Rice good, but not Hall good

[dickay]

If this was the case, why did Jim Rice get something like 29% of the vote on his first ballot, and it's taken him 15 years to get up to 75%? If this logic was true - that everyone that saw him play "knew he was a Hall of Famer", then logic would dictate that he'd have done very well in the voting just 5 years after he retired.

You answered this question yourself later in this thread. I don't believe Rice has hit one extra HR, had one extra SB or RBI since his retirement to justify such an increase in votes.

He's also one of only 25 players to hit over .300 and get 300HRs in a ten year stretch. Thats a dominant decade of play as again only 25 players have done that ever. I'm not saying that I think he was one of or even the most dominant player for a good stretch...as I've said many 'fans' that I know who grew up watching him (he was before my time slightly) tell me they believe he was.

I understand you claiming Rice wasn't a dominant player...after all you make the same claim about Ichiro....so your definition of dominant is something few if any could live up to apparently.

I haven't looked at things closely enough to say for sure if Rice belongs in. The only thing that bothers me is that he played in an era when offensive numbers were much lower than they are today, and much lower than they were just a couple decades prior to his day. We can only speculate on why (different ball, bigger parks, better pitchers and less expansion, or maybe just inferior hitters for awhile?). If we believe it had anything to do with anything other than the hitters just being inferior than we can't use the same benchmarks to gauge entry. Same goes for todays game where power numbers have grown dramatically over the past 15 years...our benchmarks for entry need to be closely examined.

[ragecage]

You make a pretty good argument about Rice Dice, but I think the valid counter points to yours is that he was poor defensively and degraded on baserunning skills every year that has passed on his career. My own opinion is that Dwight Evans was a better player that played in the same period as Rice.

Was Evans better in 77-79? No, but he was a better all around player for most of his career, and I do believe that defensive deficiencies should hinder a player on getting into the Hall.

But like everyone here, we do not have a vote, we can only express our opinion on the matter, and it seems though as everyone respects what Rice has accomplished, but it isnt enough.

[dickay]

You make a pretty good argument about Rice Dice, but I think the valid counter points to yours is that he was poor defensively and degraded on baserunning skills every year that has passed on his career. My own opinion is that Dwight Evans was a better player that played in the same period as Rice.

Was Evans better in 77-79? No, but he was a better all around player for most of his career, and I do believe that defensive deficiencies should hinder a player on getting into the Hall.

But like everyone here, we do not have a vote, we can only express our opinion on the matter, and it seems though as everyone respects what Rice has accomplished, but it isnt enough.

Dewey was my favorite player when i first got into baseball mid-late 80s (and even then i was barely 10 and not a huge follower obviously). I agree his stats are equivalent to Rices for the most part. I'd probably lean towards neither being accepted into the hall from the little i've looked into it thus far, but honestly I haven't given a good enough look. What concerns me is the comparisons to numbers which nobody was acheiving during the 70s and 80s when offense was much lower than it is today, or was sometime prior to that. At least thats my impression.

As for defense....Dewey does have a bunch of gold gloves but people use the defensive argument all to often to suit their needs. When they say someones overrated as a defender, they claim gold gloves are merely a popularity contest and the same people win it every year often regardless of merit. When they want to prove someones a great defender, they then use those same gold gloves they knocked earlier as proof! What a scam!

IMO...defense is too hard to evaluate. LF at Fenway is a position where regardless of how good you are defensively, if you're put in that position you are immediately hamstrung with the 'bad defender' label. I'm not saying Rice was a good defender, but looking at the errors, assists, range factors and fielding percentage over their careers you really can't see a major difference and all these stats for defense are subjective anyhow. I judge merely by the eye test and Evans was a good defender but I didn't think great (however as mentioned I was young watching him and it was later in his career). The only reason someone would get additional HOF cred in my voting would be if I believed they were superb defenders like an ozzie smith.

As far as Puckett goes.....no way he's a HOF'er over Rice. I'm sorry, but his first two years were well below average leaving him 10 years of which to build his numbers. Its not enough time. Many players have their careers cut short due to injury. Its sad, but they aren't voted into the HOF based on numbers they perceivable would have gotten or because they were nice guys. Neither should have Puckett.

[Swampdog]

Gold Gloves aren't meaningless, not by a long shot. There is no doubt that, like any award, the GG wont always go to the best defender. Its like any voting process. There will always be debates.

Evans, as much as any RF in recent memory, was a "superb" defender.

The low volume offense era of the 70's and 80's (compared to the past 15 years) is factored in when the players accomplishments are weighed.

All left fielders in Fenway are immediately labeled as "bad defenders"? You ever hear of a guy named Carl Yastrzemski?

[HoustonGM]

He's also one of only 25 players to hit over .300 and get 300HRs in a ten year stretch. Thats a dominant decade of play as again only 25 players have done that ever. I'm not saying that I think he was one of or even the most dominant player for a good stretch...as I've said many 'fans' that I know who grew up watching him (he was before my time slightly) tell me they believe he was.

And Joe Carter led the league in RBI's for a decade (by a huge margin). I guess he was a dominant player too.

I understand you claiming Rice wasn't a dominant player...after all you make the same claim about Ichiro....so your definition of dominant is something few if any could live up to apparently.

Sure. Sorry that I think "dominant" means, being, you know, dominant. A career 128 OPS+ isn't "dominant." Yes, he had good home run numbers and hit for a high average, but his lack of walks and defense, park adjustments, and high double play amount all affect the evaluation of him, and not in a positive way. He was a very good player, but not a Hall of Famer. Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, his own teammates, are both better candidates and neither got much consideration...mostly because they don't have that one huge season like 1978 (even though they have better seasons than Rice's 1978, in terms of overall value but not pretty shiny numbers), and because they're value is wrapped in things many people don't look at at all, like defense and not making outs.

I don't look at things like "lead the league in a selectively chosen category or two in a selectively chosen time period". Yeah, he hit .300 with 300 home runs. Over the same time period, Mike Schmidt hit .271 with 440 home runs (not to mention a .386 OBP)...and was better...yet he isn't included in something like that. I prefer to, you know, look at the entire picture.

I haven't looked at things closely enough to say for sure if Rice belongs in. The only thing that bothers me is that he played in an era when offensive numbers were much lower than they are today, and much lower than they were just a couple decades prior to his day. We can only speculate on why (different ball, bigger parks, better pitchers and less expansion, or maybe just inferior hitters for awhile?). If we believe it had anything to do with anything other than the hitters just being inferior than we can't use the same benchmarks to gauge entry. Same goes for todays game where power numbers have grown dramatically over the past 15 years...our benchmarks for entry need to be closely examined.

I don't use any "benchmark" numbers to evaluate players. There are numerous players from Jim Rice's time that I would put into the Hall of Fame below him, few of whom themselves had benchmark numbers. The previously mentioned Lynn and Evans...Bobby Grich whose a huge Hall snub, Tim Raines, Dave Stieb, Jimmy Wynn, Reggie Smith...

As far as Puckett goes.....no way he's a HOF'er over Rice. I'm sorry, but his first two years were well below average leaving him 10 years of which to build his numbers. Its not enough time. Many players have their careers cut short due to injury. Its sad, but they aren't voted into the HOF based on numbers they perceivable would have gotten or because they were nice guys. Neither should have Puckett.

Jim Rice's last 3 years were well below average, giving him 12 seasons. But really, Kirby Puckett's 1985 wasn't that bad at all, certainly not bad enough to throw it away. 92 OPS+ isn't "well below average" once you consider things like position and defense - 97 OPS+ when compared to center fielders.

I don't think either belongs, but Puckett's argument is better because of defense, position, and baserunning.

[dickay]

And Joe Carter led the league in RBI's for a decade (by a huge margin). I guess he was a dominant player too.

He was one of the most consistent players of his day, but I don't think I'd call him a dominant player.

Sure. Sorry that I think "dominant" means, being, you know, dominant.

Here's Merrians definition.

1 a: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over others <the dominant culture> b: very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>
2: overlooking and commanding from a superior position <a dominant hill>
3: of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance
4: being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <dominant eye>

Without question IMO Ichiro fits it, although it is subjective. I don't know why you have to be so combative about it. As I said, i'm not saying and haven't said Rice was a dominant player during his career...but he did have a 10 year stretch where he put up offensive numbers (.300avg and 300+HRs) that only 25 players in the history of the game have ever matched. That is a dominant 10 year stretch, by any definition. Maybe not the most dominant player during those 10 years, but it was a dominant performance. Does that make him a HOF'er? No...and I haven't said he should be in the HOF.

I don't think either belongs, but Puckett's argument is better because of defense, position, and baserunning.

No, its really not. Puckett shouldn't be a HOF'er.

[HoustonGM]

Here's Merrians definition.

1 a: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over others <the dominant culture> b: very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>
2: overlooking and commanding from a superior position <a dominant hill>
3: of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance
4: being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <dominant eye>

Without question IMO Ichiro fits it, although it is subjective.

Well, if it's subjective, than it isn't "without question", now is it?

That is a dominant 10 year stretch, by any definition.

No, it's not. Because, again, we really should look at the whole picture instead of cherry-picking stats.

Steve Finley is one of 2 players to have 400 doubles, 100 triples, 300 home runs, and 300 steals. Dominant?

Mo Vaughn hit .296 with over 300 home runs in a 10 year period. Does that 4 points of batting average really make him "not dominant" but Jim Rice "dominant"?

No, its really not. Puckett shouldn't be a HOF'er.

You realize that I said just that, correct? Puckett shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Neither should Jim Rice. But Puckett was better, and thus, has a better case for the Hall of Fame, unless, of course, you want to focus purely on hitting numbers (which Rice barely edges out Puckett in), without adjusting for context at all.

[dickay]

Well, if it's subjective, than it isn't "without question", now is it?

It is in my opinion, which is what "IMO" stands for. If you have any questions on internet lingo, there's many websites which can assist. I've used them myself.

Steve Finley is one of 2 players to have 400 doubles, 100 triples, 300 home runs, and 300 steals. Dominant?

IMO..no.

Mo Vaughn hit .296 with over 300 home runs in a 10 year period. Does that 4 points of batting average really make him "not dominant" but Jim Rice "dominant"?

IMO, yes...Mo Vaughn was a feared hitter, as much as nearly anyone in the league for a long stretch. That was a pretty dominant 10-year period if your stats are accurate. Most dominant in the league? Maybe not, would have to check. But he was a dominant force, one of the best in the league during his stretch.

You realize that I said just that, correct? Puckett shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Neither should Jim Rice.

Yes, but for some reason you've decided to spend nearly two pages picking posts apart despite my repeatedly claiming that I'm not saying Rice is a HOF'er.

[dickay]

But Puckett was better, and thus, has a better case for the Hall of Fame, unless, of course, you want to focus purely on hitting numbers (which Rice barely edges out Puckett in), without adjusting for context at all.

I figured I'd look at baseball-reference.com since many feel thats a 'bible' of sorts to baseball statistics.

Jim Rice:
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Kirby Puckett
Black Ink: Batting - 22 (93) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 122 (154) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 39.3 (153) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 159.5 (71) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

I don't know how Rice 'barely' edges Puckett out when the bible lists 4 references, each of which puts Rices overall offensive grade significantly higher. You could single out individual stats, but hitting Rice was the superior, he didn't 'barely edge' Puckett whatsoever.

[Swampdog]

Seems like splitting hairs to me, at this point. No one asked me, but I would say that Rice was a dominant hitter for about 12 years, 1975-1986. He was better, much better, than the vast majority of hitters over that time frame. He was probably the best from 1977-1979.

Mo Vaughn was "dominant" for 6 years, 1993-1998. To me, being dominant doesn't have to mean that you are the absolute best every year. You have to be among the very best. Thats just how I see it.

[dickay]

Seems like splitting hairs to me, at this point. No one asked me, but I would say that Rice was a dominant hitter for about 12 years, 1975-1986. He was better, much better, than the vast majority of hitters over that time frame. He was probably the best from 1977-1979.

Mo Vaughn was "dominant" for 6 years, 1993-1998. To me, being dominant doesn't have to mean that you are the absolute best every year. You have to be among the very best. Thats just how I see it.

I agree with your analysis, and also agree it's splitting hairs.

[Swampdog]

I figured I'd look at baseball-reference.com since many feel thats a 'bible' of sorts to baseball statistics.



I don't know how Rice 'barely' edges Puckett out when the bible lists 4 references, each of which puts Rices overall offensive grade significantly higher. You could single out individual stats, but hitting Rice was the superior, he didn't 'barely edge' Puckett whatsoever.

Using OPS+ as a guideline, which is what I'm certain HGM is doing, Rice is a little better than Puckett. Career OPS+ :

Puckett 124
Rice 128

OPS+ is supposed to adjust for era, park factors, etc. Its a fairly good stat, I have found. I'm not saying its perfect, because it isn't. It attempts to measure the value of a players hitting, within context. It does a pretty good job, in my opinion.

[HoustonGM]

I don't know how Rice 'barely' edges Puckett out when the bible lists 4 references, each of which puts Rices overall offensive grade significantly higher. You could single out individual stats, but hitting Rice was the superior, he didn't 'barely edge' Puckett whatsoever.

Gray Ink and Black Ink measure times among and at the top of the leaderboards in certain statistics. Jim Rice had better power numbers than Puckett, which is why he scores higher. They don't measure overall hitting value, though.

HOF Standards is meant to assess how many of the "Hall of Fame standards" a player meets, which, again, focuses only on some stats, and Rice is just a tad ahead of Puckett there.

Puckett beats Rice in "HOF Monitor", which is meant to assess how likely a player is to be elected to the Hall, and, well, it matches up with reality here - Puckett sailed in and Rice is taking 15 years.

Using OPS+ as a guideline, which is what I'm certain HGM is doing, Rice is a little better than Puckett. Career OPS+ :

OPS+, yes. There's also EQA, in which they are both tied at .294. Runs Created/G...Rice is at 6, Puckett at 6.1. Offensive Winning Percentage, Puckett .618, Rice .627. wOBA, Puckett .365 and Rice .375. They're just simply not that far apart in terms of hitting value, and once you adjust for position, Puckett's ahead (particularly once you include defense and baserunning).

To me, being dominant doesn't have to mean that you are the absolute best every year. You have to be among the very best. Thats just how I see it.

I wouldn't disagree. I don't think Rice was "among the very best" for that entire period, though, once you break it down year by year. If you focus solely on performance over that selected period, than yes, but that cuts out players whose careers were ending or beginning in that period, and really only measures who was best out of the players that played full-time that entire period. If you go year by year, you'll get different results. Rice was "among the very best" in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1983, and 1986. His other years were good, but not "among the very best"...and still, this is only looking at his hitting and not factoring in his defense or baserunning.

And when you were only "among the very best" in 5 years of your career, I think you need to have either REALLY dominated those 5 years or have a lot of value outside of those 5 years, to be Hall-worthy.

[dickay]

Using OPS+ as a guideline, which is what I'm certain HGM is doing, Rice is a little better than Puckett. Career OPS+ :

Puckett 124
Rice 128

OPS+ is supposed to adjust for era, park factors, etc. Its a fairly good stat, I have found. I'm not saying its perfect, because it isn't. It attempts to measure the value of a players hitting, within context. It does a pretty good job, in my opinion.

I like OPS+ as well (which is what I meant when I said you could single out individual stats) but I question their why baseball-reference sees such a difference in their overall batting rankings while the OPS+ was so close. Sadly, researching how they come to their conclusion on overall rankings, and heck even how the OPS+ is determined is difficult and often leads to subjective analysis. An OPS+, while in depth has to be subjective in premise, as park factors, and normalizing the league will entail some opinion.

[dickay]

FYI...i just took a closer look and see I read the HOF Monitor incorrectly. It does list Puckett better than Rice.