Why Rice Does Not Belong in the Hall and Other Hall of Fame Thoughts
Unfortunately, it looks like Jim Rice will be voted into the Hall of Fame this year. On the plus side, whether or not he makes it, this is his last year on the ballot, so we should receive a reprieve from all of this "most feared" nonsense.
When considering Rice, there are a couple of strikes against him that all but his most hardcore and irrational supporters would concede. First, he was a subpar defender at a position that isn't known for requiring great fielding skills to begin with. So, he needs to be a better hitter than an above-average fielder at the same position to be an equally valuable player. Second, the Hall of Fame requires a combination of high peak performance and longevity -- a player with a shorter career needs a better peak for enshrinement (to throw out semi-random numbers, an OPS+ of 120 over 15 seasons may not be as valuable as an OPS+ of 115 over 20 seasons).
Was Rice the "most feared" hitter in baseball? I doubt it, and he certainly wasn't the best. In the twelve year stretch that all his supporters cite, he led his team in OPS+ only twice (something I brought up in the Jerry Crasnick chat on Rice at espn.com today). Here are the Red Sox leaders from 1975-1986, courtesy of baseball-reference.com (which I think includes only qualifiers for the batting title):
1975: Fred Lynn 161, Rice 127
1976: Lynn 132, (tie) Carl Yastrzemski and Rice 120
1977: Rice 147, Fisk 138
1978: Rice 157, Lynn 133
1979: Lynn 176, Rice 154
1980: Lynn 130, Dwight Evans 124, Rice 122
1981: Evans 162, Carney Lansford 132, Rice 116
1982: Evans 148, Rice 130
1983: Wade Boggs 150, Rice 141
1984: Evans 147, Mike Easler 140, Boggs 125, Tony Armas 121, Rich Gedman 118, Rice 112
1985: Boggs 151, Gedman 126, Evans 124, Rice 123
1986: Boggs 156, Rice 136
Now, there's no shame in being beaten by Wade Boggs, but Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans both routinely beat Rice, and neither has sniffed much Hall support, despite being better players. When I brought this up in the chat, Crasnick first granted that the "most feared" thing was pretty meaningless, and then when called out on my OPS+ point by another chatter, he tried to combat it by saying that Rice had a career OPS+ of 128, while Rickey Henderson's was 127, and Rickey is considered a sure thing. This despite the fact that Rickey played in 3081 games over 25 seasons, while Rice played in 2089 games over 16 seasons. One of those is a better hitter, and it ain't Jim Rice. Plus, Rickey could play defense, and there was a slight difference in their baserunning ability ....
Another chatter said that pointing out that Rice only led his team twice in OPS+ is "ludicris" since he played with two guys who were elected to the Hall their first time on the ballot (Boggs and Yaz) and compared it to saying that Lou Gehrig only led the Yankees in homers twice. Crasnick said, "I'm sure that Lynn, Yaz and Evans had something to do with the stat." I'm sure Boggs was an oversite, but Boggs didn't play a full season until 1983, and Yaz was in decline by the time Rice started playing, with his last great season in 1974 and only reaching 120 OPS+ twice afterwards, so there were eight years of Yaz not leading the team in OPS+ before Boggs came along which should have been open season for Rice. However, he was bested by Lynn and Evans, two players who received very little Hall support (Lynn was named on 5.5% of the ballots his first year before falling off after getting 4.7% his second year, while Evans received 5.9%, 10.4%, and 3.6% in his three years on the ballot). As for the Gehrig comparison, neither Boggs nor Yaz were Babe Ruth, nor were they even Lou Gehrig. Plus, Gehrig led the Yankees in homers four times and OPS+ five times, but now I'm just being a stickler.
Another point in my chat post that went unanswered: If Rice really had those extra-statistical intangibles that made him so "feared" wouldn't the voters in 1995 have had a better read on that than the voters in 2009? In 1995, his first year on the ballot, he received less than 30% of the vote.
Back to Evans and Lynn. Both were better fielders, and both received very little Hall support. How were they as hitters compared to Rice?
Rice 2089 games 128 OPS+
Lynn 1969 games 129 OPS+
Evans 2606 games 127 OPS+
Lynn and Evans were, at worst, roughly equal to Rice in the batter's box. So, if they were equal at the plate, and better in the field, that would seem to make them better players. If they receive so little Hall support, why should Rice receive so much?
I went to the library in the middle of typing this blog post to obtain The New Bill James Historical Abstract to further make my case. For Rice, Lynn, and Evans, I'll give their career win share totals, their top three season totals, the combined total of their top five consecutive seasons, and their 162 game average (because that's what Bill James is giving me):
Rice 282 36,28,28 127 21.86
Lynn 280 34,33,27 131 23.03
Evans 347 31,29,26 122 21.57
Rice did have a higher peak than Evans, and a better average per 162 games, but, as I mentioned earlier, longevity has meaning, and Evans had a career that was about 25% longer, which effectively erases Rice's advantage. Rice's career was longer than Lynn's, but not by nearly as much, and not by enough to erase Lynn's advantage.
Rice supporters also say that his detractors are penalizing him for playing his home games at Fenway. Uh, no. His detractors are pointing out that Fenway is a great hitter's ballpark and it inflates offensive statistics. It was easily the most favorable ballpark for hitters from Rice's day until the Rockies came into existence. What his detractors are doing is adjusting his stats to a ballpark-neutral mark. Are these people going to take numbers from Coors Field at face value? Now that they have the humidifier, Coors Field inflates offense to roughly the same degree that Fenway did in Rice's day.
Hopefully, I'm done with Rice now.
In other Hall news, Repoz is tallying published ballots over at Baseball Think Factory. Keith Law elected not to do the similar tally he's done in the past, which included some unpublished ballots as well. Chris Jaffe has a method for forecasting votes which he published at The Hardball Times. Blyleven just fell below the 75% in Repoz's tracking, which is doubly unfortunate as it seems that Blyleven supporters are more likely to publish their votes (same with Raines and Trammell, two others who receive support from the stat guys). Both methods show Rickey and Rice going in this year.
Corky Simpson left Rickey off his ballot for some reason. He does vote for Raines, which I like, but while Raines might be the seocnd best leadoff hitter of all time, Rickey was the best, so it makes no sense. He also doesn't vote for Mark McGwire because of the steroids issue, but he does vote for Matt Williams, a lesser player also implicated in the steroids mess. Keith Law has exchanged e-mails with him and passes along that Simpson is not opposed to having Henderson in the Hall, and simly thought that Rickey didn't need his vote. However, according to his article, he only voted for eight players, and voters can vote for up to ten, so I see no reason for leaving Rickey off. UPDATE: Turns out he didn't vote for Rickey because he's old and confused. Nine caps!
ESPN has up the ballot results from its writers. Probably the oddest thing in there is Pedro Gomez, formerly an Arizona Republic reporter who followed the Diamondbacks, voting for Jay Bell. So between Gomez and Simpson, we have one vote each for Matt Williams and Jay Bell (neither of whom I think will reach even 1% of the total vote), but no votes for the best former Diamondback on the ballot, Mark Grace.
My hypothetical ballot would include Rickey Henderson, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, and Tommy John. Beyond Henderson, this year's rookie class is weak enough that I'm not sure any of them will be back on the ballot next year. That's disappointing in the case of David Cone and Mark Grace; I don't think either is worthy of the Hall, but it would be nice to see them hang around for a bit. Harold Baines might also drop off the ballot. If he does, and no new player besides Rickey gets 5%, only ten players would return on next year's ballot.
For Blyleven and John, many people bring up that if they just had 13 and 12 more wins, respectively, they'd have 300 and be automatic Hall votes. However, and I'm digressing here substantially from supporting these guys, 300 has not been wholly "automatic". It took Don Sutton and Phil Niekro five years on the ballot each before they were elected. Early Wynn was on it for four years (though he was a guy who hung around to get 300 wins (exactly), not quite the same level as some of the other 300-game winners). Now, 300 wins would certainly help a candidate (I'd say Blyleven would definitely be in if he had 300 wins, and there's a good chance John would be in), but it's not quite as automatic as it's made out to be.
As always, I found it interesting to read which players were newly eligible but were not included on the ballot (available at the wikipedia article). The most recognizable name this year is Joe Girardi, with the best players probably being Mike Bordick (1500 hits) and John Burkett (166 wins). I was a bit surprised to see Dan Plesac on the ballot but no John Burkett.
When considering Rice, there are a couple of strikes against him that all but his most hardcore and irrational supporters would concede. First, he was a subpar defender at a position that isn't known for requiring great fielding skills to begin with. So, he needs to be a better hitter than an above-average fielder at the same position to be an equally valuable player. Second, the Hall of Fame requires a combination of high peak performance and longevity -- a player with a shorter career needs a better peak for enshrinement (to throw out semi-random numbers, an OPS+ of 120 over 15 seasons may not be as valuable as an OPS+ of 115 over 20 seasons).
Was Rice the "most feared" hitter in baseball? I doubt it, and he certainly wasn't the best. In the twelve year stretch that all his supporters cite, he led his team in OPS+ only twice (something I brought up in the Jerry Crasnick chat on Rice at espn.com today). Here are the Red Sox leaders from 1975-1986, courtesy of baseball-reference.com (which I think includes only qualifiers for the batting title):
1975: Fred Lynn 161, Rice 127
1976: Lynn 132, (tie) Carl Yastrzemski and Rice 120
1977: Rice 147, Fisk 138
1978: Rice 157, Lynn 133
1979: Lynn 176, Rice 154
1980: Lynn 130, Dwight Evans 124, Rice 122
1981: Evans 162, Carney Lansford 132, Rice 116
1982: Evans 148, Rice 130
1983: Wade Boggs 150, Rice 141
1984: Evans 147, Mike Easler 140, Boggs 125, Tony Armas 121, Rich Gedman 118, Rice 112
1985: Boggs 151, Gedman 126, Evans 124, Rice 123
1986: Boggs 156, Rice 136
Now, there's no shame in being beaten by Wade Boggs, but Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans both routinely beat Rice, and neither has sniffed much Hall support, despite being better players. When I brought this up in the chat, Crasnick first granted that the "most feared" thing was pretty meaningless, and then when called out on my OPS+ point by another chatter, he tried to combat it by saying that Rice had a career OPS+ of 128, while Rickey Henderson's was 127, and Rickey is considered a sure thing. This despite the fact that Rickey played in 3081 games over 25 seasons, while Rice played in 2089 games over 16 seasons. One of those is a better hitter, and it ain't Jim Rice. Plus, Rickey could play defense, and there was a slight difference in their baserunning ability ....
Another chatter said that pointing out that Rice only led his team twice in OPS+ is "ludicris" since he played with two guys who were elected to the Hall their first time on the ballot (Boggs and Yaz) and compared it to saying that Lou Gehrig only led the Yankees in homers twice. Crasnick said, "I'm sure that Lynn, Yaz and Evans had something to do with the stat." I'm sure Boggs was an oversite, but Boggs didn't play a full season until 1983, and Yaz was in decline by the time Rice started playing, with his last great season in 1974 and only reaching 120 OPS+ twice afterwards, so there were eight years of Yaz not leading the team in OPS+ before Boggs came along which should have been open season for Rice. However, he was bested by Lynn and Evans, two players who received very little Hall support (Lynn was named on 5.5% of the ballots his first year before falling off after getting 4.7% his second year, while Evans received 5.9%, 10.4%, and 3.6% in his three years on the ballot). As for the Gehrig comparison, neither Boggs nor Yaz were Babe Ruth, nor were they even Lou Gehrig. Plus, Gehrig led the Yankees in homers four times and OPS+ five times, but now I'm just being a stickler.
Another point in my chat post that went unanswered: If Rice really had those extra-statistical intangibles that made him so "feared" wouldn't the voters in 1995 have had a better read on that than the voters in 2009? In 1995, his first year on the ballot, he received less than 30% of the vote.
Back to Evans and Lynn. Both were better fielders, and both received very little Hall support. How were they as hitters compared to Rice?
Rice 2089 games 128 OPS+
Lynn 1969 games 129 OPS+
Evans 2606 games 127 OPS+
Lynn and Evans were, at worst, roughly equal to Rice in the batter's box. So, if they were equal at the plate, and better in the field, that would seem to make them better players. If they receive so little Hall support, why should Rice receive so much?
I went to the library in the middle of typing this blog post to obtain The New Bill James Historical Abstract to further make my case. For Rice, Lynn, and Evans, I'll give their career win share totals, their top three season totals, the combined total of their top five consecutive seasons, and their 162 game average (because that's what Bill James is giving me):
Rice 282 36,28,28 127 21.86
Lynn 280 34,33,27 131 23.03
Evans 347 31,29,26 122 21.57
Rice did have a higher peak than Evans, and a better average per 162 games, but, as I mentioned earlier, longevity has meaning, and Evans had a career that was about 25% longer, which effectively erases Rice's advantage. Rice's career was longer than Lynn's, but not by nearly as much, and not by enough to erase Lynn's advantage.
Rice supporters also say that his detractors are penalizing him for playing his home games at Fenway. Uh, no. His detractors are pointing out that Fenway is a great hitter's ballpark and it inflates offensive statistics. It was easily the most favorable ballpark for hitters from Rice's day until the Rockies came into existence. What his detractors are doing is adjusting his stats to a ballpark-neutral mark. Are these people going to take numbers from Coors Field at face value? Now that they have the humidifier, Coors Field inflates offense to roughly the same degree that Fenway did in Rice's day.
Hopefully, I'm done with Rice now.
In other Hall news, Repoz is tallying published ballots over at Baseball Think Factory. Keith Law elected not to do the similar tally he's done in the past, which included some unpublished ballots as well. Chris Jaffe has a method for forecasting votes which he published at The Hardball Times. Blyleven just fell below the 75% in Repoz's tracking, which is doubly unfortunate as it seems that Blyleven supporters are more likely to publish their votes (same with Raines and Trammell, two others who receive support from the stat guys). Both methods show Rickey and Rice going in this year.
Corky Simpson left Rickey off his ballot for some reason. He does vote for Raines, which I like, but while Raines might be the seocnd best leadoff hitter of all time, Rickey was the best, so it makes no sense. He also doesn't vote for Mark McGwire because of the steroids issue, but he does vote for Matt Williams, a lesser player also implicated in the steroids mess. Keith Law has exchanged e-mails with him and passes along that Simpson is not opposed to having Henderson in the Hall, and simly thought that Rickey didn't need his vote. However, according to his article, he only voted for eight players, and voters can vote for up to ten, so I see no reason for leaving Rickey off. UPDATE: Turns out he didn't vote for Rickey because he's old and confused. Nine caps!
ESPN has up the ballot results from its writers. Probably the oddest thing in there is Pedro Gomez, formerly an Arizona Republic reporter who followed the Diamondbacks, voting for Jay Bell. So between Gomez and Simpson, we have one vote each for Matt Williams and Jay Bell (neither of whom I think will reach even 1% of the total vote), but no votes for the best former Diamondback on the ballot, Mark Grace.
My hypothetical ballot would include Rickey Henderson, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, Alan Trammell, and Tommy John. Beyond Henderson, this year's rookie class is weak enough that I'm not sure any of them will be back on the ballot next year. That's disappointing in the case of David Cone and Mark Grace; I don't think either is worthy of the Hall, but it would be nice to see them hang around for a bit. Harold Baines might also drop off the ballot. If he does, and no new player besides Rickey gets 5%, only ten players would return on next year's ballot.
For Blyleven and John, many people bring up that if they just had 13 and 12 more wins, respectively, they'd have 300 and be automatic Hall votes. However, and I'm digressing here substantially from supporting these guys, 300 has not been wholly "automatic". It took Don Sutton and Phil Niekro five years on the ballot each before they were elected. Early Wynn was on it for four years (though he was a guy who hung around to get 300 wins (exactly), not quite the same level as some of the other 300-game winners). Now, 300 wins would certainly help a candidate (I'd say Blyleven would definitely be in if he had 300 wins, and there's a good chance John would be in), but it's not quite as automatic as it's made out to be.
As always, I found it interesting to read which players were newly eligible but were not included on the ballot (available at the wikipedia article). The most recognizable name this year is Joe Girardi, with the best players probably being Mike Bordick (1500 hits) and John Burkett (166 wins). I was a bit surprised to see Dan Plesac on the ballot but no John Burkett.
Labels: baseball
posted by DC | 11:46 AM
|
0 comments
