year ROB Rank

1981 367 1st

1982 466 7th

1983 504 2nd

1984 545 1st

1985 496 2nd

1986 514 3rd

Jim Rice voters: Are you trying to elect Rice, or are you just voting Wade Boggs in a second time?

Rice has a stronger Hall of Fame case than does Don Mattingly, but the two resumes have similar characteristics. Both were among the best players in baseball for a six-year period. Both then had six-year stretches that were less than their peak, Mattingly's more than Rice's to be sure. Rice didn't suffer the back problems that Mattingly did; on the other hand he didn't have a fraction of Mattingly's defensive value.

Everything above is fact. Rice's slugging averages, Rice's plate appearances with runners on base, Rice's stat lines from 1981 to '86. Elsewhere on the Internet you can delve into the data on Rice's so-so defense, his high double-play rates and, most notably, his performance outside of Boston. Maybe pitchers did fear him because of who he was, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that they were constantly pitching to him from the stretch in a bandbox. That would scare me, too.

As far as Cooperstown goes, the facts of Rice's career are not going to carry the day, however, as his vote total has reached a point that will make his eventual election inevitable. This will open the door, as Bruce Sutter's '06 election did for Gossage, to a host of Rice's superiors. Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and a whole hell of a lot of guys to come are going to be compared to Rice, who will be a BBWAA choice, not a Veterans Committee pick that can be hand-waved away, and find themselves cast in bronze. There's no better way to become a Hall of Famer than to have an inferior peer let into the room ahead of you.

Recently, Rob Neyer took it on the chin publicly from a colleague, a member of the BBWAA; Neyer was accused of leading a charge against Rice's candidacy. Frankly I think the notion that this is personal is a disturbing one. When Neyer, or Keith Law, or Joe Sheehan, or Rich Lederer builds a case for or against a particular player, they're trying to serve the discussion, and beyond that, uphold the standards of the Hall of Fame. These people have advocated as strongly for the induction of players such as Alan Trammell, Raines, Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo as against the candidacies of Rice, Sutter, Jack Morris and others. The arguments made by thoughtful analysts rise above the mythology of the day and provide context to notions such as "feared," "couldn't win close games" or "pitched to the score." They should be regarded not with as much respect as the opinions of contemporaries, but with much more, because they don't come with an emotional attachment to a player, a team, or an era.

The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983 not very many people knew or cared that Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was "feared," and that's what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak and not enough performance outside of that peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he'll be elected in spite of that, and in cont

 

[Tom Servo]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?).

IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

In some of the other HOF threads we calculated that at any point there are typically 25-30 future HOFers playing at a time. If you figure each team has 8 starting position players, a closer, and 4 starting pitchers, that's basically 10 guys per team. So that's roughly 400 players or close to 10% of the regular starters making the HOF. IMO, that's too much.

Granted, there's a lag between between career and induction. But, given the relatively few number of inductees in recent years, I'm curious as how that number was calculated. I guess I'm not buying that number.

 

[David Yudkin]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

That's pretty clearly not true.

Thanks for the highly detailed analysis.

It's pretty much the exact same level of analysis you gave.Having said that, do we really need to debate this again? Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.And just to give you two more deserving - Blyleven and Trammell.

OK . . . I'll bite. Why are Blyleven and Trammell more deserving?Blyleven greatly benefited by pitching for what seemed like forever (22 years). His yearly win totals, while not his fault, were not huge from year to year. He won 20 games once and 19 games once with no other season over 17 wins. Pitching for so long, he ended up with a lot of strikeouts. His ERA+ score (an excellent common denomenator) was 118. That ranks him in a tie for 134th among qualifying pitchers. Only 2 All Star appearances in 22 seasons. Never won a Cy Young (or even finished 2nd). Never in the Top 10 in MVP balloting and only received votes in 2 seasons. I'd put Blyleven in the Hall of Very Good, but his lack of awards, hardware, and recognition should tell you that he was not a truly elite player. His HOF scores are lower than Rice's.I will say that he had one heck of a curve ball. I know first hand from when I was a teen. I batted against him when I was at a national baseball camp and he was there for one of the sessions.Trammell had one great season and 4 or 5 good to very good ones out of 20 years in the league. He only had 2 seasons with more than 15 home runs and 3 with 70 or more RBI. He was a solid fielder with several Gold Gloves. Again, not sure he would qualify as a truly elite player for more than a very few seasons. His HOF scores, OPS+ scores, etc. are all a decent amount lower than Rice.

 

[David Yudkin]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?).

IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

In some of the other HOF threads we calculated that at any point there are typically 25-30 future HOFers playing at a time. If you figure each team has 8 starting position players, a closer, and 4 starting pitchers, that's basically 10 guys per team. So that's roughly 400 players or close to 10% of the regular starters making the HOF. IMO, that's too much.

Granted, there's a lag between between career and induction. But, given the relatively few number of inductees in recent years, I'm curious as how that number was calculated. I guess I'm not buying that number. :IBTL:

Do a search of threads I posted in in the Baseball Forum (there can't be that many). I recently took a sampling of 2001 and came up with an extensive list of guys that most would say are HOF worthy. IIRC, most had 25-27 pretty much no brainers with a TON of fringe guys that weren't really given that much consideration.

 

[Thorn]

This is a year old, but still relevant and a very good article.

The case against Jim Rice

Nothing personal -- the man's just not a Hall of Famer

Posted: Wednesday January 9, 2008 2:41PM; Updated: Wednesday January 9, 2008 5:23PM

Rice's vote totals suggest he can look forward to making the Hall next year, even if his numbers suggest he shouldn't.

AP

By Joe Sheehan, BaseballProspectus.com

To no one's surprise, it was announced yesterday that Rich Gossage had been elected to baseball's Hall of Fame. One of the five best relief pitchers in history by any standard, Gossage picked up 85.8 percent of the vote (with "only" 75 percent required for election) in his ninth year on the ballot.

Of course, the most interesting stories generally involve the players below the cut line, and that remains the case this year. Eyes moving down the results list landed quickly on Jim Rice's name. Rice finished second with 392 votes, named on 72.2 percent of the ballots cast, only 16 tallies shy of induction. With significant forward momentum, a small gap to close and some evidence of a "15th year" effect, Rice is a virtual certainty to be elected a year from now.

This will please many and frustrate a few, for Rice's candidacy has become something of a battleground between analysts and the voting pool. For weeks now, the idea that Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball for 12 years" has been pounded into our heads. The performance record shows that Rice would be a lower-echelon Hall of Famer and one of the weakest BBWAA electees ever, and in fact that he was, at best, the third-best outfielder on the ballot. However, that one phrase, and the single word feared, have become the club by which Rice's supporters are beating their hero's way into Cooperstown.

The thing is, they're half right.

I will stipulate that at the end of the 1980 season, Jim Rice was on track for a Hall of Fame career. Even conceding that the right-handed slugger took advantage of a friendly home park and excellent teammates to post high home-run, extra-base-hit and RBI totals, he was clearly among the very best hitters in baseball, and arguably the best in the American League. Through his age-27 season, Rice had four top-five finishes in MVP voting in his six years and a career line of .308/.357/.548 with 195 home runs. He wasn't the best player in the game -- as a slow left fielder, there's just too much ground to make up -- but he was among its best hitters. To project a player like that into the Hall of Fame wouldn't require much effort.

The next six years, however -- half of Rice's effective career -- he wasn't the same player. It is entirely possible that he was "feared." That fear, however, was based on performance that warranted it through 1980; it was based on nothing thereafter. Rice hit .299/.355/.490 from 1981 through '86. That's a completely unadjusted total, giving him full credit for the work he did at Fenway Park in that time. In the first six seasons of his career Rice out-hit his positional comps (left fielders except for 1977, when he DH'd 116 times) by 126 points of slugging and 17 points of OBP. In the next six those figures dropped to 72 and 16 points, respectively. Again, this is without adjusting for Fenway Park's effect on offense or making any note of Rice's exceptional home/road splits in this period.

Let's look at it a different way. Rice was, categorically, a high-average, high-SLG hitter. His calling card was power, which is how the whole "feared" thing came into play. After the age of 27, despite playing home games in Fenway Park, Rice appeared in the top 10 in the AL in slugging exactly twice the rest of his career:

Year SLG Rank

1981 .441 15th*

1982 .494 14th

1983 .550 2nd

1984 .467 21st

1985 .487 11th

1986 .490 10th

1987 .408 DNQ

1988 .406 39th

1999 .344 DNQ

*350 PA min.

Understand, this is supposed to be Rice's sweet spot: raw slugging. Other than 1983, however, he was little more than ordinary even without looking any deeper into the park effect. This is not the record of a dominant, Hall of Fame-caliber hitter from 28 through 33. It's the record of a slightly-above-average corner outfielder who is getting a huge boost from his home park.

Rice's reputation comes from six good years, and then the inflated RBI counts that he still managed to post with these unimpressive slugging numbers. On Tuesday on ESPNews I made the point to Tim Kurkjian -- who I don't mean to single out by any means; he's one of the good guys -- that while Rice advocates will talk about the "feared" angle, that he "feels" like a Hall of Famer and that this is a "gut" decision, the truth is that they're using numbers, too: just the wrong ones. Rice's age-28 through -33 seasons, collectively, weren't up to the standard he set prior to that. His Hall of Fame case is about RBIs.

Rice didn't have a dominant 12-year stretch in which he was one of the best hitters in the game. He had a dominant six-year stretch, then dropped off noticeably while at the same time playing with a slugger's reputation and racking up huge RBI counts thanks to his teammates. Here's a parallel chart to the one above, listing the number of men on base (ROB) that Rice saw when he came to the plate in those six seasons (I've truncated 1987-89, years that are irrelevant to his case):

Year ROB Rank

1981 367 1st

1982 466 7th

1983 504 2nd

1984 545 1st

1985 496 2nd

1986 514 3rd

Jim Rice voters: Are you trying to elect Rice, or are you just voting Wade Boggs in a second time?

Rice has a stronger Hall of Fame case than does Don Mattingly, but the two resumes have similar characteristics. Both were among the best players in baseball for a six-year period. Both then had six-year stretches that were less than their peak, Mattingly's more than Rice's to be sure. Rice didn't suffer the back problems that Mattingly did; on the other hand he didn't have a fraction of Mattingly's defensive value.

Everything above is fact. Rice's slugging averages, Rice's plate appearances with runners on base, Rice's stat lines from 1981 to '86. Elsewhere on the Internet you can delve into the data on Rice's so-so defense, his high double-play rates and, most notably, his performance outside of Boston. Maybe pitchers did fear him because of who he was, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that they were constantly pitching to him from the stretch in a bandbox. That would scare me, too.

As far as Cooperstown goes, the facts of Rice's career are not going to carry the day, however, as his vote total has reached a point that will make his eventual election inevitable. This will open the door, as Bruce Sutter's '06 election did for Gossage, to a host of Rice's superiors. Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and a whole hell of a lot of guys to come are going to be compared to Rice, who will be a BBWAA choice, not a Veterans Committee pick that can be hand-waved away, and find themselves cast in bronze. There's no better way to become a Hall of Famer than to have an inferior peer let into the room ahead of you.

Recently, Rob Neyer took it on the chin publicly from a colleague, a member of the BBWAA; Neyer was accused of leading a charge against Rice's candidacy. Frankly I think the notion that this is personal is a disturbing one. When Neyer, or Keith Law, or Joe Sheehan, or Rich Lederer builds a case for or against a particular player, they're trying to serve the discussion, and beyond that, uphold the standards of the Hall of Fame. These people have advocated as strongly for the induction of players such as Alan Trammell, Raines, Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo as against the candidacies of Rice, Sutter, Jack Morris and others. The arguments made by thoughtful analysts rise above the mythology of the day and provide context to notions such as "feared," "couldn't win close games" or "pitched to the score." They should be regarded not with as much respect as the opinions of contemporaries, but with much more, because they don't come with an emotional attachment to a player, a team, or an era.

The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983 not very many people knew or cared that Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was "feared," and that's what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak and not enough performance outside of that peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he'll be elected in spite of that, and in cont

I'm of the opinion that a short porch to a hitter's opposite field is a greater advantage than one to his power field.

 

[Dave Baker]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.2. His demeanor never made him friends with those in the media (i.e. current HOF voters). So to imply that Rice has somehow been the beneficiary of the media is just the opposite of the truth. Many old enough to have been writers while he was playing may still hold his attitiude (admittedly poor) against him, while those younger spend too much time focusing on career numbers.

 

[Thunderlips]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:

1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.

2. His demeanor never made him friends with those in the media (i.e. current HOF voters). So to imply that Rice has somehow been the beneficiary of the media is just the opposite of the truth. Many old enough to have been writers while he was playing may still hold his attitiude (admittedly poor) against him, while those younger spend too much time focusing on career numbers.

Did he have enough dominant years though?

 

[David Yudkin]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

 

[whoknew]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.

6 years? That's a HOF career?

 

[Eephus]

Of the exiles that have been repeatedly turned down for the Hall, he has the best case of them all. Better than Goose even.

That's pretty clearly not true.

Thanks for the highly detailed analysis.

It's pretty much the exact same level of analysis you gave.Having said that, do we really need to debate this again? Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

And just to give you two more deserving - Blyleven and Trammell.

OK . . . I'll bite. Why are Blyleven and Trammell more deserving?Trammell had one great season and 4 or 5 good to very good ones out of 20 years in the league. He only had 2 seasons with more than 15 home runs and 3 with 70 or more RBI. He was a solid fielder with several Gold Gloves. Again, not sure he would qualify as a truly elite player for more than a very few seasons. His HOF scores, OPS+ scores, etc. are all a decent amount lower than Rice.

I'm on the fence with Blyleven for some of the same reasons you mentioned. I'd support him ahead of Rice based on career value but I can see why someone would have the opposing view.Trammell is better IMO. Looking at batting stats of a multiple Gold Glove SS to a poor COF isn't a fair comp. Trammell's OPS+ is much higher than Ozzie Smith's, and pretty comparable to Cal Ripken Jr's. But he was never the most feared hitter in baseball tm. Rice had a handful of strong seasons but lived off his reputation during his decline. Trammell's case is hurt by a long string of injuries in his early to mid 30s. He never played more than 112 games after age 32. He's a borderline HoF, but a bit closer to the cut line than Rice.

 

[Eephus]

This is a year old, but still relevant and a very good article.

The case against Jim Rice

Nothing personal -- the man's just not a Hall of Famer

Posted: Wednesday January 9, 2008 2:41PM; Updated: Wednesday January 9, 2008 5:23PM

Rice's vote totals suggest he can look forward to making the Hall next year, even if his numbers suggest he shouldn't.

AP

By Joe Sheehan, BaseballProspectus.com

To no one's surprise, it was announced yesterday that Rich Gossage had been elected to baseball's Hall of Fame. One of the five best relief pitchers in history by any standard, Gossage picked up 85.8 percent of the vote (with "only" 75 percent required for election) in his ninth year on the ballot.

Of course, the most interesting stories generally involve the players below the cut line, and that remains the case this year. Eyes moving down the results list landed quickly on Jim Rice's name. Rice finished second with 392 votes, named on 72.2 percent of the ballots cast, only 16 tallies shy of induction. With significant forward momentum, a small gap to close and some evidence of a "15th year" effect, Rice is a virtual certainty to be elected a year from now.

This will please many and frustrate a few, for Rice's candidacy has become something of a battleground between analysts and the voting pool. For weeks now, the idea that Rice was "the most feared hitter in baseball for 12 years" has been pounded into our heads. The performance record shows that Rice would be a lower-echelon Hall of Famer and one of the weakest BBWAA electees ever, and in fact that he was, at best, the third-best outfielder on the ballot. However, that one phrase, and the single word feared, have become the club by which Rice's supporters are beating their hero's way into Cooperstown.

The thing is, they're half right.

I will stipulate that at the end of the 1980 season, Jim Rice was on track for a Hall of Fame career. Even conceding that the right-handed slugger took advantage of a friendly home park and excellent teammates to post high home-run, extra-base-hit and RBI totals, he was clearly among the very best hitters in baseball, and arguably the best in the American League. Through his age-27 season, Rice had four top-five finishes in MVP voting in his six years and a career line of .308/.357/.548 with 195 home runs. He wasn't the best player in the game -- as a slow left fielder, there's just too much ground to make up -- but he was among its best hitters. To project a player like that into the Hall of Fame wouldn't require much effort.

The next six years, however -- half of Rice's effective career -- he wasn't the same player. It is entirely possible that he was "feared." That fear, however, was based on performance that warranted it through 1980; it was based on nothing thereafter. Rice hit .299/.355/.490 from 1981 through '86. That's a completely unadjusted total, giving him full credit for the work he did at Fenway Park in that time. In the first six seasons of his career Rice out-hit his positional comps (left fielders except for 1977, when he DH'd 116 times) by 126 points of slugging and 17 points of OBP. In the next six those figures dropped to 72 and 16 points, respectively. Again, this is without adjusting for Fenway Park's effect on offense or making any note of Rice's exceptional home/road splits in this period.

Let's look at it a different way. Rice was, categorically, a high-average, high-SLG hitter. His calling card was power, which is how the whole "feared" thing came into play. After the age of 27, despite playing home games in Fenway Park, Rice appeared in the top 10 in the AL in slugging exactly twice the rest of his career:

Year SLG Rank

1981 .441 15th*

1982 .494 14th

1983 .550 2nd

1984 .467 21st

1985 .487 11th

1986 .490 10th

1987 .408 DNQ

1988 .406 39th

1999 .344 DNQ

*350 PA min.

Understand, this is supposed to be Rice's sweet spot: raw slugging. Other than 1983, however, he was little more than ordinary even without looking any deeper into the park effect. This is not the record of a dominant, Hall of Fame-caliber hitter from 28 through 33. It's the record of a slightly-above-average corner outfielder who is getting a huge boost from his home park.

Rice's reputation comes from six good years, and then the inflated RBI counts that he still managed to post with these unimpressive slugging numbers. On Tuesday on ESPNews I made the point to Tim Kurkjian -- who I don't mean to single out by any means; he's one of the good guys -- that while Rice advocates will talk about the "feared" angle, that he "feels" like a Hall of Famer and that this is a "gut" decision, the truth is that they're using numbers, too: just the wrong ones. Rice's age-28 through -33 seasons, collectively, weren't up to the standard he set prior to that. His Hall of Fame case is about RBIs.

Rice didn't have a dominant 12-year stretch in which he was one of the best hitters in the game. He had a dominant six-year stretch, then dropped off noticeably while at the same time playing with a slugger's reputation and racking up huge RBI counts thanks to his teammates. Here's a parallel chart to the one above, listing the number of men on base (ROB) that Rice saw when he came to the plate in those six seasons (I've truncated 1987-89, years that are irrelevant to his case):

Year ROB Rank

1981 367 1st

1982 466 7th

1983 504 2nd

1984 545 1st

1985 496 2nd

1986 514 3rd

Jim Rice voters: Are you trying to elect Rice, or are you just voting Wade Boggs in a second time?

Rice has a stronger Hall of Fame case than does Don Mattingly, but the two resumes have similar characteristics. Both were among the best players in baseball for a six-year period. Both then had six-year stretches that were less than their peak, Mattingly's more than Rice's to be sure. Rice didn't suffer the back problems that Mattingly did; on the other hand he didn't have a fraction of Mattingly's defensive value.

Everything above is fact. Rice's slugging averages, Rice's plate appearances with runners on base, Rice's stat lines from 1981 to '86. Elsewhere on the Internet you can delve into the data on Rice's so-so defense, his high double-play rates and, most notably, his performance outside of Boston. Maybe pitchers did fear him because of who he was, but I suspect it had more to do with the fact that they were constantly pitching to him from the stretch in a bandbox. That would scare me, too.

As far as Cooperstown goes, the facts of Rice's career are not going to carry the day, however, as his vote total has reached a point that will make his eventual election inevitable. This will open the door, as Bruce Sutter's '06 election did for Gossage, to a host of Rice's superiors. Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, Dale Murphy and a whole hell of a lot of guys to come are going to be compared to Rice, who will be a BBWAA choice, not a Veterans Committee pick that can be hand-waved away, and find themselves cast in bronze. There's no better way to become a Hall of Famer than to have an inferior peer let into the room ahead of you.

Recently, Rob Neyer took it on the chin publicly from a colleague, a member of the BBWAA; Neyer was accused of leading a charge against Rice's candidacy. Frankly I think the notion that this is personal is a disturbing one. When Neyer, or Keith Law, or Joe Sheehan, or Rich Lederer builds a case for or against a particular player, they're trying to serve the discussion, and beyond that, uphold the standards of the Hall of Fame. These people have advocated as strongly for the induction of players such as Alan Trammell, Raines, Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo as against the candidacies of Rice, Sutter, Jack Morris and others. The arguments made by thoughtful analysts rise above the mythology of the day and provide context to notions such as "feared," "couldn't win close games" or "pitched to the score." They should be regarded not with as much respect as the opinions of contemporaries, but with much more, because they don't come with an emotional attachment to a player, a team, or an era.

The central theme running through the case for Rice is voters of a certain age attempting to validate their misbegotten impressions. In 1983 not very many people knew or cared that Rice was an ordinary player outside of Fenway Park, or that his RBI totals had less to do with his talent and more to do with that of his teammates. He was "feared," and that's what mattered. The facts are, Jim Rice had a Hall of Fame peak and not enough performance outside of that peak to raise his career to a Hall of Famer standard. That he'll be elected in spite of that, and in cont

I'm of the opinion that a short porch to a hitter's opposite field is a greater advantage than one to his power field.

In part because a hitter trying to pull everything is going to ground into as many double plays as Jim Ed Rice

 

[David Yudkin]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.2. His demeanor never made him friends with those in the media (i.e. current HOF voters). So to imply that Rice has somehow been the beneficiary of the media is just the opposite of the truth. Many old enough to have been writers while he was playing may still hold his attitiude (admittedly poor) against him, while those younger spend too much time focusing on career numbers.

The ironic thing about Rice is that when he played he was considered a sour #### that did not get along with the media. So rather than deal with pour relationships with members of the media, misquotes, or accusations of crying over the day's events, he pretty much shut it down and didn't talk to the media . . . who of course are now the same people who have to vote him into the HOF. The irony comes from the fact that he now is part of the media he shunned for many years as an analyst for NESN and he is very outgoing and well spoken -- a far cry from his days as a player. Many are surprised to find that he has a personality and laughs and tells stories and the like and is not some ornary guy as was the perception.As Baker points out, I remember this timeframe vividly and it seemed like there was Rice in the AL and Schmidt in the NL that pitchers just did not want to face. If Rice had a fault, it was the fact that he tried to hit pitches he shouldn't have to actually drive runners in. That resulted in more double plays and as the other article brought up a lower percentage of guys driven in. THere was a lot of talk in Boston about Rice's role . . . and it was decreed that he was a run producer. This was well before the stat obsession we have now, and walks were not considered as precious as they are now. In today's era, players would be taught to take more walks and let someone else bat you in. Back then, if you worked a walk some people would actually complain that you wimped out instead of trying to drive home runners. A lot different than today.

 

[David Yudkin]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

 

[guru_007]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

agreedin those 12 years he received to 20 mvp votes 8 times, and was an all-star in 2 other years which he didn't receive mvp votes. the other two years contained the 1981 strike shortened year and the other year was pretty mediocre (.280, 25 hr's, 85 rbis), but this was coming off a wrist injury that shortened his '75 season too.Rice had 6 monster years....and a sustained level of greatness for 11-12 years. I can see the fact he isn't a slam dunk first ballot hof'er, but he certainly has more than enough credentials to be voted in. I guess it's a shame for him he didn't biggio or kent it up and hang around 2-3 additional years to end up with 420 lifetime homers, 1500+ rbi's, 2700-2800 hits or so.

 

[Dave Baker]

Its pretty clear that Rice shouldn't be in the Hall and that's been analyzed ad nauseum. If it weren't for Dan Shaughnessy and his accomplices making up stuff about being "feared" this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not a Boston guy nor have I ever been a Boston fan. Implying that Rice's label as a "feared" hitter was something forced upon the public's eyes because of Shaughnessy (or others in the media) is far from reality. Players, managers, coaches, front office et al back then always stated how feared was.But even if you took out those impressions, as you seem to want to do, it's hard to look at that decade or so of numbers, especially as it relates to other players' numbers throughout that period, and not believe that Rice should be in the HOF. Frankly, there are two reasons Rice has not made it in so far:

1. His career numbers do not blow people away. This has been analyzed by many, but it's important to note how long he performed at a high level. As Yudkin mentions, the problem here was that he simply didn't play those extra years late into his career where so many other HOFers pad their career numbers. Those old enough to remember watching Rice play throughout his exemplary period know how dominant he was. And of course it was at a time when very few players sustained the kinds of numbers prevalent amongst almost average players today.

6 years? That's a HOF career?

I see it as a dozen years. While the second six were not as exemplary as the first six, the article denouncing him above (assuming the numbers are correct) show that he hit .299/.355/.490 during that period, adding somehow that those were not excellent numbers. During that supposed average period, twice he was top ten in batting average, twice top ten in slugging, twice top ten in HRs, twice top ten in adjusted OPS+, four times top ten in total bases and of course five times top ten in RBIs. From what I can tell, his worst year in that period was 1984, and he still managed to hit .280 with 28 HRs and 122 RBIs.

 

[MrPhoenix]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

agreedin those 12 years he received to 20 mvp votes 8 times, and was an all-star in 2 other years which he didn't receive mvp votes. the other two years contained the 1981 strike shortened year and the other year was pretty mediocre (.280, 25 hr's, 85 rbis), but this was coming off a wrist injury that shortened his '75 season too.Rice had 6 monster years....and a sustained level of greatness for 11-12 years. I can see the fact he isn't a slam dunk first ballot hof'er, but he certainly has more than enough credentials to be voted in.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Sea Bass]

Somebody (Neyer?) made a good point the other day that if Rice was a Seattle Mariner you would never hear about this nonsense.But, the Boston media is beating the drum loudly. He will get in.

Hogwash, Rice isn't in because the media couldn't stand him as a person. He was one of the best hitters of his generation. Whether in Boston, Seattle, or BFE his production should have landed him in the Hall years ago.

 

[Thunderlips]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

Is that wrong though? There seems to be two different schools in regards to HOF recognition....compiling stats and longevity and a decent period of time in which a player was one of the better players in the game. Maybe more scrutiny is needed and both schools need to be considered. Rice is one of these bubble guys (along with a number of players of his era) that people argue because they want to put someone in the HOF every year.

 

[David Yudkin]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

Is that wrong though? There seems to be two different schools in regards to HOF recognition....compiling stats and longevity and a decent period of time in which a player was one of the better players in the game. Maybe more scrutiny is needed and both schools need to be considered. Rice is one of these bubble guys (along with a number of players of his era) that people argue because they want to put someone in the HOF every year.

Again, if ever player open for induction went through the ringer like Rice has by the media then there would be a lot fewer guys in the HOF. That in itself is fine by me as I think there are too many guys in as it is. But a lot of guys considered by many to be great candidates would have a lot more blemishes.For example, there are 75+ players already in the HOF that have lower HOF scores than Rice does. Bill James put together that evaluation tool to be able to have a baseline to compare players from different eras and better define who the true superstars of the game have been. So if Rice is borderline then there are probably a lot of guys in that shouldn't be, especially if Rice is causing such a stir and people have to come up with complex reasons to keep him out.

 

[Eephus]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

Is that wrong though? There seems to be two different schools in regards to HOF recognition....compiling stats and longevity and a decent period of time in which a player was one of the better players in the game. Maybe more scrutiny is needed and both schools need to be considered. Rice is one of these bubble guys (along with a number of players of his era) that people argue because they want to put someone in the HOF every year.

Again, if ever player open for induction went through the ringer like Rice has by the media then there would be a lot fewer guys in the HOF. That in itself is fine by me as I think there are too many guys in as it is. But a lot of guys considered by many to be great candidates would have a lot more blemishes.For example, there are 75+ players already in the HOF that have lower HOF scores than Rice does. Bill James put together that evaluation tool to be able to have a baseline to compare players from different eras and better define who the true superstars of the game have been. So if Rice is borderline then there are probably a lot of guys in that shouldn't be, especially if Rice is causing such a stir and people have to come up with complex reasons to keep him out.

Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do 76.I don't like the lowest common denominator argument where you take the worst Veterans Committee selections of all-time and use them as the performance threshhold for induction. That's the surest way to water down the quality of the institution. On the other hand, you can't boot the guys already in. The game has survived 50+ years with Ray Schalk in the Hall.

I wouldn't vote for Rice if I had a ballot but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player in his prime. The Hall won't be any worse if Jim Ed gets enshrined. The debates are good because they help us remember the players but I think we go too far sometimes. If the honor of getting in gets superseded by the perceived disrepect of getting turned away, that's not good for anyone.

 

[David Yudkin]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

Is that wrong though? There seems to be two different schools in regards to HOF recognition....compiling stats and longevity and a decent period of time in which a player was one of the better players in the game. Maybe more scrutiny is needed and both schools need to be considered. Rice is one of these bubble guys (along with a number of players of his era) that people argue because they want to put someone in the HOF every year.

Again, if ever player open for induction went through the ringer like Rice has by the media then there would be a lot fewer guys in the HOF. That in itself is fine by me as I think there are too many guys in as it is. But a lot of guys considered by many to be great candidates would have a lot more blemishes.For example, there are 75+ players already in the HOF that have lower HOF scores than Rice does. Bill James put together that evaluation tool to be able to have a baseline to compare players from different eras and better define who the true superstars of the game have been. So if Rice is borderline then there are probably a lot of guys in that shouldn't be, especially if Rice is causing such a stir and people have to come up with complex reasons to keep him out.

Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do 76.I don't like the lowest common denominator argument where you take the worst Veterans Committee selections of all-time and use them as the performance threshhold for induction. That's the surest way to water down the quality of the institution. On the other hand, you can't boot the guys already in. The game has survived 50+ years with Ray Schalk in the Hall.

I wouldn't vote for Rice if I had a ballot but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player in his prime. The Hall won't be any worse if Jim Ed gets enshrined. The debates are good because they help us remember the players but I think we go too far sometimes. If the honor of getting in gets superseded by the perceived disrepect of getting turned away, that's not good for anyone.

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

 

[cobalt_27]

The Hall won't be any worse if Jim Ed gets enshrined.

I'd argue that it would. In a small increment, but worse, nonetheless. Just because the Hall is already diluted with unworthy inductees does not mean that it can't be diluted more with additional unworthy inductees...like Jim Rice.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates. People are trying to rationalize a lot of things that had nothing to do with Rice. He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park. He played on a team with a decent offense and he drove home a lor of runners that gave him high RBI totals. His fielding prowess came into consideration more for the Fenway aspect than anything else as playing LF in Fenway is a lot different than other parks.

I suspect that a lot of players over the years have had better home stats than road stats and played on teams with a lot of other good players that got on base. How many other players were 8 time all stars, won and MVP and ranked in the Top 5 five other seasons? Ranked in the Top 5 in AVG 5 times, runs 4 times, hits 4 times, HR 5 times, RBI 7 times, SLG 5 times, and OPS 4 times? I can't think of anyone else up for induction or not inducted that came close to those numbers.

Is that wrong though? There seems to be two different schools in regards to HOF recognition....compiling stats and longevity and a decent period of time in which a player was one of the better players in the game. Maybe more scrutiny is needed and both schools need to be considered. Rice is one of these bubble guys (along with a number of players of his era) that people argue because they want to put someone in the HOF every year.

Again, if ever player open for induction went through the ringer like Rice has by the media then there would be a lot fewer guys in the HOF. That in itself is fine by me as I think there are too many guys in as it is. But a lot of guys considered by many to be great candidates would have a lot more blemishes.For example, there are 75+ players already in the HOF that have lower HOF scores than Rice does. Bill James put together that evaluation tool to be able to have a baseline to compare players from different eras and better define who the true superstars of the game have been. So if Rice is borderline then there are probably a lot of guys in that shouldn't be, especially if Rice is causing such a stir and people have to come up with complex reasons to keep him out.

Two wrongs don't make a right, neither do 76.I don't like the lowest common denominator argument where you take the worst Veterans Committee selections of all-time and use them as the performance threshhold for induction. That's the surest way to water down the quality of the institution. On the other hand, you can't boot the guys already in. The game has survived 50+ years with Ray Schalk in the Hall.

I wouldn't vote for Rice if I had a ballot but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great player in his prime. The Hall won't be any worse if Jim Ed gets enshrined. The debates are good because they help us remember the players but I think we go too far sometimes. If the honor of getting in gets superseded by the perceived disrepect of getting turned away, that's not good for anyone.

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

Clearly a hack.

 

[oso diablo]

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

which of the HOF metrics are you referring to?my take: Rice will certainly get in this year. If you look at the voting trends, anytime a player gets to the level Rice achieved last year (70+%), he gets in the next season (assuming his eligibility wasn't used up). That's the Momentum Bump. There's also a Last Year On The Ballot bump, and Rice gets that, too.

Announcement comes out Monday at 2pm, and is supposed to be carried live on the new MBLTV network. I predict we'll have two player inductees: Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice. After going 20 years with no Left Fielders inducted, we get two.

I'll even predict the voting %s:

Henderson - 91

Rice - 79

Blyleven - 67

Dawson - 62

Morris - 46

Smith,L - 40

Raines - 36

John,T - 33 (and done)

McGwire - 25

Trammell - 22

Concepcion - 15

Mattingly - 13

Murphy,D - 12

Of the other newcomers, i see only Mark Grace & David Cone surviving the 5% threshold rule.

p.s. my votes in bold

 

[Thorn]

It is what it is, as they say. But the guys I ws referencing with lower HOF scores were not all hacks. The guys he's ahead of include Yount, Snider, Brooks Robinson, Fisk, McCovey, Campanella, Stargell, Hack Wilson, Jackie Robinson, Fergie Jenkins, Drysdale, Dizzy Dean, etc.

which of the HOF metrics are you referring to?my take: Rice will certainly get in this year. If you look at the voting trends, anytime a player gets to the level Rice achieved last year (70+%), he gets in the next season (assuming his eligibility wasn't used up). That's the Momentum Bump. There's also a Last Year On The Ballot bump, and Rice gets that, too.

This is a really good point.

 

[DropKick]

AVERAGE: .298; Rice would rank 11th of 16 left fielders in the Hall

HOME RUNS: 382; Rice would rank 16th out of 60 outfielders in the Hall

RBI: 1,451; Rice would rank 33rd of the 147 players in the Hall

Not bad for a guy with a relatively short career.

If I recall, a vision problem cut short his career or his numbers would have been better. He was a dominant hitter for a decade... I think he get's a boost too in light of this era's steroid inflated numbers.

Based on existing criteria and membership, I think Jim Rice is a HOF.

 

[Tau837]

As for the Joe Sheehan piece, I suspect if every candidate underwent the scrutiny that people trying to discredit Rice do then there would be a lot fewer candidates.

This would be a good thing IMO.

He played where he played (Fenway), which depending on the year has been a hitter's park or a pitcher's park.

When was Fenway a pitcher's park?

 

[Tau837]

6 years? That's a HOF career?

From 1975-1986 (12 seasons), Rice averaged .304, 92 runs, 29 HR, and 106 RBI . . . and that does not take into account a strike shortened season in 1981.That basically translates to Rice averaging .300/30/100 in an era when all of those were at or near the top of the league. People were not hitting 40-50 HR in a season with 140-150 RBI.

Jim Rice is tied for #177 in Adjusted OPS+. And he grounded into a lot of double plays, fielded poorly, and was a below average base runner. He should not be in the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

In my world, I would thin out the HOF inductees by a fair amount...

David -- I've noticed you've said this twice in this thread. You do realize that somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of people that have ever played the game are in the HOF? I was wondering if you could maybe go into some reasons why you think there should be fewer HOF members (perhaps a separate thread?).

IMO, 1 or 2 guys getting in per year sounds about right.

In some of the other HOF threads we calculated that at any point there are typically 25-30 future HOFers playing at a time. If you figure each team has 8 starting position players, a closer, and 4 starting pitchers, that's basically 10 guys per team. So that's roughly 400 players or close to 10% of the regular starters making the HOF. IMO, that's too much.

Granted, there's a lag between between career and induction. But, given the relatively few number of inductees in recent years, I'm curious as how that number was calculated. I guess I'm not buying that number.

It's covered in this thread: Hall of Fame manifesto, Column by Joe Posnanski