Well, it has been a little while since I’ve invented a completely meaningless baseball statistic. But all this Jim Rice talk lately has gotten me to think a little bit about fear. More than one person this Hall of Fame season voted Jim Rice in because of fear. I believe it was Dan Shaughnessy — and I like Dan — who said that Rice was so feared that some managers considered walking him with the bases loaded, an odd statement. He was probably just trying to make a point. Many others have written how they voted for Rice, at least in part, because he was the most feared slugger of his generation.
Well, I don’t know if Rice was the most feared slugger of his time — but I did want to play a little statistical game. So I took about 38 seconds and invented a completely absurd and mathematically criminal statistic that I will call “The Fear Factor” in honor of one of my favorite scenes in “The Spy Who Shagged Me.”
Dr. Evil: We’ll turn the moon into what I like to call a “Death Star.”
Scott: (Snickers)
Dr. Evil: What?
Scott: Nothing Darth.
Dr. Evil: What did you call me?
Scott: Nothing. (Sneeze) RIPOFF!
Dr. Evil: Bless you. Anyway, since my “death star” laser was invented by the noted Cambridge scientist Dr. Parsons, I thought we’d name it in his honor: The Alan Parsons Project.
Scott: (Snickers).
Dr. Evil: What now?
Scott: The Alan Parsons Project was a progressive rock band from 1982. Why don’t you just call it Oparation Wang Chung? Ass.
Dr. Evil: When you get your own evil empire you can call it whatever you want.
So here’s the simple “Fear Factor” formula.
((home runs / games played) * (RBIs / games played) * (3 * (intentional walks / games played)) * 1000.
I’ve always wanted to italicize one of my formulas like that, so I could show my complete mathematical incompetence in nice slanting letters. I do realize there are a million flaws here — the formula doesn’t adjust for the era, it makes use of a flawed stat like RBIs, and intentional walks tend to depend on who is hitting behind you in the lineup (Chris Speier had more than 100 intentional walks since he was always batting in front of the pitcher). I get it.
Still, it seems to me that this might give us SOME idea about fear. To me, these are the three most important elements when it comes to offensive fear: Homers; RBIs; Intentional walks. I especially want to highlight intentional walks because as Dan points out, really the only way a manager can spell out his fear is to have his pitcher intentionally walk the batter.
OK, Baseball Reference has been keeping track of intentional walks since 1954, so I took the Top 400 RBI men since that year and ran the formula. Here’s the Top 25:
1. Barry Bonds, 263.88
2. Vlad Guerrero, 129.10
3. Albert Pujols, 108.07
4. Ken Griffey, 101.16
5. Willie McCovey, 100.98
That’s a pretty good Top 5 there. Bonds, as you guessed, was twice as scary as anyone else. Anyway, that Top 5 matches up more or less with my own subjective views. I’m a little surprised that Griffey ranked higher than McCovey or McGwire, but I’m thrilled to see Guerrero and Pujols because I think those are the two most fearsome players in today’s game. I also do realize that this stat will be skewed to modern times. There might be a way to fix that, but it’s too late now.
6. Mark McGwire 99.01
7. Willie Stargell, 89.00
8. Mo Vaughn, 88.08
9. Hank Aaron, 87.74
10. Mike Schmidt, 86.18
So far, so good on this list. I think many of us remember when Mo Vaughn was one fearsome hitter.
11. Todd Helton, 85.85
12. Carlos Delgado, 84.95
13. Darryl Strawberry, 83.17
14. Jim Thome, 81.17
15. Manny Ramirez, 78.49
My own view is that Helton was not that feared — but that’s Coors field for you. Thome and Ramirez — two ultra scary hitters — hit 3-4 for most of the 1997 season in Cleveland. What a lineup. What I have always loved about that year is Thome hit No. 3 and Ramirez No. 4 for a while, and then Mike Hargrove swapped them for no apparent reason — he suddenly had Ramirez hit 3, and Thome hit cleanup. I don’t blame him one bit. To me, that had to be one of the most fun decisions a manager has ever had. “Hmm, should I hit Thome third and Manny fourth or the other way around?”
You can place this decision against Buddy Bell’s decision in 2007, whether to hit Mark Teahen third and Shane Costa fourth or vice versa (yes, the Royals really did have a couple of lineups with Mark Teahen hitting third and Shane Costa fourth).
16. Duke Snider, 77.57
17. Frank Robinson, 75.32
18. Stan Musial, 74.94
19. Dick Allen, 74.25
20. Ernie Banks, 73.81
This formula really is working quite well, at least for me. Musial and Snider obviously would have ranked higher had we been able to go back to their prime years, but it amazes me that even beginning in 1954, they both rank in the Top 25. Dick Allen and Frank Robinson are probably the two players I heard about most from former pitchers when it comes to fear.
21. Lance Berkman, 73.48
22. Mike PIazza, 73.27
23. Frank Howard, 72.96
24. Sammy Sosa, 71.70
25. Harmon Killebrew, 71.31
Well, here’s where you see that the numbers are definitely a bit skewed toward more recent players … Lance Berkman doesn’t belong up here, I don’t think. Still, Howard and Killer, two of the most feared players of any era, are here. The next five are worth noting: They are Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle (together again), Dale Murphy, Frank Thomas and Fred McGriff. I’m thrilled, of course, to see the Murph there.
Now, you ask: Where’s Jim Rice? I feel like Clarence the Angel: “You’re not going to like it, George.”
He ranked 178th. Right between Bill White and Jason Varitek. Thing is, managers may have feared Jim Rice, but they didn’t intentionally walk him. He only had 77 intentional walks in his career, tying him with:
1. Claudell Washington
2. Pete O’Brien
3. Fred Lynn
4. George Hendrick
5. Terry Pendleton
Now, this could be because Rice had good hitters behind him in the lineup. And Pendleton, at least, might have gotten a couple of those walks because the pitcher was next. Still, it doesn’t look right for the MFHoHG (Most Feared Hitter of His Generation) to have fewer intentional walks than Ozzie Smith (79), Von Hayes (82), Buddy Bell (84), Alvin Davis (88), Bob Boone (90), not to mention contemporaries like Richie Hebner (95), Willie Horton (95), Greg Luzinski (95), Carlton Fisk (105), George Foster (106), Rick Monday (107), Bill Buckner (111), Steve Garvey (113), Reggie Smith (115), Keith Hernandez (130), Darrell Evans (141), Tony Perez (150) and George Brett (229). And others.
I believe JIm Rice will be elected into the Hall of Fame on Tuesday. I won’t mind. I don’t think he will be the worst player in there or anywhere particularly close. I will be happy for reader extraordinaire Paul White. But I do think the fear thing has probably been overstated through the years.
Loading ...
35 Comments, Comment or Ping
LastBestAngryMan
No! No Jim Rice in the HoF! Boston already got the WS, the 16-0 Pats, will probably get the Superbowl and has a reasonable chance of the NBC Championship. Pink Hat Nation doesn’t deserve THIS, too.
Jan 6th, 2008
McKingford
Just off the top of my head, I would say that your new stat shows one thing pretty clearly: intentional walks as a strategy have become an increasingly bigger part of the game.
Jan 6th, 2008
Bill
Brilliant post…mathematically criminal stats are my favorite kind.
This whole thing almost makes me wonder if Rice hired some marketing firm to silently spread the idea that he was the MFoHG, kind of like how Michael Jackson suddenly became the King of Pop in the early 90’s because he or his publicist or somebody declared that he was.
Jan 6th, 2008
Carl
My term for that feared type of player is an “Oh Shit” guy. As in, when you walk a hitter to load the bases, and you look over in the on-deck circle and see him, you say “Oh, shit.”
So coined when I was listening to a Phillies-Rockies game on the radio, and following a walk the announcer said “And that will bring up Larry Walker.” Guess what I said next.
Jan 6th, 2008
Paul White
And, contrary to what I suspect is popular belief, I agree with you completely Joe. I don’t believe I have ever claimed that Rice was the MFHoHG. If I did, I both A) don’t recall it, and B) renounce it, because it simply isn’t true.
The failure here is on the part of the various members of the BBWAA who write that schlock. As usual, far too great a number of the voters really don’t do their homework before casting their vote. They kinda sorta look at some numbers, but for the most part rely on their memories, and that leads them to make statements like “Jim Rice was the MFHoHG” and “Dave Concepcion was the dominant shortstop between World War II and Ozzie Smith”, and “Tim Raines doesn’t get my vote because he didn’t get caught stealing more frequently”, and “I like voting for my friends”. Sadly, those are all actual arguments that BBWAA members have made this year.
A fair percentage of the voters take it more seriously, like yourself Joe, and Jayson Stark, among many, many others, but not nearly enough. There are genuine reasons to vote for Jim Rice, and Tim Raines, and even Dave Concepcion (I wouldn’t , but a case can be made), without resorting to obviously false statements. You can speak to this more directly Joe, but I suspect that there are three factors involved with this kind of voter:
1) They genuninely trust their memories more than they trust record books.
2) They know they need to write something to justify their vote, and having deadlines and space limitations causes them to write something stupid.
3) Some of them just don’t want to put in much effort. It would take extra time to write “Jim Rice was the MFHoHG” and then actually go get a quote from a couple of pitchers from that era who actually support the statement.
I would love to see the BBWAA start to police its membership in this regard. I mean, when Woody Paige wrote earlier this year about Goose Gossage, “I would vote for him even if he wasn’t deserving”, he was basically hanging a giant “I am abusing my power as a voter” sign around his neck. Why does the BBWAA allow that kind of crap to happen without repercussion? According to Bob Dutton in this very blog, one of the four stated reasons why the BBWA exists is “To foster the most credible qualities of baseball writing and reporting.” It would certainly be nice if they actually started doing so.
Jan 6th, 2008
Ryan L
I can’t find it, but this blog entry reminded me of a blog entry you had on your older blog, about Bob Gibson. I believe you quoted Bill James as saying something along the lines of “Bob Gibson seems to be getting more intimidating every year.”
Rice only got about 25% of the votes his first time on the ballot, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think many voters were peddling the “most feared hitter” claptrap then. Now, suddenly, a decade has passed, the facts in voters’ memories have been replaced with nostalgia, and 18 years after he retired, Jim Rice has been declared the most fearsome hitter of his time.
I have no doubt that Rice was “feared” to in his prime, but time has a funny way of bloating reputations…
Jan 6th, 2008
Jackie Ballgame
Going back to Joe’s point about how each of us views the Hall in a different way: I see it like this. If an alien came down from outer space and you wanted to tell him (or my fiance) the history of baseball, I mean really walk him through it, stopping along the way to point out the most notable players of each generation, which is to say the statistical best, sure, but also the ones that stood out the most (for on-field reasons), you would most definitely mention Jim Rice.
I mean, could you get through the history of movies without mentioning the Blues Brothers?
I just can’t picture walking through the Hall without seeing Rice in there. I understand as I write this that it isn’t a great argument. But it’s worth something, no?
Jan 6th, 2008
Jackie Ballgame
Come to think of it, I’d have to say the same thing about Goose. And maybe that’s what that particular writer’s point was–that Goose left such an indelible imprint on the game, he stood out so much (and obviously for being a good player, I mean players don’t normally stand out if they aren’t really, really good) that that writer couldn’t imagine a HOF without him. He was simply driving that point home, probably exaggerating a bit, not to be taken literally. I have to say I see where he’s coming from on that one.
Jan 6th, 2008
Old Man Duggan
Joe,
You forget that Bell not only hit Costa in cleanup, but also Ross Gload. Both are certainly worthy of mention.
Jan 6th, 2008
Justyo
As a lifelong Sox fan I sure as Hell feared Rice. Feared the plodding, one bag at a time base running. Feared the screaming fouls into the field level at Fenway. Feared the hollow of disappointment after another rally killing double play in the late innings of a tight game. Long live Jim Ed.
Jan 6th, 2008
Steven
Reason #394 why I love Joe Posnanski:
The ability to not only make up a new stat, but also calculate the top 400 RBI men’s said stat.
Jan 6th, 2008
John
Ok, wayyy off topic here. But Bill said:
kind of like how Michael Jackson suddenly became the King of Pop in the early 90’s because he or his publicist or somebody declared that he was.
This has become a really common occurence that I have to speak out against. Michael Jackson didn’t declare himself the King of Pop. It wasn’t some sort of press release. Everyone accepted him as the King of Pop. Today for a variety of very good reasons he doesn’t seem that great. But the historian in me has to speak out against this sort of thing. Lately I’ve seen a lot of publications touting him as the QUOTE “King of Pop” /QUOTE or even the “self-described “King of Pop”". That just wasn’t the case (for one thing Time Magazine declared him the KoP.
On this blog we talk a lot about how our memories coincide with certain ideas. Well I was very young but one of my earliest memories was the Thriller video premier. My older brother and sister (and our babysitter) stayed up late for it. It was an Event. I think if you postulated at that time that MJ was the King of Pop, few would dispute you. (By the way I had to run from the room in tears I was so scared. Like I said I was young.)
Ok, I got that out of my system. Return to your regular programming.
Jan 6th, 2008
GWO
Jackson may not have been the first to use the phrase — and I’m not saying it was undeserved in the Off The Wall -> Thriller -> Bad period — but there most certainly was a concerted PR campaign by Jackson/Sony to make that phrase stick to Jacko.
Jan 6th, 2008
ursus arctos
Without having run any of the numbers, the sense I have from almost fifty years of fandom is that intentional walks of non-no. 8 hitters definitely have become more frequent in recent years, reaching a peak with Bonds.
That said, they have always been very much influenced by the identity of the next hitter to be faced and the overall strength of the offensive lineup. Thus the stat is not only an indicia of the ability to induce fear in the opposition, but also of the differential in “terror” between a given batter and the guys directly behind him. I don’t have any brilliant ideas about how one could measure that differential in a rigorous fashion, but would posit that Barry Bonds of the early 2000s is likely to have set the all-time standard. It also isn’t hard to argue that Guerrero and Pujols are not just feared in the abstract, but are by a large margin the most feared hitter on their respective teams.
I happen to have a personal soft spot for Rice, because he hit a home run virtually every time I turned up at Fenway in the late 70s (there was one run of 18 games in a row), but even less biased observers would have to admit that a guy who often hit in front of at least one (and usually two or more) of Carl Yastrzemski, Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans and George Scott was in a lineup with a significantly higher overall “fear factor” than the vast majority of the guys who finish higher on Joe’s list.
Jan 6th, 2008
Richard Gadsden
Bonds may be the most IBB’d hitter of all time, but that’s probably only because Ruth hit in front of Gehrig.
MFHOAT: Babe Ruth.
Jan 6th, 2008
Dan
Ursus makes a good point about the hitters behind Rice. Naturally IBBs are going to be less frequent when there are few Punch & Judy hitters in a lineup.
As for the made-up stat, I am wondering where Rice’s contemporaries fall, since none of them are in the top 25. Where’s Reggie? Where’s Brett or Darrell Evans or for that matter, Dewey?
Whatever happens on Tuesday, I’ll always believe that Rice is worthy because of his domination of the (relatively speaking, low-run environment) era that he played.
And I’m still waiting to see if anyone can find an equivalent 12 year period of offensive dominance by a player not in the HoF. I’ll eat my hat if there is, and post the video on youtube.
Jan 6th, 2008
Snowman
Well, this certainly won’t convince you to eat your hat, but…
In Jim Rice’s 12 year period you describe, his OPS+ was below 120 twice, between 120 and 129 four times, between 130 and 139 twice, between 140 and 149 twice, and 150 or better twice.
In a 14 year streak, Rafael Palmeiro’s OPS+ was below 120 twice, between 120 and 129 once, between 130 and 139 four times, between 140 and 149 four times, and 150 or better three times.
And Palmeiro’s numbers aren’t Hall-worthy either.
Jan 6th, 2008
Snowman
Oh, and I should have also mentioned that the gap is actually wider than it appears, as using OPS works in Rice’s favour here, because more of Palmeiro’s OPS came from superior OBPs rather than slugging.
Jan 6th, 2008
LastBestAngryMan
Uh, Snowman, how can anybody possibly argue that Palmeiro’s numbers aren’t Hall-worthy, with 3020 hits and 569 HR? You can definitely argue that the man himself isn’t Hall-worthy due to the steroid bust (and I, as a die-hard Orioles fan who at one point loved Raffy, would agree) but arguing that his numbers aren’t Hall worthy is simply ludicrous.
Jan 6th, 2008
Snowman
As much as I hate the term and the way it is often used, Palmeiro was a compiler. He was almost never one of the five best first basemen in the game in a given season. He just hung around for a very long time until his numbers added up.
Career totals mean nothing to me when a guy is more or less the 5th, 6th, or 7th best player of his generation at his position for most of his career.
Jan 6th, 2008
Jackie Ballgame
Alright, fine, Sony very much enjoyed and profited from and promoted the KOP label.
But if Michael Jackson wasn’t the KOP, just curious who you’d place ahead of him.
Michael Jackson was the musical version of Michael Jordon/Muhammed Ali: he was omnipresent
Jan 6th, 2008
Bill
I’m old enough to remember how popular MJ was and all that. It’s not so much that he had a better claim to KOP than anyone else as it is that we don’t particularly *need* a KOP, and there wouldn’t have been one at all if he (or someone connected to him) hadn’t invented that label or at least really played it up. *Then* the press picked it up and started using it all the time.
Thus the connection between that and what I was saying may have happened with Rice. It’s not like people were going around saying “who’s the King of Pop?” and settled on Michael Jackson. Likewise, nobody was ever really asking, “who was the most feared hitter of the late 1970s and early 1980s?” Rice has never faced any competition for that title, because Rice’s supporters made it up and gave it to him. So MJ was probably more deserving of his title, but they seem to have come about them in pretty much the same way.
Jan 6th, 2008
Bill
Snowman- that strikes me as uber-crazy. Palmeiro was a tremendous hitter for a very long time, and if it’s true that he was the 5th, 6th or 7th-best player at his position for much of that time (I don’t really think it is, but just for the sake of argument), it’s because he played in the best era for first basemen in history. Palmeiro is a Hall of Famer in every sense of the word except that pesky “literal” one (he’s the one I don’t think they’ll vote in for a very long time). To justify keeping him out on his numbers alone, you’d have to kick out at least half the players who are already in.
Jan 6th, 2008
Mauichuck
Bill - I’m not sure if this hurt’s or helps his argument, but I’m with the Snowman here. Career numbers are nice, but I want my HoFer’s to be dominate for at least 4 years in the league.
So I guess if Snowman is “uber” crazy, I must have surpassed that. I think that the HoF is over-populated with undeserving types. Pee Wee Reese? Phil Rizzuto? Joe Tinker? How the hell did they ever get in? And then there’s a slew of guys who lit it up for 4-8 years who’ll never get in cuz they didn’t “compile” the right numbers. Dick Allen - probably not. Albert Belle - won’t even be considered. Nope neither of those guys have the length of career or the PR to get in. But if you were managing a team and needed a DH and firstbaseman and had to chose among Belle, Allen and Palmeiro in there primes, you’d sit Raphael wouldn’t you?
Jan 6th, 2008
Snowman
I’m too lazy to look it up, but I think the HoF currently has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 225 players in it. In my opinion, MAYBE 150 of them deserve to be in there. The old Vet’s Committee just filled it full of the undeserving.
Jan 6th, 2008
Paul White
Regarding the Rice-Palmeiro comparison, their career numbers before Palmeiro’s massive mid-30’s spike were extremely similar: Here’s their respective numbers through age 33:
Games: Rice 1790, Palmeiro 1782
Runs: Rice 1104, Palmeiro 1061
Hits: Rice 2163, Palmeiro 1975
HR: Rice 351, Palmeiro 314
XBH: Rice 756, Palmeiro 742
RBI: Rice 1289, Palmeiro 1079
BB: Rice 564, Palmeiro 735
Avg: Rice .303, Palmeiro .294
OBP: Rice .355, Palmeiro .365
SLG: Rice .518, Palmeiro .503
OPS: Rice .873, Palmeiro .868
OPS+: Rice 133, Palmeiro 132
Looks pretty similar, only with nearly every edge going to Rice. But, it’s important to note context. It’s fair to say that Palmeiro was not one of the top-3 to 5 first basemen when he compiled those numbers. Rice, on the other hand, was compiling those numbers when no other left fielder was doing the same. Here’s how each ranked at their respective positions during those years:
Games: Rice #2 at LF; Palmeiro #1 at 1B
Runs: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #2 at 1B
Hits: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #1 at 1B
HR: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #5 at 1B
XBH: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #1 at 1B
RBI: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #5 at 1B
BB: Rice #7 at LF; Palmeiro #7 at 1B
AVG: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #6 at 1B
OBP: Rice #5 at LF; Palmeiro #7 at 1B
SLG: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #6 at 1B
OPS: Rice #1 at LF; Palmeiro #6 at 1B
Despite playing more games than any other first baseman during these years, Palmeiro led all first basemen in only two counting stats, hits and extra base hits, and in each case by thin margins (11 more hits than Will Clark, 19 more extra base hits than Andres Galarraga). Rice, on the other hand, led all left fielders in nearly ever major counting stat, and did so by enormous margins. (111 more XBH than #2, George Foster; 272 more hits than #2, Jose Cruz; 23 more homers than Foster, 134 more RBI than Foster; 119 more runs than Gary Matthews).
In other words, if you want to argue that a player shouldn’t be Hall-worthy if he wasn’t one of the top-5 players at his position during his career, that’s a fine reason to withhold a vote for Palmeiro. However, the same argument does NOT apply to Rice.
Jan 6th, 2008
Bill
Paul- no, that’s a very poor reason, and just not a very good argument. Mantle, Mays, Cobb, Speaker, and DiMaggio could all have come along at the same time, and nobody would argue that JoeD is out because he was only the 5th best CF during his career. Not that Raffy was DiMag (plug in Billy Hamilton or Edd Roush or something if you prefer), but a player who was one of the best first basemen in history shouldn’t be penalized because he played with so many *other* historically great 1Bs (and a few flashes-in-the-pan). I’m also not a fan of comparing players at one position against each other when that position is so far down the defensive spectrum; so Rice was the leader in all those categories among players who weren’t good enough to play center or 3B. So what?
Raffy, meanwhile, was a great hitter, often among the best in baseball, for a period of about 15 years, with five more years of stat-padding on the outsides. That’s a Hall of Famer. There’s also no “massive mid-30s spike”- he was about the same player from 33-37 as he was from 25-31, with an off-year at 32. You could say that’s unnatural, but it’s not a “spike” per se.
Mauichuk- the non sequitur about Rizzuto et al. aside (of course many of them don’t belong in, but Raffy is worlds above those guys), you’re only looking at half the story. It just makes no sense to ignore career value and focus exclusively on peak value. By your logic, yes, I’d much rather have Belle in his prime than Raffy in his, but I’d also rather have Doc Gooden and Mark Fidrych than Spahn and Phil Niekro. And give me Bryan Harvey over Hoyt Wilhelm. The point is, all those extra years, if they’re good ones (as in Palmeiro’s case they are), are really worth something. Would you rather have a legendary hitter for 10 years or a great hitter for 20?
Jan 6th, 2008
Paul White
Whoa Bill. I didn’t say I bought that argument, I said if you subscribe to that argument then it most certainly applies to Palmeiro. Personally, I don’t buy it. As you said, if the guy happened to play at the same time as a glut of fine first basemen, I wouldn’t penalize him for his poor historical timing.
All of this, of course, presumes that the player isn’t a dirty rotten cheater, like Palmeiro. As far as his mid-30s spike goes, all I know is he had a 130 career OPS+ through age 32, including a downward trend of 145-132-113 the final three years of that stretch, then suddenly posted consecutive years of 144-159-137-141-146, easily the best run of his career. If that happens when he’s 26-31, I ask no questions. When it happens from ages 33-37, and includes a positive steroids test a couple of years later, I’m labeling it a spike. Your mileage may vary.
Regarding your defensive spectrum argument, I don’t see the logic. If a player plays a position where all he’s expected to do is hit, and he outhits everyone else during his time who’s playing the same position, isn’t that a plus in his favor? In direct comparison to the guys who were asked to do precisely the same thing as him, Rice hit better. How is that not a relevant comparison to make? (By the way, Rice’s rankings among left fielders are still valid if you expand the years to encompass a full 25-year span from 1970-1994. He drops a couple spots in runs because he’s passed by the two greatest lead-off hitters ever, but otherwise he’s still #1 in the same categories. All of this presumes a minimum of 6000 PA’s, roughly 10 full seasons.)
Jan 6th, 2008
Bill
I’m not saying that Palmeiro didn’t cheat, of course. But the only outlier between ages 25 and 37 is the 113 OPS+ at age 32, and otherwise he’s pretty consistent.
It’s not a relevant comparison because it’s essentially an arbitrary grouping. If you’re comparing him to other players who play “position[s] where all [they're] expected to do is hit,” you should also include RF, 1B and DH. Further, every player is “expected . . . to hit” to some degree, so it’s an especially inadequate comparison if there are players further UP the spectrum who outhit him (as I’m guessing there will have been). All you’re doing by comparing him to other LFs alone is artificially limiting the pool, thereby increasing the chances that he’ll come out looking good. At least use outfielders as a whole (though, as I’ve said, 1B and DH should be in there too, and why not just include everybody?).
Jan 6th, 2008
mauichuck
Bill - sorry about the non sequitor. I really could use an editor, but I can’t afford one. What I was thinking about was this: the lesser lights in the HoF become, by de fault, the bar a player has to rise above to get in. That is every time a marginal player gets elected he becomes the standard a player has to meet to get elected. The result is that the bar for entry to the HoF gets progressively ratcheted down.
My own unofficial creteria are these: 1) Numbers - the usual stuff here, AB, RBIs, hits, OBP, OPS+ for non-pitchers. Wins, ERA, ERA+, WHIP etc. for pitchers. 2) Is he better than any of the guys currently in the HoF? 3) Are there guys, other than Pete Rose and Joe Jackson, that are better than him and not in? More precisely, has the guy in question had a 4-6 year stretch better than a 4-6 year stretch of a player at the same position who is not in?
Palmeiro just doesn’t make it under number 3 of my own criteria. I won’t be outraged if he gets in but in my mind, if he does, he ratchets the bar just a little bit lower for the next guy.
Jan 7th, 2008
Paul White
Bill - Sorry, but I don’t think it’s arbitrary to group players of the same position together when comparing their Hall of Fame qualifications. Arbitrary would be to compare a left fielder’s hitting to a group of middle infielders and catchers, or some other traditional light-hitting group that is chosen to make him look better. That’s not what I’m trying to do. If you want to throw DHs into the mix, fine. Only Paul Molitor had a better average than Rice during his career, and no DH had more HR, RBI, R, Hits, Total Bases, slugging percentage, or OPS. Wanna add first basemen? Fine. Only Eddie Murray passed Rice’s OPS, and only Dave Kingman passed him in homers, by one. Only Rod Carew had a significantly better average (Cecil Cooper edged him by one point). Take the whole bottom third of the defensive spectrum during Rice’s career, from left field on down to DH, and Rice is still #1 in Hits, XBH, RBI, Runs, SLG, and Total Bases, and he’s #2 in HR and OPS.
As far as RF and other positions higher on the defensive spectrum go, I agree completely that any player who had better numbers than Rice as a hitter during that era AND played a harder defensive position is absolutely a better-qualified Hall candidate. But having better-qualified candidates during his era doesn’t preclude Rice from being qualified in his own right.
Jan 7th, 2008
Ray
Shaughnessy is just personally afraid of Jim Rice.
Jan 7th, 2008
Bill
See, Paul, that’s a much stronger case. It’s not arbitrary to group LFs together, it’s arbitrary to exclude the others who are essentially identically situated when all you’re comparing is their hitting. I still don’t think it’s enough (and Joe is doing a much better job of showing why than I could), but it’s certainly more compelling.
Mauichuk- why 4-6? Why not 10, or 12, or 15? Can’t a player who was consistently very-good-to-great for 15 years be as valuable as one who dominated for 4-6 years but otherwise didn’t contribute much? The list of guys who played about as long as Raffy did and put up career numbers as good as his isn’t very long (I’d argue that if you’re limiting it to current elibible non-HOFers, it’s empty). It’s hard for me to see the floodgates opening because you’ve let in a guy who played for 20 years and whose rate and counting stats are both beyond (non-steroid-based) reporach. The guy’s got the 15th-most plate appearances of all time (the previous 14 and next 14 are all already in, if you count Rose) and still managed to average, per 162 games, an All-Star-level season. Is there anyone remotely like that who isn’t already in? I’d say Dwight Evans comes closest, and I think he probably belongs anyway, but he still can’t match Raffy’s credentials (he’s about three seasons short on PA, for instance). It’s hard to imagine the kind of player that Raffy would be “lower[ing] the bar” for.
Jan 7th, 2008
Jay
It’s fun to make up stats.
I think Rice wasn’t walked intentionally much for two reasons. One, he wasn’t that scary after his early seasons, and even if the writers never realized that, the managers and scouts did. From 1980 to 1985, he slugged .492, which was very good but not scary, and his OPS was 839, about 100 points above league average, so we’re talking about something like a 125 OPS+ over that period. That’s really good, but it’s just not scary.
(And as an aside, that, along with longevity, are the major reasons why Rice doesn’t really have a HOF career. Those should have been his peak seasons, ages 27-32, and he was merely very good. Had he not put up one more outstanding year in 1986, I think there would be no real discussion of his candidacy.)
Two, he was fairly hacktastic, particularly as power hitters go; you could get him out in a tight situation given a good sequence of pitches. His walk rates look nothing like those of the game’s greatest power hitters, which is simultaneously proof that he wasn’t feared and a good reason why he didn’t need to be feared.
Jan 9th, 2008
Paul White
Just to close out this discussion now that the voting results are in, here’s a relevant quote from yesterday. Take it for what it’s worth.
“No hitter scared me, but Jim Rice came closest.”. — Goose Gossage
Jan 9th, 2008
Reply to “Fear Factor”